CHAPTER XII

ETHNICITY AND COMMUNITY IN ISLAM

CHAOURA BOUROUGH

            The subject of ethnic conflict is increasingly becoming central in the discourse of social sciences. "Nation-States," which were the symbol of power and unity, regardless of their ideology and level of economic development, disintegrated, leading to the emergence of smaller ethnic states. Nation-states seem to be losing their raison d’etre because they fail to "nationalize" the identity of the various ethnic groups that constituted them.

            Some countries were split peacefully and democratically, others violently. And in some others, ethnic violence turned into a long war resulting in massive destruction and death.1 Hatred and revenge sometimes fueled ethnic violence and perpetuated it to the extent of acquiring "a life of its own."2 Muslim countries, secular and non-secular, have their share of ethnic conflict andviolence despite the fact that the Qur’an and Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) spoke clearly against it.

            This paper examines the concepts of ethnicity and com-munity in Islam as a monotheistic religion and as a school of thought. The aim is to show that the nature of Islam as a religion and state supersedes ethnic divisions and that ethnic conflict is, in fact, a response to attempts of secularization of society by the nation-state.

ETHNIC GROUPS, CULTURE AND RELIGION

            In the past, social anthropologists were interested merely in the study of traditional ethnic groups. They focused on the "tribe" as a closed community whose members had common blood ties, belonged to the same race, and shared a common culture. The tribe, as R. Naroll stated, is "that group of people whose shared, learned way of life constitutes a whole `culture’ rather than a mere `subculture’."3 But with the evolution of human society and the po-litical and economic changes that accompanied it, there emerged new types of ethnic groups and communities which constituted a subculture within the larger society rather than a whole `culture’. In this respect, Theodorson defines ethnic group as

a group with a common cultural tradition and a sense of identity which exists as a subgroup of a larger society. The members of an ethnic group differ with regard to certain cultural characteristics from the other members of their society.4

            The concept of community in general refers to a form of social existence and social organization in small human aggregations such as a village or a town, or in large aggregates such as a city. This concept is sometimes used to denote whole aggregations such as "Muslim community" or "world community." The concept of community is, thus, a much more general concept than ethnic group. Ethnic groups are communities but communities are not necessarily based on ethnicity.

            We can distinguish between two important approaches in ethnic social studies:

            1. The primordial or traditional approach, represented by Fredrick Barth and Clifford Geertz, argues that "ethnicity is some-thing ascribed at birth, deriving from the kin-and clan-formation need of human beings, and hence something more or less fixed and permanent."5 This is what Clive Christie calls "rooted identity" or in-trinsic aspects of identity such as birth, family, and the land.6

            2. The situational approach, represented by Daniel Bell and Michael Banton, views ethnic membership as relevant only in some situations. The individual belongs to an ethnic group by his free will. Therefore, his ethnic membership is circumstantial not permanent.7 This approach is concerned with what Christie termed "created identities." There are other approaches but these are not relevant here. This definition views culture as a complex human-made "web" or network. The role of the anthropologist is to look for the meaning of the different symbols within that culture. The point I want to make here is that whether the focus of social anthropologists (and sociologists) is on "rooted identities" or on "created identities," their logic maintains that human society is divided by factors that can be either inherited or chosen by individuals. Human groups are studied to show diversity rather than unity. This error is due to the neglector ignorance of the role of religion as a uniting force. Social anthropologists saw religion only as part of the culture of an ethnic group. Sir Edward Tylor, for example, defined culture as that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.8

            Religion, in this definition, is seen as a component of the whole culture acquired or "created" by humans. Geertz offers a more explicit definition of culture:

the concept of culture is essentially a semiotic one. Believing with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance, he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.9

            From this perception of culture, Geertz, in his studies, looked for the meaning of symbols and relationships by focusing on certain aspects of culture. He studied, for example, traditional market (suq) transactions in Morocco in order to understand society as a whole.10

            The place of religion in social anthropological approach is secondary. It is, as other aspects of culture, a creation of man. This convinction led Geertz to say: "our problem, and it grows worse by the day, is not to define religion but to find it."11 And he adds: "religion may be a stone thrown in the world, but it must be a palpable stone and someone must throw it."12 The Geertzian de-finition of religion stems directly from his perception of society and culture. He followed the footsteps of Durkheim and Weber. Dur-kheim, who saw societies worshiping themselves through religion, defines the latter as

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them.13

            Geertz’s definition of religion identified what Durkheim called a "system of beliefs" as a system of "symbols" created by men to develop a certain conception of life. Religion, Geertz wrote is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of actuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.14

            The point in citing these definitions of religion is not to prove that Islam, as a religion, is not "a system of symbols" created by men. This is a question of belief and faith. What I want to emphasize here is that the principles of Islam, as will be explained later, are universal and can not be seen through cultural practices of certain societies. When Geertz studied the practices of Islam in Morocco and Indonesia, he saw Islam as "a characteristic conception of what life was all about."15 This is a very narrow conception of Islam which reduces it to mere cultural traits and practices.

            This judgment of Islam follows from the assumption of those anthropological studies which view tribes as backward, or as uncivilized ethnic groups. In these studies tribes are considered simply "as inferior social categories, lying beyond or buried under the civilized, organized world."16 Al-Faruqi, a prominent Muslim scholar sees anthropology as the field that is most biased

Its objects -- the "primitive" societies of the non-Western world -- were silent data, incapable of raising a critical finger at their masters. Theory after theory was erected to force the data into a mould, the categories of which were part and parcel of the Western world-view.17

            This prejudice led some Muslim scholars to advocate their own approach called "Islamic Anthropology." The most prominent of those is Akbar S. Ahmed who wrote extensively on Islam in tribal societies ( which he calls "simpler societies") and Islam in the modern world.18 Ahmed defines Islamic Anthropology as

the study of Muslim groups by scholars committed to the universalistic principles of Islam - humanity, knowledge, tolerance -- relating micro village tribal studies in particular to the large historical and ideological frames of Islam.

Ahmed, astonishingly, warns that "Islam is here understood not as theology but sociology. The definition thus does not preclude non-Muslims."19 One can not but ask the burning question : how can a non-Muslim be an Islamic anthropologist? Certainly Islam is a uni-versal religion and thought, but faith is its essential component.20

ETHNIC IDENTITY IN ISLAM

            The Qur’an and Hadith spoke clearly against ethnic identity. In Islam, piety is the criterion for being a noble Muslim not the sense of belonging to an ethnic group or community. The Qur’an says

Men, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you in God’s sight is he who is most righteous (49:13)

            The Qur’an, therefore, recognizes differences among human communities but those differences are seen as formal. Allah judges Muslims, not by their social origins, but by their piety and their righteousness. These are the noblest identity factors.

            The prophet Mohammed emphasized the supremacy of belonging to the Muslim Umma over ethnic identity:

He is not of us who calls for party-spirit, and he is not of us who fights for party spirit, and he is not of us who dies for party spirit.21

            The Prophet said that there is no distinction between human beings on the basis of race or physical qualities:

You are in no way better than the red one or the black one except that you surpass him on account of piety.22

            In another Hadith the Prophet warned those who were still showing pride in their ancestral origin. The Prophet stressed that all men are equal. They were all the descendants of Adam:

Surely Allah removed from you the evils of the days of ignorance and its boast of ancestors. . . . Men everyone of them, are children of Adam and Adam was from dust.23

            From the point of view of Islam, it is required that a Muslim abandon his/her "rooted identity" and his/her "created identity" in favor of a sacred identity, that is, the sense of belonging to the Umma whose master is not a human being, but Allah.24 But giving up these identities does not mean abolishing them altogether because Allah created human beings as "nations" and "tribes." Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani, the advocate of pan-Islamism, explains this point:

many who are seeking for truth have come to the conclusion that a strong feeling of ethnic identity must be counted as integral to human nature. However, if necessity has created this sort of individualistic racial solidarity, there is no doubt that such solidarity can disappear just as it can arise. When men recognize the existence of the supreme judge . . . [they] no longer . . . have any need for an ethnic sentiment which has lost its purpose and whose memory has been erased from their souls; judgement belongs to Allah, the Sublime, the Magnificent.25

            Ethnic identity, as studied and defined by social anthro-pologists, is not compatible with Islam. In the Islamic state both ruler and ruled are the servants of Allah. The more the state is committed to the application of the Sharia (Islamic law), the more justice there will be. And so there will be no need for ethnic identity. The Umma identity replaces ethnic identity.

UMMA VERSUS NATION-STATE

            The concept of Umma is the key to understanding Islam as a faith and as a state. There is no exact translation of this concept in English. The closest translation is perhaps "the Muslim universal community." The Umma is not a tribe nor an ethnic group nor a community nor even a society or nation. These latter concepts em-body in them a sense of difference, particularity, and hence dis-unity, whereas Umma emphasizes universalism and unity. The members of the Umma, i.e., the Muslims, are all equal vis-a-vis the Sharia. Unlike secular laws, which are made and changed accord-ing to human will and interest, the sharia is a given, and what the Muslim has to do is to apply it. The best Muslim ruler is, therefore, one who strives to apply it. If the ruler fails to fulfill his role, tensions and divisions arise and ethnic divisions become a logical response.

The amount of power given to Muslim rulers is a product of their observance of Divine regulations, of the way in which they follow the good directions which these prescribe, and of the absence of all personal ambition in them. Each time a ruler tries to distinguish himself by surpassing all others in luxury or the magnificence of his mode of life, or each time that he tries to assume a greater dignity than his people, then the people return to their tribal loyalties, differences arise and the ruler’s power declines.26

            It is, then, the duty of the Muslim, whether ruler or ruled, to strive within the Umma to realize the will of Allah. And for that purpose he must regard every member of the Umma, regardless of race or color or ancestral origin, as a brother or sister. The prophet Mohammed described this particular solidarity when he said:

You will see the believers in their mutual kindness, love and sympathy just like one body. When a limb complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fervor. 27

            According to the Qur’an, the Umma that responded to the Divine will is blessed by Allah:

You are the best Umma given to mankind. You prescribe the good and prohibit evil, and you believe in Allah (3:110)

            The Umma as defined above was short-lived. It lasted only forty years -- under the Prophet Mohammed and the four Khalifas who succeeded him. The system of Khalifa (succession) that started with the Ummayad in 662 CE and ended with the Ottoman Khilafa in 1923, witnessed the rise and fall of the regional powers, which challenged the central authority of the central state, and so the true meaning of Umma, as described by the Qur’an and Hadith, was never achieved. In the end, Muslim societies, which were subjected to colonial domination, followed the footsteps of their colonizers and established secular nation-states in the name of development and modernization.

            This brief background is necessary because during the twentieth century, especially during the current quarter, Muslim scholars and leaders of some Islamic political movements are calling for the return to the spirit of Umma. They call on Muslims to refuse secular states that neglected the very essence of Umma which is the unity of Muslims. Abul ala Mawdudi, a strong advocate of "world-state" has said in this respect:

those who accept the principles of Islam are not divided by any distinction of nationality or race or class or country. The ultimate goal of Islam is a world-state in which the chains of racial and national prejudices would be dismantled and all mankind incorporated in a cultural and political system, with equal rights and equal opportunities for all.28

            Some scholars see no contradiction between nationalism and the universal character of Islam. Arab nationalism and Islam, says al Bazzaz, are misunderstood. They are not contradictory because they have the same "political aims".29 Other scholars maintained that there could be no Muslim unity without first achieving Arab unity.30

            In the light of what has been said above about the concept of Umma, especially in the Qur’an and Hadith, the views expressed by al-Bazzaz and al-Husri do not seem convincing. The very concept of "Arab unity" entails the establishment of a state on the ethnic factor. Other non-Arab ethnic groups might claim their own se-parate states. Arab countries have experienced this phenomenon and should learn from the lessons of history that the Arabs and non-Arabs were united by Islam.

            "Nation-state," as one scholar put it, "is alien to Muslim political culture . . . the present generation of Muslim nation-states have not solved, and are unlikely to solve, any of the problems that now confront the Umma."31

THE STATE OF THE UMMA : MUSLIMS AS MAJORITIES AND AS MINORITIES

            The number of Muslims in the world today is over one billion. Three hundred and fifty million of them live as minorities in different countries of the world. The rest live as majorities in Muslim states. Islamically speaking, the Umma is composed of the majorities and minorities. But since Muslims have always lived with non-Muslim communities, particularly Christians and Jews, how does Islam view this interfaith coexistence?

            The followers of Scriptures believe in the same God as Muslims. Thus, they hold a special place within Muslim majorities. They are called "Ahl- Dhimma," which means that they are tolerated minorities under the protection of the Muslim state. The Qur’an tells the Muslims:

Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say "we believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To him we surrender ourselves" (29:46).

            This means that the People of the Book will be respected as believers and that they will not be pressured to give up their re-ligion. The Qur’an states that "there should be no compulsion in

religion." (2:256) The prophet Mohammed himself respected Jews and Christians in the first Islamic state he established. And the Khalifa Omar, in a message sent to the governor of Egypt (then part of the Islamic State) emphasized tolerance and respect for the Copts and other minorities.32

            These examples attest to the peaceful and tolerant nature of Islam vis-a-vis other faiths. In reality, however, the world is wit-nessing violent clashes and wars between Muslims and the People of the Book -- Muslims and Jews in Palestine, Muslims and Christians in Bosnia, and Muslims and Christians in Sudan, to name a few. These conflicts attest to the fact that nation-states have failed to unite the people and to achieve meaningful develop-ment. The quest for power alienated the people and so they had to turn to other forms of solidarities.

            The Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim states are spiritually part of the Umma and politically part of the states in which they live. In 1988, a conference organized by Al-Azhar (the Islamic University of Cairo, Egypt), dealt with the state of Muslim minorities in the world.33 These minorities were divided into two categories: Muslims living in states, which had been, in the past, part of the Islamic state and Muslims who migrated, of their own will, to non-Muslim countries around the world, mainly for economic reasons.34

            There are about twelve million Muslims in Europe, about fifty millions in the ex-Soviet Union (17% of total population), about one hundred millions in India (12%), five millions in the Philippine (8%), about forty five millions in Nigeria (46%) , and about two millions in the United States. In some countries, as in France, Islam has become the second religion after Christianity. Muslims also con-stitute a substantial part of the population in many other countries.35

            The Al-Azhar conference concluded that the state of Muslim minorities in the non-Muslim world differs according to the specific conditions in the respective countries. On the whole some are better off economically than others. However, the urgent need is to ameliorate their religious conditions, that is, to help them enhance their sense of belonging spiritually to the Umma.36

            The recent rapid wave of political changes in the world, par-ticularly in Europe, culminated in the return to ethnic solidarities based on language, culture and on "religious distinctiveness." The implications for Muslim minorities might be the strengthening of "religious distinctiveness" at the expense of ethnic identities. Europe, as Christie predicts, is likely to develop into "a `multi-reli-gious’ continent."          

            Although one should not underestimate the consequent dan-gers of religious conflict, such a development would at least offer a chance that a future interfaith dialogue at the highest level could be based on religious principle rather than ethnic interest. Only on such a basis can religious principles in general offer an effective response to the secular challenge of the modern world.37

PROSPECTS FOR INTERFAITH DIALOGUE

            Islam is a universal religion and Mohammed was the seal (the last) of the Prophets sent by Allah to all mankind. The Qur’an says

We have sent you forth to all mankind, so that you may give them news and forewarn them (34:28)

            There is now a widespread call for the return to the funda-mental teachings and principles of Islam. This call is manifested in the efforts to islamize knowledge, to reconcile modern life to the requirements of Islam, to the "Daawa" ( effort to teach or to convert people to Islam), and to political Islamic movements which cul-minated in some cases in the establishment of an "Islamic" state.

            These efforts, despite their peaceful and non-compulsory character, have alarmed some, causing them to attack Islam and accuse it of being authoritarian and anti-diversity in character.38 Some even predicted an eventual religious and cultural "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.39 The reasons for these attacks and such pessimism are due, in my opinion, to ignorance or to misunderstanding of Islam as a faith which, as was shown, is intrinsically tolerant. This misconception of Islam also extends to some Muslim individuals or organizations who overlook the true meaning of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, and progress. While there is "Daawa" there is also respect for those who believe in other Scriptures. The Qur’an says in this respect:

Say: "We believe in God and that which is revealed to us; in what was revealed to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes; to Moses and Jesus and the other prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them, and to God we have surrendered ourselves. (2:136)

            The believers of Scriptures are all the sons of Abraham and Abraham committed himself to the will of God for the benefit of all mankind:

Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian. He was an upright man, one who surrendered himself to God. (3:67)

Muslims, Jews and Christians share a common heritage. Accord-ingly, they must overcome the dominance of secular and political movements because what their respective prophets did was to fulfill the call of Abraham to worship the same God.

            Muslim thinkers and leaders are increasingly aware of the imperative of mutual understanding and cooperation between the three monotheistic faiths. Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the "Muslim Brotherhood" movement in 1928, stated that Islam is a religion of peace and love not of "hatred and fanaticism", and that "Error is committed by the misguided, thinking on the legitimacy of the Holy War."40 And Hassan at-Tourabi, the actual spiritual leader of Sudan, spoke of the necessity of cooperation between faiths to combat secularism. At-Tourabi stated that in fact "the three mono-theistic religions are not different. . . . It is the same God . . . and the values of this unique God are exactly the same."41 He added:

I proposed a common front to the Pope. And I also propose it to the Jews. The three monotheistic faiths must mobilize themselves to render the power to God and to render people to God.42

            There is no question that an interfaith dialogue is a must. Since secular politics failed to achieve unity and peace for man-kind, it is the duty of all believers - Jews, Christians, and Muslims - to work for that unity and peace to fulfill the call of Abraham and the will of God.

NOTES

            1. For a current account of ethnic conflicts in the world see Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, Current Controversies Series (San Diego: Green Haven Press, 1994).

            2. Ibid., 15.

            3. Quoted from Wsevolod W. Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," Ethnicity I, no. 2 (July 1974), 114.

            4. Quoted from Isajiw (1974), 113.

            5. W. Wsevolod Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity: New Approaches," Ethnic Forum 13/14 (nos. 2&1, 1993-94), 10.

            6. Clive Christie, "Unity and Diversity: a Critique of Religion and Ethnicity in Europe," The Ecumenical Review 47, (no. 1, January, 1995), 12-20.

            7. See Daniel Bell, " Ethnicity and Social Change," in Ethni-city, ed. Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan (Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1983); and Michael Banton, Racial and Ethnic Competition (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

            8. Quoted from Akbar S. Ahmed, Toward Islamic Anthro-pology (Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1986), p. 20.

            9. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 5.

            10. Clifford Geertz, Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 1.

            11. Ibid., 3.

            12. Ibid.

            13. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (New York: The Free Press, 1965 [1912]), 14. Geertz (1973), p. 90.

            14. Geertz (1973), p. 90.

            15. Geertz (1968), pp. 16-17.

            16. Christie, op. cit., p. 12.

            17. Isma’il Ragi Al-Faruqi, "Islamizing the Social Sciences," in Social and Natural Sciences: the Islamic Perspective, ed. by Isma’il R. Al-Faruqi and Abdullah O. Nasseef (Jeddah: King

Abdulaziz University, 1981), pp. 12-13.

            18. See Pakistan: The Social Sciences’ Perspective, ed. by Akbar S. Ahmed (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Islam, Globalization and Postmodernity, ed. by Akbar S. Ahmed (New York: Routledge, 1994).

            19. Ahmed (1986), 56.

            20. Ibid.

            21. See Al-Faruqi (1981), pp. 8-20.

            22. Al Hadis, Ed. by Muhammad Al-Khatib al-Tibrizi and Al Haj Maulana F. K. (Dacca, F.K.: Islam Mission Trust, 3rd edition, 1969), vol. 1, 488.

            23. Ibid., 491.

            24. Ibid., pp. 486-7.

            25. Sayyid Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani, "Islamic Solidarity," in Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives, ed. by John J. Donohue and John L. Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 20.

            26. Ibid., 22.

            27. Al Hadith, vol I, 291.

            28. Abul-Ala Mawdudi, "Nationalism and Islam." Islam in Transition, op. cit., 94.

            29. Al-Bazzaz, Abd Al-Rahman, "Islam and Arab Nationalism," in Islam in Transition, op. cit., pp. 84-90.

            30. Sati Al-Husri, "Muslim Unity and Arab unity," in Islam in Transition, p. 66.

            31. Kalim Siddiqui, "Beyond the Muslim Nation-States," in Social and Natural Sciences, op. cit., p. 95.

            32. Ibrahim Kattan, "The Concept of Minorities in Islam." Houda Al-Islam, 26., no. 1 (1982), 18 (in Arabic).

            33. See Christie, op. cit.

            34. Raja Ibrahim Salim, "Muslim Minorities in non-Muslim Societies," Al-hiwar 19 (1990), 102-3 (in Arabic).

            35. Ibid.

            36. Ibid.

            37. Christie, op. cit., p. 17.

            38. Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," Atlantic Monthly (September 1990), pp. 47-60.

            39. Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations." Foreign Affairs (Summer, 1993), pp. 21-49.

            40. Hasan Al-Banna, "The New Renaissance," in Islam in Transition, p. 82.

            41. Hassan At-Tourabi, Interview in Le Figaro (Paris), April 15-16, 1995.