I start the discussion here with a brief note on the meaning and scope of citizenship, a literature review and a note on terminology for ''citizenship'' in the English and Arabic languages. The discussion continues to explore aspects of fiqhliterature that relate to the concept of citizenship. Early juristic writings in fiqhdo not articulate this subject and often tend to subsume citizenship under the twin concepts of dar al-Islamand dar al-harb, Abode of Islam and Abode of War. This has only complicated matters as the division of the world into dar al-Islamand dar al-harbis itself open to questions and cannot in any case provide a sound basis for citizenship. Added to this picture is the fact that the contemporary concept of citizenship is in many ways an epiphenomenon of the nation-state and cannot be meaningfully understood under the controversial dichotomy of dar al-Islamand dar al-harb. The basic notion of citizenship is not repugnant to Islam, yet some of the ultra-nationalistic features of citizenship may be said to be less than compatible with the basic tenets of Islam on equality and justice. The whole topic of citizenship has remained so underdeveloped in the juristic writings of fiqhthat one can hardly speak of a clearly defined concept of citizenship in Islamic law. Due to the absence of subject-specific literature on citizenship in the fiqhsources, writers have tended to subsume citizenship under dar al-Islamand thereby make citizenship an extension of religious identity of the person.

My own treatment of the subject does not follow this line of discourse, and I also part ways with the conventional fiqhicoverage of the subject in the latter part of this presentation. Sections four and five of this chapter expound the fiqhliterature on the status, in an Islamic polity, of Muslim and non-Muslim citizens respectively. Under the fiqhrules, Muslim residents of dar al-Islamare granted automatic citizenship whereas the status of non-Muslims is, on the whole, discussed within the rubric of dhimmiand musta''min. A discussion of these topics is followed, in section six, by an analysis of ummahand nation-state and how the latter has inevitably become the principal frame of reference on citizenship. The historical unity of the Muslim community within the rubric of ummahnow stands in contrast with its division into a multiplicity of nation states that take their origin not in Islam or in ummahbut in European thought of the 18th and 19th centuries, especially following the French revolution of 1789. Muslim writers have generally considered nationalism and nation-state to be inimical to Muslim unity and disagreeable with Islam. Yet there are also views that see no inherent conflict between Islam and nationalism. A summary of these views appears in section seven, which is then followed by a discussion of unity and equality in the Qur''an and Sunnahas the cardinal principles and goals of Islam, and the understanding, therefore, that all citizens are entitled to be accorded equal treatment under the law.

A direct recourse to the sources of Islam on citizenship is necessary to propose a reform of the fiqhrules in the direction of equality and justice. This would also necessitate a fresh analysis of dar al-Islamand dar al-harb, which is attempted in sections eight and nine. I then raise the basic question, in section ten, as to why are we talking of dar al-harbif we find that peace rather than war commands normative validity in the Qur''an, especially with reference to the status of citizens who are not engaged in hostility and war with the outside world nor with the state of their domicile. A question is also posed about whether the intermediate concept of dar al-''ahd(abode of treaty) can actually provide us with relevant answers. I then draw attention to certain historical aberrations from the norms of equality in the poor treatment of non-Arab Muslims, the mawali, under the Umayyad state. What is said here tends to confirm that in the matter of citizenship the record of government policy has been one of disequilibrium and was at best a poor representation of the normative guidance of Islam. Our reading of history also needs to be adjusted due to many changes. I note in this connection that the historical division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War and the somewhat less than egalitarian treatment that was visited on the dhimmisreflected the political and military superiority of Muslim powers.

The rules of fiqhhave not totally escaped this and a review of some of its provisions in the light of the guidelines of the sources has therefore been attempted.