STRANGERS

Reflecting about something as a Muslim, I sooner or later refer to the sources of my religion, the Qur'an and the Sunnah (life example of the Prophet Muhammad (s) and his community) where I find guidance and standards for any later development.

However, I would look in vain for the term strangers as we use it today. In the Arabic language there are words like ajnabî, foreigner, originally a person who lives in my neighbourhood without being related to me in any way; or gharîb, stranger, someone who lives in a strange environment or by himself. We also find the opposites 'arabi, Arab or Arabic, also understood in the sense of clear and intelligible (language), and 'ajami, of a foreign lanugage, not intelligible, especially used for Persian. In this context, the Qur'an points out that it was revealed in "Arabic", that is, in clear and intelligible language, neither obscure nor from strange sources. The Prophet (s) repeatedly pointed out that no difference should be made between Arabs and non-Arabs. Otherwise these terms have no role in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not addressed to the Arabs, not even the to the Muslims as a community, but in most cases it addresses human beings or faithful human beings. However, differences are not denied or ignored but considered positive and enriching as part of the variety in creation, and one of the main concerns of the Qur'an is to give guidance on how to deal with them so they can be used for mutual complementation, not misused for conflict.

Just as the variety among other creatures is seen as natural and an expression of the Creator's will, so is variety among humans:

Variety and differences are virtually seen as signs of God's activity and as a challenge to reflect about them and to understand:

The Qur'an clearly emphasizes that the differences of the sexes, skin colours, languages, nationalities etc. are neither linked with any difference in value nor with any special privileges:

Here, like in many other texts of the Qur'an, the perspective of the Creator is pointed out who brought forth every human being, every nation, and who has a very special relationship with each of them. While Qur'an and Sunnah as well as later Islamic Law offer practical guidance for human and international relations, the relationship "I and my neighbour" and "we and the others" being focussed on, we repeatedly are shown approaches to transcend this perspective and to develop the ability to really implement justice. A member of a foreign nation whom we come to know in the spirit of this verse does not remain a "stranger" because there grows a relationship and a certain familiarity. The word "to know" also contains an aspect of "to recognize" including respect for his/her specific and "other" ways of life.

Obviously religious variety is part of human variety. Of course, Islam as the youngest world religion cannot ignore this fact. Thus, the Qur'an has a critical eye on the development in the theology and practice of earlier religious traditions, among them with certain positions of Christian theology. Generally the Qur'an teaches that God sent revelation and inspired teachers to all nations so that the religions basically come from the same source although they differ from each other because of different aspects of their doctrines due to the cultural context they were taught in as well as different ways of development in the later tradition. However, this should not be a reason for conflict but understood as a challenge for a constructive coexistence:

Thus, the vision presented in the Qur'an is not that of a homogeneous society, neither in the ethnical nor in the religious sense. In order to get a better understanding of this, we must have a look at the historical and social context in which the Qur'an came into being. Arab society at the time of the Prophet (s) was a tribal society. Both mercantile city-dwellers like the inhabitants of Mecca, farmers and craftsmen in the villages and oases like Medina, and the desert nomads were organized in tribes with different structures of clans and families and other cultural and religious ways of life, and there was neither a central coordinating factor nor a uniformous umbrella structure although there were some unwritten law that regulated inter-tribal relations.

The root of a tribe consisted of families that were traced back to a common ancestor. There were linked through mutual self-evident family obligations. Apart from this, there were networks of treaties between individuals and groups. Slaves were counted as members of the family in a way similar to that of minors (in contrast to some other legal systems, they were always considered as persons). Liberation (that was systematically promoted by Islam) did not imply that a former slave was left to him/herself but was integrated into the family by being adopted by the person who had set him/her free, thus remaining a member of the tribe. A similar link could be built up between an individual or a weak family and the leader of a strong clan. Thus, quite a number of well-known personalities in early Muslim history were clients of an Arab tribe.

There were still a few individuals or small family groups who were - for whatever reasons - not integrated into a clan or tribe. They were the weakest members of society and accordingly poor and without full membership rights although it was a matter of honour for the influential clans in the neighbourhood of whom they settled and where they offered their services to look after their basic needs. Islam replaced that "matter of honour" by a definite "right" for food, clothing, shelter and protection for the poor. The word miskîn that was used in Qur'anic times for these local poor people was later often understood as a synonym of faqîr, poor after changes in the social structure had taken place, with the result that the relevant phrases in the Qur'an are explained and translated as "The poor and the needy ...", but we still find an echo of the original meaning with commentators who explain that Faqîr is the poor within the Muslim community, while miskîn is the non-Muslim poor living in a Muslim neighbourhood." Both have a legal right to be supported by the Muslims.

Due to highway robbery and natural disasters, it happened every so often in those days that travellers were stranded among the poor, having lost all their fortune. Generally travellers had a right to protection and hospitality. In Arab society, the latter was deeply rooted as something self-evident and a matter of honour so that the Qur'an does not specifically mention it as a demand of ethics but takes it for granted. Hospitality is independent of the social end economical background. However, the poor traveller is specially pointed out in the Qur'an and given a legal right to support, no matter if he lost his fortune while travelling or if he already set off for his journey as a poor person, e.g. in search of knowledge.

Islam never suddenly and radically changed the structure of a society. From the aforementioned examples it might already have become clear that well-established stuctures were preserved and improved. 'Urf, the existing code of behaviour, is integrated into the framework of Islamic law and only changed or abolished if it contradicts ethical principles like the pre-Islamic custom to bury unwanted daughters alive, or unjust forms of marriage and divorce. Consequently there are various social structures in the Muslim world in spite of the changes imposed in colonial age.

Only since the emigration of the Prophet (s) and his companipons from Mecca to Medina we talk about the concept of an Islamic society. But while this decisive event and the year when it happened is well known among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, only few are familiar with the details of this process, some text books even using the word "flight" for the emigration. One aspect is certainly that the Prophet (s) and the Muslims had to leave their homes in Mecca because of the intolerable persecution. On the other hand, there was the situation in Yathrib (that later on became Medina) where a feud among the local tribes had lasted for several generations and people hoped that Islam could offer a solution and the Prophet (s) would be able to make peace; in turn he and the Muslims were offered protection and a home.

Measures were then taken for reconciliation and integration that still have their influence on Muslim thought:

• On the personal and family-related level, the Prophet (s) facilitated covenants of brotherhood between Emigrants (muhâjirûn) from Mecca and Helpers (ansâr) who offered them a home. Thus, integration began with personal relations where even material means were shared until people had built up an economic foundation together. They also shared their practical knowledge and skills: the Emigrants were mainly merchants, and the Helpers were farmers and craftsmen. Only by learning from each other they could build up a foundation on which the community of Medina could survive. Besides, the readiness to acquire knowledge continued during the following centuries, leading to a surprising development of the sciences, theological and philosophical thought and culture in general.
• On the social level, a reconciliation of the warring tribes was achieved and a written treaty was made, the Constitution of Medina in which the relationship between the tribes was set down. In this context, it is of greatest importance that there were Arab tribes that were partly Muslim, and Jewish tribes, and that there internal autonomy was preserved. This means that even in the case of tribes that had joined Islam the social structure remained as far as it did not contradict Islamic principles of justice (see above). Besides, the idea was that each tribe basically lived according to their religious and ethical foundation, legal issues being treated according to the relevant legal system which was not necessarily equal. Disagreements between the tribes and serious criminal cases were to be taken to the Prophet (s). The fact that this unity was endangered only a few years later by one or the other group breaking the covenant does not change the concept of religious freedom and internal autonomy for other faith groups within the same state that is deeply embedded in the Muslim consciousness and still has a role in the legislation in states with an Islamic perspective (e.g. Iran, Pakistan etc.).

In the first generations after the Prophet (s), the Muslims increased their political and social domain. There are various contributing factors: Islamic values and ideals that attracted both those who identified with them, feeling that Islam might be a path and the Muslim community being a home for them, and those who hoped for greater freedom for their own religion under Muslim protection. The latter was the reason for many a group of Oriental Christians who felt oppressed by Byzantine rule to make treaties of protection with the Muslims and to give them access to their cities; there were indeed cases where Muslims went to war in order to protect those Christian and Jewish groups. Non-Muslim clients were, as a rule, exempted from military service. Instead, they paid jizya, an exemption tax (the translation "poll tax" is misleading because jizya was only paid by men technically able for military service, and even there priests, monks etc. were exempted; besides, the jizya was refunded when the protection could not be guaranteed).

On the other hand there was the political situation in the Sassanid empire that was about to disintegrate and only kept together temporarily by dictatorial measures of the regime. At first, the peoples in the border areas saw the "Islamic Alternative" as a way to gain more freedom. The armed conflicts that resulted were minor but gave the missing impulse for the empire to break down completely. Apart from agreements that regulated taxes and privileges, the old system of administration was preserved, and the Muslims did not interfere with the religious and cultural matters of the people. In fact, the majority of the population kept their old religions for a long time and only gradually joined Islam, often following the model set by Muslim personalities who taught and gave a living example for Islamic values.

And finally there were factors that had nothing to do with Islamic values and ideals but with opportunism, strategies and the ambitions of powerful men. Already at an early stage there were armed expeditions that had no relationship with justice whatsoever. Nevertheless, the fire-and-sword stereotype is beside the point. Military success was only one factor among many others. Even if all Arab tribes, enthusiastic for their new faith, had set out, they would not have been enough in quantity to be able to conquer areas of this size and to rule them against the will of the population. The story is more intricate.

A critical revision of many political concepts in Muslim history, e.g. the institution of an hereditary caliphate or of a Muslim empire, in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah is long overdue. However, Muslim states were never homogeneous entities but always consisted of different nations as well as cultural, religious and language groups. Only in the recent past there are tendencies to confuse unity with uniformity, with the well-known totalitarian political approaches. The experiences of variety (especially in non-European cultures) should be considered when developing concepts for a "multicultural society".

This applies not only to socio-political but likewise for psychologica, ethical and theological thought.

On the level of psychology, fear is one of the central points talked about today: fear of strangers, fear of strange things - occasionally people even consider the fear of strangers and the resulting rejection as something "natural."

I would like to differentiate: fear of a real or possible danger is indeed natural; the meaning is that a person is alarmed and can avoid the danger, take meansures for security, run away from it or get ready for defense. Thus, fear is one of the mechanisms for human and animal self-preservation. The object is then known as dangerous or at least gives this impression. A certain caution is also natural when meeting something unknown that might potentially be dangerous while there is also a possibility for the encounter to be useful and pleasant. This caution is the counterbalance for curiosity that is another mechanism for human and animal self-preservation. It is the polarity between the two of them that determins the extent to which unknown things are observed and explored before a preliminary decision is made about what kind of relationship to start with them.

Of course this also applies to the human encounter, and the different gestures of politeness in human cultures are both means to express one's own good intentions to the other and to win time to get acquainted with each other. Nowadays there are obstacles where

• gestures are not known any longer and/or considered a "waste of time" with the result that there is a growing potential for verbal misunderstandings and lack of skill in the encounter with others;
• people are preoccupied with themselves to such an extent that there is no space for really getting acquainted;
• or where no space for encounter is left: the stranger remains strange. If he is in the neighbourhood, it may be considered disturbing if he does not speak one's language or behaves differently from one's own behaviour because this may make itself felt as a challenge for one's own habits. "If he'd only give up his otherness or go away, life would be as easy as it used to be ..."

Here, in non-encounter, there is already the beginning of fear: what if he remains as he is and does not go away but possibly even brings more of his own kind? It then depends on one's own sense of identity if this can be welcomed as an enrichment or is considered an annoying interferance with one's habits or causes fear of the challenge for one's self-understanding. Behind the latter, there is probably the fact that I do not know myself well enough, not being sure enough of my own roots, because otherwise the "stranger" could just be my neighbour. This is the catalyst for all kinds of demonization. Once it is suggested that those strangers are going to push "us" aside, to uproot/alienate/appropriate "us", two things happen: the fear is changed into rejection and the readiness to fight, and the demonized picture of the other becomes a psychological barrier that hinders a personal encounter, being, as it were, a filter that interprets all movements of the other as "hostile" and "threatening".

This is not supposed to say that there are nor real conflicts of interests between individuals and communities and that occasionally antipathy and hostile intentions can be found with another individual of group, demanding defensive consequences. However, fear based on ignorance and desinformation can make it impossible to differentiate between the two and to look for a solution in case of a real conflict.

In this context, the following ethical principles from the Islamic sources seem to me of special importance:

• The search of knowledge. This is not restricted to information intake but includes observation and experience. Wherever this duty was taken serious, it was the foundation for both scientific research and human encounter. Many positions in Islamic theology were refined by the encounter with other religions in dialogue and polemics.
  Self-knowledge and self-education are part of knowledge and a central field of Islamic ethics. A tradition says, "Who knows himself knows his Sustainer and Cherischer", i.e. the more a person gets acquainted with his/her own abilities, limitations and possibilities, the more he/she knows the nourisching and protecting foundation of his/her own existence. Or said in a more practical manner: as long as a person is not familiar with him/herself, he/she is likely to define his/her identity through criteria like profession, nationality, language etc. and consequently feels insecure in face of challenges or changes. The more familiar a person is with him/herself, the more he/she is connected with the identity beyond these external, changeable factors and thus can face changes more easily.
• Recognition and acceptance. In this case it is a question of recognizing and accepting the variety of phenomena in God's creation as well as their context. The contrary would be non-acceptance (kufr). The aforementioned texts of the Qur'an teach that the nations are to know and recognize each other, i.e. develop ways for mutual respect and cooperation, using differences for a competition to realize what is good; besides, differences are to be accepted as something that originates from the same source as signs of the same Creator, not necessarily contradictory but complementary and enriching, e.g. the sexes, languages and different "colouring" among human beings. A dynamic interaction is possible where there is space for each to unfold their specific characteristics, where the Other is different but familiar.
  However, such a relationship of trust can easily be disturbed, and that is why the Qur'an expressedly condemmns backbiting and slander: they are compared with cannibalism. This applies not only to the personal human level but the more to the spread of prejudices against groups and nations. Accordingly, we are told to check doubtful informations carefully. The consequence would be that we talk with each other rather than about each other.
  Another aspect of recognition is gratefulness. In Islamic ethics, this is an attitude that does not focus on one's own demands and desires that can turn out to be unsatiable but that accepts and receives what we are given by God both in the material and the immaterial sense. This is followed by joy about these gifts that enables us to share them with others, thus spreading joy and gratefulness. It is a foundation for generosity, especially for the poor, and for hospitality that is specially directed to "strangers".
• Statements from the Islamic sources that concern our behaviour in an actual case of conflict have often been misunderstood and misused, and very often their original purpose was lost out of sight, that is, to achieve justice and peace. Both these terms are inseparably linked with each other, and this not only in the language of the Qur'an. Injustice causes dissatisfaction and suffering that eventually lead to the wish to be liberated from it through emigration or armed struggle. It is only through surprising double standards that structural violence is considered acceptable although it can drive people into despair, while people who have come to a point where they are too desparate to see any options other than armed resistance are condemmned as being violent and a threat to peace. In the Islamic sources, injustice is pointed out and criticised for what it is: violent aggression, political oppression, economical exploitation, denial of subsistance, squandering of resources, crimes against other creatures etc.. We indirectly contribute to injustice if we just accept it as given. Therefore we are instructed to change the situation ti the best of our ability with thoughts, words and actions, and as efficiently as possible by at least not aggravating the damage but possibly by bringing about real changes:

  The recompense for a damage is a similar damage. But if someone forgives and works towards reconciliation, his reward is due from God. He does not love the unjust ones. However, there is no blame on those who defend themselves when they suffer injustice. The blame is only on those who commit injustice against people without any right and who cause mischief on earth. For those there is severe punischment. Bur if anyone is patient and forgives - this is certainly a sign of a strong spirit. (Surah 42:40-43).

  Good and evil are not equal. Repel (evil) with what is better, and then he between whom and you there was hostility will become like your warm friend. But this is only granted to those who are patient, and it is given only to the owner of great inner fortune. (Surah 41:34-35).

All these ethical demands appear to be linked with human self-esteem, and this triggers anthropological and theological questions. The religions deal with these questions each in their own language, and we will now outline the direction in which the answers can be found in Islam. Of course there have always been various schools of theology with different positions. However, I would like to disregard them for the time being, trying to sum up what is said in the Qur'an and what obviously moved the Prophet's contemporaries.

At first sight, there are ethico-legal statements addressed to human beings as individuals that are embedded in a network of relationships with the self, fellow human beings, other creatures, creation as such as well as the Creator. A human being is seen as a being that bears responsibility for these relationships according to his/her ability. Life is seen as a learning process; mistakes are considered an experience and a possibility for further insights rather than a general failure. With the freedom of choice, the human being is ambivalent but with a God-given potential.

As we have seen in the beginning, the Qur'an transcends this perspective fucussing on the human being. The Qur'anic perspective is clearly theocentric. It neither denies that all creation including human beings is bound to perish nor that each single creature is immediately linked with God, revealing His creativity. Both the value of the human being as God's representative who can ideally become God's friend is confirmed and the fact that he can cause damage and even his own destruction if he regards himself as absolute. Moreover, an individual is one among many in his group, the group is one among many within humankind, and humankind is embedded in the ecological context of the created beings in this world. Seen from this perspective, both an attitude that is based on the assumption of human nothingness and coincidentality on one side and anthropocentric hybris on the other are extremes that are rejected by the Qur'an that points to the Middle Path.

The practice of the spiritual disciplines is built up accordingly. It insists both on human responsibility in front of God as the Completely Other, Independent, and on a deeper self-discovery leading to that spark of the Divine light that is waiting in each of us to be revealed.

Back to Islamic Studies Index
Home Page
Strangers 2