Human beings severally and their societies as a whole can never be homogeneous; heterogeneity or plurality is their basic traits. In that sense no society can ever be non-plural, as such. In fact, the issue of plurality is the political issue for the safeguard of minorities in a democratic setup. As numbers count in a democracy, those with lower count are threatened about their rights, including their cultural identities. So it is linked with rights of minorities.

A similar issue arises in corporate managements where provisions are required for taking care of the interests of minority stakeholders and also for lifting corporate veil, when circumstances so demand. Modern day joint stock companies too have been organised on democratic principles and the threat of manoeuvring by a few, wrapped up under corporate veil, at the cost of others cannot be ruled out.

So the issue is two pronged. One is the threat to minority rights by those in majority and the other is the wrong doings of the few veiled groups that manage to take the steering of the majority group itself. One may conceive the majority itself being susceptible to the machinations of the men behind masks. Thus every group needs protection. A mature democracy should ensure the concept of ‘protection for all’ otherwise it would be a farce. A sham democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the ‘few.’

The minority may not be a few in numbers, always; they may be considerable in size, as the case of Muslims in India is. Once, when the bogie of Muslims not being in the national mainstream had been raised, one journalist posed this question as how can there be any mainstream without such good number of persons. Obviously mainstreams are formed by many tributaries.

A clear distinction should be maintained between pluralism and anarchism. The idea that as people are different so there is no need of any central authority and there is no need to follow any rule is a distortion of the multiplicity of people. The society needs the rule of law and no healthy development is possible in its absence.

The debate whether pluralism of belief systems, ideas, opinions, philosophies, principles, races, languages spoken, ethnicities and/ or cultures is desirable or not is misplaced as these varieties do exist and a system should learn to cope with this basic fact of life. There is no choice as such and any attempt to change the scenario perforce will be disastrous for the society as a whole resulting in monarchy or anarchy. Rabid communalism and fascism feed on the distaste of multiplicity in society and try to roll out an unnatural homogeneity coercing one idea on unwilling masses.

Ideas do change and cultures do assimilate, but that is an altogether different story. Dialogues and associations at different levels bring these changes. But there is no role of compulsion in this process. The core idea of peaceful coexistence and purposeful growth of a society is the acceptance of identities. Once a society recognises its different human ingredients, it also gives every such unit well-defined rights with dignity.

 

MADINAH CHARTER

History bears testimony of how this pluralism was addressed in the early Islamic period in Madinah by recognising all social groups and by providing distinct roles and rights for each of them. A documentary proof of this fact is the Madinah Charter. This is the first constitution ever written, incorporating religion and politics. It pre-dated the English Magna Carta by almost six centuries. It was executed and implemented for 10 years (622-632 C.E.) and applied to 10,000 citizens living in Madinah at that time.

Remarkably, 45% of the total population in Madinah consisted of non-Muslim Arabs, 40% of Jews, and only 15% of Muslims, at the start of this treaty. These numbers were recorded by Prophet Muhammad himself through a census he commissioned. In others words, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him) got penned the Charter of Madinah as a minority sovereign. His express goal was to govern a multi-religious pluralistic society, in a manner that allowed religious freedom for all of them. Much has been written on this precious historical document, particularly on its role in a pluralistic society as that in Madinah when the Prophet arrived there after migration from Makkah. We shall, to be brief, draw some inferences based on references to the document.

City state: The document recognises Yathrib (the old name of Madinah) as a seat of power and distinct governance. This is remarkable because prior to that there was no concept of centralised authority in Arab lands. We may call it a city state. The immediate threat of this city state was its destruction by a common enemy, the Quraysh from Makkah. It recognises that too. The following clauses of the Charter may be referred to:

“Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.”

“Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.”

“The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.”

Identities recognised: The Charter recognises individual groups in the Madinah city state. Its Preamble recognises Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib (Madinah) and those following and working with them (i.e. Jews of Madinah) as one Ummah (nation). It says, amongst other clauses:

“This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation – Ummah.”

“Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and treated with equality.”

“The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers.”

“The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, Jaffna and the Bani Al Shutayba.

“The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.”

“Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.”

Personal laws, practices and customs guaranteed: Following references are self-explanatory:

“The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing, they wrong themselves and their families.”

“The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.”

“The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.”

“The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles).”

“The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.”

“The Jews must bear their own expenses (in war) and the Muslims bear their expenses.”

Justice ensured: One may refer to the following provisions of the Madinah Charter, inter alia, to show that it was meant for fair play and equity in the society:

“They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.”

“A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.”

“Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.”

“Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).”

The importance of these provisions can be understood if one remembers that these were implemented in a society which knew no governance or central authority and where everything was decided on the might of swords. The rule of law ushered in by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be to him) was remarkable.

 

GROUPS WITHIN MUSLIMS

As noted above, the Madinah Charter refers to believers in two distinct groups; the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib. They were the Mahajir (the migrants from Makkah and other places) and the Ansar (local Muslims from Madinah who provided shelter for the former). This is perhaps the only example in the recorded history of human beings where migrants and locals merged with each other, lived in peace, practised same beliefs and worked jointly for the propagation of their faith.

This was possible because of the great leadership of the Prophet and the exemplary character shown by the Mahajir and the Ansar, particularly the latter. The Prophet announced individuals from both the sides, severally, as brothers and these ‘brothers’ proved that this bond based on common faith was strong enough to whither all future challenges. The Ansar (sons-of soil, as we say today) were initially more in number (‘Majority’ in current parlance) and became minuscule in number (‘Minority’ in the present idiom). But it was never any issue and the city state became an international government within a short lapse of time because of the exemplary characters of all segments of this Ummah (‘Nation,’ today).

The role model left by the Ansar of Madinah is a treasured piece of history and we may always refer to that to know how a plural society can develop on the basis of the sacrifices of local residents. The following statement borrowed from footnote number 18 of exegeses of verse 59:9 of the Qur’an by Syed Abul Ala Maududi (Tafheemul Qur’ān) is meant to revisit that remarkable historical record.

“When the emigrants came from Makkah and other places to Madinah, the Ansar offered their gardens and oases to the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the request that he distribute them among their emigrant brethren-in faith. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: These people do not know gardening: they have come from a region where there are no gardens. Could it not be that you (the Ansar) continue to work in the gardens and oases and make the emigrants partners in the produce? The Ansar submitted and did as the Prophet suggested….Then, when the territory of the Bani an-Nadhir was taken, the Prophet (peace be upon him) made this proposal to the Ansar: Now one way of managing it is that your properties and the gardens and the oases left by the Jews be combined together and then the whole distributed among you and the emigrants. The second way is that you take back your properties, and the lands vacated by the Jews be distributed among the emigrants.

“The Ansar said: You may please distribute these evacuee properties among the emigrants and may give them our properties also as you please…. The same self-sacrificing spirit was shown by the Ansar when the territory of Bahrain was annexed to the Islamic State. The Prophet (peace be upon him) wished that the conquered lands of that territory be given to the Ansar, but they submitted: We would not take any share from it unless a similar share was given to our emigrant brothers.”

One may conclude that the development of a pluralistic society requires: 1. Recognition with dignity and identity of all its ingredients; 2. Proper rule of law; and 3. Mutual respect, affection and sacrifices of its inhabitants.