Muslim Travellers

Pilgrimage, Migration and the Religious Imagination

Dale F. Eickelman, James Piscatori, Dale F. Eickelman, James Piscatori

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136112683
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Pilgrimage, travel for learning, visits to shrines, exile, and labour migration shape the religious imagination and in turn are shaped by it. Some travel, such as pilgrimage, explicitly intended for religious purposes, has equally important economic and political consequences. Other travel, not primarily motivated by religious concerns and thus neglected by many scholars, nonetheless profoundly influences religious symbols, metaphors, practices and senses of community. These studies, encompassing Muslim societies from Malaysia to West Africa, also suggest how encounters with Muslim `others' have been as important in shaping community self-definition as encounters with European 'others'.

This volume brings together historians, social scientists and jurists concerned with pilgrimage, scholarly travel and migration in both medieval and contemporary Muslim societies and explores basic issues. Can 'Muslim travel' be regarded as a distinct form of social action? What role does religious doctrine play in motivating travel and how do doctrinal interpretations differ across time and place? What are the strengths and limitations of various approaches to understanding the transnational and local significance of pilgrimage, migration and other forms of travel? An image of Muslim tradition and change in local communities in relation to travel emerges, which competes with the myth of the universality of the Islamic community.

Part one

Doctrines of travel

Chapter two

The obligation to migrate: the doctrine of hijra in Islamic law

Muhammad Khalid Masud

Introduction

On 22 March 1987 three young men approached Allama Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer.¹ They wanted to discuss with him the meaning of a Qur’anic verse about hijra,² and argued that the situation in Pakistan was worsening. They specifically argued that the Family Laws Ordinance governed the personal lives of Muslims instead of Shari‘a law,³ so that the political environment was not conducive to the practice and propagation of Islam. The youths argued that under these circumstances, according to the Qur’anic verse, there were only two options available to Pakistani Muslims: either to declare Pakistan dar al-harb (an enemy territory) and wage jihad against it until it is restored to dar al-Islam; or to leave Pakistan altogether.

The Allama disagreed with them and explained that they held an extremist view. He emphatically refuted their arguments, but the young men kept arguing and departed unsatisfied. The Allama was very much perturbed and expressed his anxiety over rising extremism among the Muslim youth (Najmi 1987: a). On 23 March, a day later, a bomb exploded at a public meeting which Allama Zaheer was addressing. He received serious injuries and later died of his wounds.

There may not be any connection between the bomb explosion and the three youths, and their extremist views are not typical of Pakistani youth. None the less, I cite the incidents to illustrate that some Muslim youth, albeit extremists, still believe that hijra (the physical movement away from unbelief) is an essential expression of Muslim identity. Similar trends are apparent in other parts of the Muslim world: for example, Jama‘at al-Muslimin (The League of Muslims) in Egypt were nicknamed by their opponents Jama‘at al-Takfir wa-l-Hijra (The Society of Excommunication and Emigration) because of their emphasis on hijra (Kepel 1985: 77).

This chapter traces how the doctrine of hijra took shape. Any generalisation about the historical development of this doctrine is difficult because no systematic studies of it exist. Moreover, although references to hijra are quite frequent in the fatawa literature, which consists of responses to specific questions, they are scattered throughout the regular books of Islamic law rather than grouped together under the heading of emigration.

In view of these difficulties I propose first to present an account of context, describing the particular events in the history of Islam which gave rise to thinking on hijra. Next, I deal with doctrinal foundations – i.e. the written texts on which doctrinal discussions about hijra are based. Finally, I consider challenges and responses to the doctrine occasioned by historical developments that have encouraged the doctrine’s reinterpretation or reconstruction by Muslim jurists. These developments include the revolt of the Khawarij (AD 657),⁴ the occupation by non-Muslims of Muslim lands and western colonialism, Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries, and the rise of Muslim nation-states.

After an analysis of the period of civil wars (the first fitna, AD 656–61, and the second fitna, AD 683–92), this chapter discusses developments in Indo-Pakistani and Nigerian Muslim societies, two Muslim societies with which the present writer has been professionally concerned. Moreover, this choice provides an opportunity to study the formulation and development of the doctrine of hijra in two different legal contexts and interpretive frameworks – Hanafi in the case of Pakistan and Maliki in the case of Nigeria.

Context

Hijra, an Arabic term which literally means “to abandon”, “to break ties with someone” (such as a bond of kinship or other personal association), or “to migrate” (Watt 1971: 366), refers primarily to the Prophet Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. It is also discussed with reference to the migration of a group of Muslims from Mecca to Abyssinia in AD 615–22. Although the hijra to Abyssinia was voluntary and limited in scope, the hijra to Medina was obligatory and involved almost the entire Muslim community. No Muslim was supposed to stay behind in Mecca. Exemption was allowed only to the “weak” – women, children, and the sick – and those who could not afford to migrate. Staying behind in Mecca was also allowed after the pact of Hudaybiyya (AD 628–30). While there was no pact between the king of Abyssinia and Muslims, the migration to Medina was preceded by pacts (bay‘at al-harb/hijra, the pact of war or emigration) between the Prophet and the people of Medina who swore allegiance to protect Muslims and to wage jihad against their enemies (Ibn Hisham 1963: II, 303).

A significant fact in the events of the hijra to Abyssinia in AD 615–22 was that women’s participation in migration was equally prominent. The two group migrations to Abyssinia were family migrations, including both women and children. The migration to Medina was preceded by two pacts concluded in AD 620 and AD 621 between Muslims of Mecca and Medina. As already mentioned, the second pact was called “the pact of war”. The first was named “the pact of women” not only because women took part in this pact, but also because the first person to swear allegiance to this pact was a woman named ‘Afra’ (Ibn Hisham 1963: II, 293). The Qur’an refers to this pact in 60: 12 (sura 60, verse 12).⁵

The second pact was a pact of protection and war and included among its signatories Umm ‘Amara and Umm Mani‘, who participated in it along with men. There are stories of families moving together during the actual migration from Mecca to Medina (Ibn Hisham 1963: II, 319–20). The first person to migrate was Abu Salma, whom the Meccans did not allow to migrate with his family. His wife later travelled alone to join him. The second migrant, ‘Amir b. Rabi‘a, succeeded in migrating to Medina along with his wife (Ibn Hisham 1963: II, 321–4).

After the migration all ties, including “blood” relationships, were broken with both non-Muslims and Muslims who refused to migrate. Instead, a new bond of brotherhood (mu’akhat) between muhajirs (migrants) and ansars (inhabitants of Medina – generally supporters or local hosts) was established, which entitled them even to inherit from one another (al-Tabari 1958: 199). Hijra thus meant to abandon one’s property and relations in order to support the nascent community of Muslims in Medina. Refusal to perform hijra meant to weaken the Muslim cause and to lend support (wala’ or muwalat) to their enemies. Hence in early Islam, non-migrants were not allowed to inherit from Muslims in Medina, not were they entitled to any share in the spoils of war (ghanima). The right of inheritance between blood relations among Muslims was later restored, although non-Muslim relations were still disallowed from inheritance (Qur’an, 8: 75).

Doctrinal foundations

The textual sources, the Qur’an and hadith (pl. ahadith; texts relating to the sayings of the Prophet), abound with references to the events of the original hijra and to injunctions given in its context.

The word hijra has been used in the Qur’an to mean “to reject” (23: 69), “to shun” (74: 5), “to depart” (19: 46) and “to banish” (4: 34). The shared meaning in all these usages may be deduced to be a distancing – physical or otherwise – usually from evil and disbelief. The derivative forms hajara (59: 9; 2: 218; 3: 195) and muhajir (9: 100, 117; 33: 6; 59: 8; 60:10; 8: 72) mean “to migrate”. Most verses employing the derivative form hajaru (“they migrated”) are often paired with jahadu (“they waged war”) and thus imply a close association of hijra with jihad.

It is not possible here to survey the implications of all the Qur’anic passages. For the purpose of our discussion we refer only to the two verses most often cited in debates concerning hijra:

Those who believed and left their homes [hajaru] and strove [jahadu] with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them [nasaru], these are protecting friends of one another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, you have no bond [walaya] with them till they leave their homes, but, if they seek help from you in the matter of religion, then it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty [mithaq].

(Qur’an, 8: 72)

Lo! as for those whom the angels take [in death] while they wrong [zalimi] themselves, the angels will ask: “In what were ye engaged?” They will say: “We were oppressed [mustad‘afin] in the land”. [The angels] will say: “Was not Allah’s earth spacious that you could have migrated therein?” As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey’s end. Except the feeble [mustad‘afin] among men, and the women and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way. As for such, it may be that Allah will pardon them – Who so migrateth for the cause of Allah will find much refuge and abundance [of bounties] in the earth.

(Qur’an, 4: 97–100)

From the Qur’anic texts the following significant points about hijra can be inferred: (1) It was an obligation of physical movement towards self-definition in the nascent Muslim society. Refusal to migrate meant exclusion from the society; (2) hijra was closely associated with jihad; and (3) hijra established a bond of relationship among Muslims, particularly with the ansar.

Among several hadiths on the subject of hijra, the following offers parallels to the famous five pillars of Islam:

I convey the following five commandments given me by God: attention (sam‘), obedience (ta‘a), migration (hijra), struggle (jihad), and organisation (jama‘a).

(Ibn Hanbal, n.d.: 130)

There are numerous hadiths prescribing hijra as an obligation. However, the hadith literature adds a new dimension to the Qur’anic injunction. It also refers to situations where hijra is no longer obligatory. For example, the Prophet is reported to have said: la hijrata ba‘d al-fathi, “no migration was required after the conquest” (al-Bukhari 1971: 190). None the less, there are hadith texts according to which hijra continues to be an obligation (Abu Da’ud 1933: 234).

Abu Sulayman Hamid b. Muhammad Khattabi al-Busti (AD 931–96/8), a scholar of hadith, reconciled this difference of opinion and argued that hijra was actually meant to support and strengthen dar al-Islam in its nascent days. After the conquests dar al-Islam was so strong and established that migration was no longer required. The hijra would be required again only and whenever the conditions so demanded (Ibn Hajar 1959: VI, 378).

Ibn Khaldun (AD 1332–1406) explained these texts by saying that hijra meant migration to join the Prophet Muhammad. Hijra might have continued to be an obligation after the conquest of Mecca, but it was definitely not required after the death of the Prophet (Ibn Khaldun 1958: I, 256).

Abu’l-Fadl Ahmad b. ‘Ali Ibn Hajar [al-‘Asqalani] (d. AD 1449), a later hadith scholar, analysed in detail this debate and showed that a number of the companions of the Prophet, including Ibn ‘Abbas (d. AD 687), and his contemporaries Ta’us, Mujashi‘, Ibn Jurayj, ‘Ata’ and ‘A’isha, perceived hijra only as migration from Mecca to Medina. Hence, after Mecca was conquered no hijra was required (Ibn Hajar 1959: VI, 378).

Thus, even as early as the formative period, we see a refinement in the formulation of the doctrine. During AD 622–8, the hijra from Mecca to Medina was obligatory in terms of expressing one’s Muslim identity. Migration also meant weakening Mecca and strengthening Medina. Only persons unable to migrate (al-mustad‘afin) were allowed to stay in Mecca. The situation changed in AD 630 when Mecca joined dar al-Islam. After AD 630, the statement that hijra was no longer required from Mecca raised the question of whether hijra only meant migration from Mecca to Medina. Could it be generalised to state that migration from the outside to dar al-Islam was obligatory?

The answer is not simple, because the hijra to Abyssinia was not to dar al-Islam. The Hudaybiyya pact allowed Muslims to stay in Mecca, and the Prophet did not require the bedouin to migrate to Medina. A general rule was therefore derived that even after the conquest of Me...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Note on transliteration
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part one: Doctrines of travel
• Part two: Travel accounts
• Part three: Pilgrims and migrants
• Part four: Saints, scholars, and travel
• Annotated bibliography of related studies
• Glossary
• Index