According to the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the Research Group on the Foundations of Fiqh of Citizens’ Rights and Duties convened its 279th scientific session to deliberate on the “Feasibility of Islamic Citizenship.” The session featured a presentation by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Ali Sharifi, Secretary of the Research Department of Fiqh of Politics and Governance, and a critique by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Hossein Javan Arasteh, faculty member at the Research Institute of Hawza and University.

This discussion occurred amid the growing prominence of the relationship between “political fiqh” and “modern nation-states,” as well as the justification or critique of prevailing conditions in Muslim-majority countries, which has emerged as a major theoretical challenge in contemporary political fiqh literature.

Feasibility of Citizenship in Islam – 2 The Discrepancy between Fiqhi Theory and the Reality of Islamic Governments

Dr. Sharifi opened by posing a foundational question: “It seems that the actual practice of citizenship in Islamic countries has diverged from urban theories, particularly those grounded in fiqh.”

He highlighted that while fiqhi literature presents a distinct vision of Islamic society, reality confronts us with a plurality of diverse nation-states, each possessing its own independent citizenship regime.

He posed the initial query: Does Islam fundamentally recognize a “political society,” or is society solely “faith-based”? He asserted: “If Islamic society is deemed not political but merely faith-based, then the very notion of Islamic citizenship is fundamentally problematized, since citizenship denotes membership in a political community. Accordingly, four models of Islamic citizenship may be delineated.”

Four Proposed Models of Islamic Citizenship

1. City-Centered Citizenship – Inspired by the Medina Charter

The first model presented was city-centered citizenship, interpreted through the historical experience of Medina and its charter. Referencing ancient city-states, including Greece, Sharifi noted that some scholars view Medinan citizenship as an evolved form of Greek citizenship.

He observed that the Medina Charter recognized Jewish tribes alongside Muslims as constituents of the “ummah,” granting them substantial rights. Yet he identified critical limitations in the analogy: “Greek city-states rested on democracy, whereas the Medina Charter was authored by the Prophet, rendering its acceptance by Jews effectively obligatory.”

This core distinction, he argued, complicates direct comparisons between contemporary nation-states and the Medinan paradigm.

2. Civic Citizenship – Consensus on Shared Principles and Embrace of Diversity

The second model was civic citizenship, advanced by certain contemporary scholars, including in works on religious pluralism and citizenship in Islam.

Sharifi described civic citizenship as opposing ethnic and cultural models, resting on agreement over common principles and acceptance of diversity. He stated: “Civic citizenship comprises two elements: consensus on shared principles and acceptance of plurality.”

Islamic history, he noted, demonstrates Muslims’ recognition and protection of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians across vast domains without coerced conversion—an exemplar interpretable as civic citizenship.

However, he cautioned that full political membership for non-Muslims remains contentious in contemporary Islamic states, diverging in certain respects from historical precedents.

3. Faith-Based Citizenship – The Predominant Fiqhi Paradigm

The third model, faith-based citizenship, constitutes, per Sharifi, the mainstream fiqhi reading across the Islamic world.

He elucidated: “In faith-based citizenship, territorial boundaries are fluid; any domain under Islamic rule qualifies as Dar al-Islam.”

Here, Muslims hold first-class status, dhimmis second-class, with non-Muslims’ political rights curtailed. This paradigm draws theoretical backing from Sunni caliphate doctrine and select interpretations of wilayat al-faqih in Shi‘i fiqh.

4. National Citizenship – The Challenge Posed by Modern Nation-States

The fourth model, national citizenship, aligns with the identity framework of modern nation-states—prevailing today in over 50 Muslim-majority countries.

Citing the dominant Sunni caliphate perspective, Sharifi noted its view of Islamic territorial fragmentation as “a negative outcome of colonialism,” stressing unity of land and sovereignty: “Any sovereign entity independent of the caliphate within Muslim domains is deemed illegitimate.”

In Shi‘i interpretation, the Imam’s unified sovereignty over all Islamic territories is axiomatic, rendering state plurality in need of fiqhi rationale.

He referenced attempts at resolution, such as the late Ayatollah Ha’iri’s “shared ownership” theory and Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi’s views on multiple instances of wilayat al-faqih during occultation, while noting persistent difficulties and the issue’s unresolved status.

Three Core Challenges to the Legitimacy of National Citizenship

Summarizing, the presenter identified three principal challenges confronting national citizenship’s legitimacy within Islamic fiqh:

• The incompatibility of territorial/sovereign unity with classical caliphate or imamate theories.
• Unequal rights enjoyed by Muslims across distinct Islamic states.
• Equal treatment of non-Muslims in modern governance, contrasting with differentiated rights in classical fiqh.

He insisted that legitimizing national citizenship hinges on addressing these challenges coherently; absent such resolution, the divide between political fiqh theory and lived governmental reality in the Islamic world endures.

In the ensuing critique, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Hossein Javan Arasteh offered supplementary and critical observations on conceptual and methodological premises, stressing the imperative for rigorous re-examination of “nation,” “ummah,” “nationality,” and “citizenship.”

Commencing from the Pillars of the State

Appreciating the presentation, he underscored methodological rigor in the discussion’s point of departure: Citizenship analysis must begin with state pillars, as it derives meaning within the nation-state framework. States in customary systems comprise population (nation), territory, and sovereignty; citizenship discourse principally pertains to the population pillar, independent of sovereignty type or democratic character.

Rejecting conflation of citizenship with unqualified rights equality, he clarified: Such equality is not intrinsic to citizenship; even modern states distinguish between native and naturalized citizens (e.g., barring the latter from select high offices in certain jurisdictions).

Conceptual Separation of “Nation” and “Ummah”

Referencing nationality scholarship, he advocated conceptual distinction coupled with structural synthesis between “nation” and “ummah.” In an Islamic state, he proposed viewing “nation” as composite: encompassing the faith-based Islamic ummah and non-Muslims residing thereunder via dhimma or contractual pacts.

He observed that modern nationality is inherently political/contractual, devoid of necessary religious hue; thus an expansive, shar‘i-compliant conception of nation remains viable in Islamic governance.

Expanded Citizenship Model and the Islamic Ummah Ideal

Drawing parallels with regional entities like the European Union, he suggested that just as citizenship has scaled regionally in modernity, the “Islamic ummah” ideal could inspire transnational convergence—albeit constrained presently by international legal realities.

Citing Article 11 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitution, he affirmed that the Constitution endorses the national state while upholding the aspiration for Islamic ummah unity.

Feasibility of Citizenship in Islam – 4 Imperative of Conceptual Scrutiny of Citizenship and Ummah

Professor Rahai insisted on conceptual clarity: The intended theory of citizenship must first be specified, given its polysemy in modern legal discourse.

He emphasized precise exploration of citizenship’s interplay with “ummah,” “wilayah,” and “pact” in Islamic sources, cautioning against oppositional framing of ummah versus nation. The Qur’anic/hadithic term “ummah” admits varied usages compatible with nation.

Re-examination of the Medina Charter and Historical Periodization

Professor Rahai advocated meticulous historical study of the Medina Charter, urging differentiation between pre- and post-Charter fiqh. Certain jizya/dhimma rulings arose from post-conflict contexts and cannot be retrojected to the nascent Prophetic state.

Invoking Surah al-Anfal:72, he highlighted graduated political affiliations in early Islam (Muhajirun, Ansar, non-migrant Arabs, Meccan residents), suggesting these gradations inform citizenship conceptualization.

Feasibility of Citizenship in Islam – 5 Questioning the Autonomy of “Citizens’ Rights” as a Distinct Branch

Professor Danesh-Pazhuh questioned whether “citizens’ rights” constitutes an independent legal field: Prevailing classifications feature civil, criminal, commercial, and administrative law, but “citizens’ rights” typically aggregates intra-citizen entitlements rather than standing alone.

He underscored the comparative-law distinction between nationality (membership in the state-forming population, realizable via faith or pact in Islam) and citizenship (not necessarily coterminous with political participation or wilayah).

Concluding, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Ali Sharifi thanked the contributors, noting time limitations precluded deeper conceptual treatment; the forthcoming written version addresses citizenship definitions, typologies (national, regional, cultural, global), and ummah relations exhaustively.

He clarified the core focus: re-reading modern citizenship—tied to defined rights/duties and frequently democracy—in light of Islamic teachings. The endeavor seeks not rejection but contextual redefinition within Islamic political-fiqhi theory.

The session ended with calls for sustained scholarly engagement and appreciation for deepened conceptual-historical inquiry.

An Enduring Question in Contemporary Political Fiqh

The “Feasibility of Islamic Citizenship” session revealed citizenship as far more than a public-law matter: it constitutes a critical nexus linking religion, sovereignty, territory, and identity in the modern Islamic world—from the Medina Charter to present nation-states—remaining central to political fiqh discourse.

The critical exchanges affirmed that formulating Islamic citizenship within contemporary national-state frameworks demands profound theoretical rethinking and sustained dialogue between fiqhi heritage and present political realities.