London, I.B. Tauris, 2012
Introduction
The Trajectory of Tolerance
tolerant faith – al-ḥanīfiyya al-samḥa
About the tolerance of islam, words of:
Sir Hamilton Gibb, Sir Thomas Arnold, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Bernard Lewis,
Through an insidious symbiosis
between fanatical Muslims and hysterical Islamophobes, the very opposite image
of Islam has emerged as one of the most malevolent stereotypes of our times:
the image of the rabidly intolerant Muslim is paraded, not as the grotesque caricature
of authentic Islam that it is, but rather as the ‘true’ Muslim.
To speak of the islamic tradition is to speak of an explicit recognition of the divinely-inspired phenomenon of religious plurality.
In objective, historical terms, the Islamic world should be seen as
having provided living models of tolerant conduct for an evidently intolerant
Christian world. The trajectory of tolerance was from East to West.
False view: “In principle, Islam is an intolerant religion, and in
practice, Muslims have always been intolerant; Muslims, therefore, need to
learn about tolerance from the West, as they have no tradition of tolerance of
their own.”
- the transmission to the West
of the idea of religious tolerance is but the tip of an iceberg of Islamic
influence on Western civilisation, impartial cognisance of which has been all
but submerged beneath the tidal waves of passion and prejudice against Islam in
recent times
Ignorance breeds fear, and fear
produces intolerance. Knowledge engenders respect which leads to tolerance.
Greek thought was overwhelmingly
transmitted to the West through Islamic sources.
Robert Briffault argues that what was transmitted from the Arabic
sources to the West was much more than simply Hellenic data.
George Makdisi employs an
immense amount of erudition to substantiate his convincing argument that the
philosophy of ‘humanism’ underpinning the Renaissance owes much to Muslim
perspectives on the meaning and nature of the human being.
tawḥīd – divine
unity
Makdisi points also to the
evidence of Islamic influence upon the Western scholastic method of inquiry:
that of the developed dialectic as found in Islamic jurisprudence.
- the
so-called ‘rationalisation’ of war in the West, it being more ‘rational’ to
destroy the enemy than be distracted by notions of honour;
“We could define religious
tolerance in two ways: in minimalist or ‘secular’ terms on the one hand, and in
maximalist or ‘sacred’ terms on the other. Minimally, tolerance is equated with
an open-minded attitude towards all religions and their adherents, an attitude
which engenders actions, policies and laws aimed at protecting the rights of
all religious communities to uphold and implement their religious beliefs
without prejudice or hindrance. This secular approach to tolerance has achieved
considerable success in establishing the inviolability of the principle of
freedom of religion. [...] Maximally, religious tolerance can be defined in
terms of a positive spiritual predisposition towards the religious Other, a
predisposition fashioned by knowledge of the divinely-willed diversity of
religious communities. If the diversity of religions is perceived to be an expression
of the will of God, then the inevitable differences between the religions will
be not only tolerated but also celebrated: tolerated on the outward, legal and
formal plane, celebrated on the inward,
cultural and spiritual plane.” (p. 14)
A tolerant attitude emerges as
the consequence of a kaleidoscopic vision of unfolding divine revelations, a
vision which elicits profound respect for the religions of the Other.
- purely secular approach to
tolerance carries with it the risk of falling into a corrosive relativism of
the ‘anything goes’ variety
“One of the chief lessons here
is that tolerance of the Other is in fact integral to the practice of Islam; it
is not some optional extra, some philosophical or cultural indulgence, or,
still less, something that one needs to import from some other tradition.” (15)
- tolerance goes hand in hand
with Islam at its height, while the spirit of tolerance declines with the
decline of Islamic civilisation itself
Tom Winter: transcendentaly-ordained tolerance
- a Muslim cannot be true to the
deepest intentions of Islam unless his soul radiates that ‘primordial,
generously tolerant faith’ (al-ḥanīfiyya al-samḥa) which the Prophet referred to
- one tolerates the religious
Other not least because truth, beauty, wisdom and virtue are present in the
religions of the Other; these universal principles are not the exclusive
property of any group or religion, but rather form part of the patrimony of the
whole of humanity
Part 1. A Glance at the
Historical Record
- a modicum of historical
research suffices to refute the claim that the only true Muslim is an
intolerant one
- those instances of dogmatic
intolerance in Islamic history are exceptions that prove the rule
The Ottomans
According to Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, the Ottoman Empire was
a classic example of the plural society.
The millet system <= arabic milla, ‘religious community’
The spirit of religious
tolerance was the guiding principle of this system within which religious
communities were permitted to govern themselves, in return for the payment of
the jizya
(poll-tax)
and recognition of the political authority of the Ottoman rulers. The system
was established under Mehmet II (r. 1451–1481) who conquered Constantinople in
1453. One of his first acts was to appoint Gennadius Scolarius as patriarch of
the Greek Orthodox community now referred to as a millet. The Patriarch
was given the rank of a pașa ‘with three horsetails’; he had the right to apply the laws
of the Orthodox faith to his followers, in both religious matters and such
secular domains as education, hospitals, social security and justice.
The tolerance that typified
Ottoman rule stemmed not from any exceptional circumstances, still less from
the whim of the rulers, but from the very nature of the system per se.
- religious discrimination was
operative within this system, Muslims being clearly the ruling class
- the hierarchical organisation
of religious communities did not entail persecution or intolerance, only the
relegation of the minorities to what would be called today ‘second-class’
status
- the sultan’s role was largely
symbolic, this was because so much power was de facto delegated not
only to the autonomous millets, but also to the professional guilds, various corporations
and religious societies, including the futuwwa (chivalric) orders, Sufi tarīqas and waqf organisations.
- the Ottomans saw themselves
not as ‘colonisers’ but as ‘incorporators’;
- the Eastern Orthodox
‘preferred the Sultan’s turban to the Pope’s tiara’
The same pattern of Catholic
persecution and Muslim toleration is visible in the case of the conversion of
half of the Christian population of Crete.
Ottoman conquest was followed almost
without exception by Islamic tolerance.
All the Ottoman sultans, in
particular Murād II, Bāyezīd II, Selīm I, and Murād III, took a close interest in
the Mevlevīs. Murād II founded a large Mevlevī lodge in Edirne.
The Mughals
Thanks to the centuries of
predominantly peaceful contact between Islam and Hinduism dating from the
Muslim conquest of Sind in the early eighth century, elements of Indic culture
had entered into and enriched the forms taken by the Islamic faith in India,
and Islam in its turn, influenced the development of certain expressions of
Hindu religious and social life.
Kabir, Guru Nanak, Dadu Dayal
- the peak of tolerance attained
during the Mughal period
- it was Akbar who, during his
long reign of almost fifty years in the second half of the sixteenth century,
was to weave these religious and social tendencies into a culture which was
altogether dominated by the principle of tolerance; a culture that was,
moreover, eminently successful in purely political terms, and at the same time
immensely fruitful in the field of spirituality, literature and the arts
- two key policy changes: the
abolition of the jizya, or poll-tax paid by non-Muslims to the state, and the
abolition of the tax on Hindus performing pilgrimages
One of the mainsprings of his
religious policies was his undoubted sensitivity to the sacred dimension of
life, and, hand in hand with this, an appreciation of the idea that no one
religion has a monopoly on the sacred.
The influence of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s
universalism upon Akbar’s religious attitudes and policies cannot be denied.
But one should not conclude from this that Akbar’s position was based more on
the Sufi doctrine of Ibn al-ʿArabī than on the Qurʾānic ethos of tolerance.
mujaddid – spiritual renewer
Even if, for some Muslim
commentators, Akbar’s ecumenism was deemed excessive, none can deny that his
policies, attitudes and bridgebuilding efforts in relation to the religious
Other deepened and consolidated the ethos of tolerance which was already
characteristic of the evolving Mughal culture into which he was born and
brought up.
The Fatimids
One of the key distinguishing
features of the Fatimid dynasty was the tolerance it extended not only to
non-Muslim minorities, but also to different schools of thought within Islam
itself.
dhimma – protection
amān – pledge of security
madhhab – legal school
The Fatimids saw not just the
‘People of the Book’ (ahl al-kitāb, i.e., Christians and Jews), but also all Muslims as being
protected by their dhimma.
Even though the Ismailis were
known for their missionary activity, there was no attempt by the holders of
power in Egypt and other lands ruled by the Fatimids to impose Ismaili Shiʿism upon the
Sunni populace.
- a
group of Ismaili philosophers (‘Brethren of Purity’) indicate that the ideal
philosophical approach to the phenomenon of religious diversity is to have
empathy for all, to pray for all, and to avoid all polemics in matters of
religion.
- tolerance was not just good
politics, it was also sound theology
One should also note the work of
the great Fatimid philosopher, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 934), entitled Aʿlām al-nubuwwa (‘Signs of
Prophecy’). In this work one finds an ecumenical approach to the question of
religious truth, which is upheld through arguments drawing in an unbiased
manner from Christian and Jewish scriptures
as well as from the Qurʾān.
Abū Ḥātim strongly defends the
transcendent unity of religions and the celestial origin of all authentic
religions . . .
Aʿlām al-nubuwwa is without
doubt one of the most important Islamic works in what is known today as
comparative religion.
The spirit of tolerance
governing Islamic law is what strikes the objective observer of Islamic history
as the rule, intolerance being evidently the exception.
In regard to the issue of places
of worship, one notes that the Fatimid imam-caliphs, particularly al-Muʿizz and
al-ʿAzīz, granted full rights to Christians and Jews both to build and to
restore their churches and synagogues.
This tolerant policy was
continued into al-Ḥākim’s rule, so much so that it led to criticism from some
quarters that he was unduly favourable to the Christians at the expense of the
Muslims.
Al-Ḥākim gave the order to
destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which was under the
suzerainty of the Fatimids at this time. Towards the end of his reign, al-Ḥākim
returned to the Christians the expropriated churches and convents, as well as
their lands, and allowed them to reconstruct the demolished buildings.
The Umayyads of Cordoba
Samuel Goitein: “Judaism inside
Islam was an autonomous culture sure of itself despite, and possibly because of,
its intimate connection with its environment. Never has Judaism encountered
such a close and fructuous symbiosis as that with the medieval civilisation of
Arab Islam.”
Those who remained Christian
were soon named Mozarab (from the Arabic mustaʿrab, ‘one has become Arabised’ or mustaʿrib, ‘one who
seeks to be Arabised’).
The culture nurtured by the
Muslim elites was one in which this goal could be pursued by all, within a
common medium, the Arabic language; so what one observes is not so much a
‘secular’ culture being pursued outside the framework of religion, but rather
the opposite: Muslim tolerance allowed Jews and Christians, as well as Muslims,
to express in their own unique ways their deepest spiritual aspirations.
The example set by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
II during his thirty-year rule (822–852) is instructive in this regard.
It is clear that for such a
ruler, the distinction between the religious and the secular would not have
made much sense; the category of ‘religion’ or ‘faith’ was simply expanded beyond
the fields of theology and law and thus came to encompass all that was noble, beautiful
and true. It was this cosmopolitan culture that both Jews and Christians found
irresistible: they were invited to extend their own religious identity to
embrace these diverse domains of life and culture. The result was the creation
of a universal cultural milieu or ‘space’ in which all three religions found a
home, interacting fruitfully with each other in the language proper to this new
space, even while retaining, on the specifically theological and juridical
planes, their own unique and thus irreducible confessional identity.
With the expulsion, murder or
forced conversion of all Muslims and Jews following the Reconquista of
Spain—brought to completion with the fall of Granada in 1492—it was to the
Ottomans that the exiled Jews turned for refuge and protection. They were
welcomed in Muslim lands throughout North Africa, joining their co-religionists
already settled there, and also establishing new Jewish communities.
Dhimmīs: ‘Protected
Minorities’
The word dhimmī comes from a
root meaning ‘blame’: the idea here is that any violation of the religious,
social or legal rights of the protected minority was subject to the ‘censure’ (dhamāma, madhamma) of the Muslim
authorities, who were charged with the protection of these rights;
the protected minorities are not
only the Jews, Christians and Sabeans—the religious communities named in the Qurʾān
as belonging to the ‘People of the Book’ (ahl al-kitāb); the dhimmī category was de
facto expanded to include such religions as Zoroastrianism,Hinduism and Buddhism
The origin of the institution of
the dhimma
lies
in a series of agreements made by the Prophet Muḥammad with various tribes and
groups in the Arabian peninsula. The following pact, concluded with the Christians
of Najran, to whom we shall return below, is a primary example of what the dhimma of the Prophet
meant. According to this pact, legal recognition, religious tolerance,
political protection and socio-economic rights were granted by the Muslim state
in return for the payment of the jizya
In recent times, however, it has
become somewhat fashionable for critics of Islam to stress the ‘second-class’
status of dhimmīs, while ignoring
or belittling the ethical values and spiritual principles of which the dhimma was a more or
less faithful institutional embodiment
A key issue in the historical
debate about the dhimma pertains to the humiliation that is supposed to be entailed
by the payment of the jizya.
Observing the practice of the
Prophet and his immediate successors—and many of the rulers thereafter—it is
clear that the jizya was supposed to be received in a spirit of magnanimity and justice, without any hint of condescension or
contempt for those paying the tax.
One of the most
momentous and far-reaching acts of tolerance established by the Prophet’s
successors was that enshrined by the second caliph, ‘Umar b. al-Khat.t. āb, at
the conquest of Jerusalem in 638. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius,
refused to hand over the keys of the city to anyone but the caliph in person,
who agreed to this condition and came to the city not as a proudly triumphant
conqueror but as a humble pilgrim. After entering the city, the muezzin made
the call to prayer. The Patriarch invited ʿUmar to perform his prayers in the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, but ʿUmar declined, and prayed outside the church, for
fear his action would later be taken as a pretext to convert the church into a
mosque. Not only did he guarantee security and freedom of worship to the
Christian inhabitants but he showed equal reverence to the holy sites of the
Jews, personally taking part in the cleaning of the Temple Mount, which had
been converted into a rubbish dump under the Christians.
The Jacobites, Melkites and
Nestorians were the main Christian sects in the territories conquered by the
Muslims in the eastern part of the Byzantine empire, principally Syria,
Mesopotamia and Persia, in the first wave of the expansion of Islam.
let us note the
following important statement by ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, fourth caliph and first of
the Shi‘i Imams; it helps to disclose the essence of the dhimma institution,
that is, the underlying trajectory intended by the spirit of Muslim tolerance
of the religious Other: ‘Those who have contracted the agreement of dhimma have done so
such that their lives and their properties should be as inviolable as our own’.
a concise and irrefutable
diagnosis of the contemporary malaise within the Muslim world: since the tolerant
compassion that is so central to this great religion has been subordinated
to anger and bitterness, the
mercy of God has been withdrawn from those ‘who have caused it to deviate
Imam Shamīl of Dagestan, hero of
the wars against Russian imperialism,
The institution of the dhimma is thus
predicated on the universal principle of tolerance; it is not to be thought
that the principle of tolerance should be restricted in its application to the
particular institutional form it assumes as the dhimma.
It is clear, then, that the
institution of dhimma/jizya is more a historically conditioned contingency than an
unconditional theological necessity. It met the requirements of a particular
historical context, which was governed by the exigencies of imperial politics;
the dhimma
effectively introduced a mode of
tolerance into that context, without this implying that the principle of
tolerance is exhausted by, or restricted to, this particular institutional
form.
Part 2. The Spirit of Tolerance
- the spirit of tolerance that normally
characterised the legal and political attitudes of Muslims
towards the religious Other
should be appreciated as a direct consequence of the spiritual ethos of the
Islamic revelation
- the historical record is to be
evaluated in terms of the principles revealed in the Qurʾān
The Qurʾānic perspective on
religious plurality clearly opens up contemplative angles of vision which go
far beyond mere tolerance of the powerless by the powerful. The religious Other
is not just tolerated but respected; indeed, at a higher level, the religion of
the Other can become a source of inspiration for the Muslim who is sensitive to
the deeper currents of the Qurʾānic discourse on religion and religions. The
Muslim record of tolerance is therefore to be regarded as an empirical,
historically contingent expression of a spiritual ethos which comprises
trans-historical, universally valid principles.
Tolerance and Revealed Knowledge
- the spirit motivating the
ethic of tolerance in Islam is a corollary of, not simply knowledge, but sacred knowledge,
derived from divine revelation and assimilated by intellectual reflection
“The Qurʾān provides the
believer with spiritually irrefutable evidence that religious diversity is
brought about by the will of God and is not a regrettable accident of history;
and that this divine will manifests profound wisdom, and not caprice or whim.”
(p. 76-77)
- the
second part of the Qurʾānic verse 48 from the chapter entitled ‘The Table
Spread’ (al-Māʾida)
In the chapter entitled ‘The Prophets’,
verses 48 to 92 present brief references to a whole series of Biblical
figures—Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, David, Solomon, Job,
Ishmael, Enoch, Ezekiel, Jonah, Zechariah, Mary and Jesus. Then comes the
following verse: ‘Indeed, this umma of yours is one umma, and I am your
Lord, so worship Me’ (21:92). The
implication here is that the
whole of humanity consists of one community, even if it be internally divided
into different religious communities configured around one prophet or a group
of prophets
“We make no distinction between
any of His Messengers . . .” (2:285)
- in Islam, the concept of
knowledge enjoyed an importance unparalleled in other civilizations
The primordial or immutable
nature of the human being is at one with the quality expressed by the word ḥanīf, the root
meaning of which is to swerve or incline continuously towards something. The ḥanīf is therefore
one who is by nature and disposition permanently oriented
to the oneness of ultimate
reality on all levels—doctrinal, spiritual and ethical; he is a ‘monotheist’ in
the most profound sense of the term.
The ḥanīf is one who
inclines permanently to the fiṭra, the natural ‘stamp’ impressed on the soul by al-Fāṭir
For the fiṭra comprises the
potentiality of spiritual perfection, and this in turn implies that the seeds
of all knowledge are contained within the human soul.
- the centrality of the Qurʾānic
verse 5:48 to the principle of religious plurality in Islam
- ‘non-categoric supersession’, according
to which the religions deemed to have been superseded by Islam retain, in
different degrees, their salvific efficacy on account of the revelation at the
source of their tradition
Verse 5:48 contains several key
principles:
1) The Qurʾān confirms and
protects all
divine
revelations preceding it
2) The plurality of revelations,
like the diversity of human communities, is divinely-willed
3) The diversity of revelations
and plurality of communities is intended to stimulate a healthy ‘competition’
or mutual enrichment in the domain of ‘good works’
4) Differences of dogma,
doctrine, perspective and opinion are inevitable consequences of the polyvalent
meaning embodied in diverse revelations; these differences, and even the
disagreements they might engender, are to be tolerated on the human plane, and
will be finally resolved in the Hereafter
Confirmation and Protection
Belief in the spiritual
equivalence of all scriptural revelations is an essential part of Muslim belief
in God, in the divine provenance of the Qurʾān, and in the finality of the
prophethood of Muḥammad.
The unrestricted scope of
prophetic guidance means that no human community is left without a guide: ‘For
every community (umma) there is a Messenger’ (10:47)
God’s reality and unity is
proclaimed by all the Messengers, who were sent to every community on earth,
with modes of guidance which differed outwardly according to the diverse needs
of the different communities: ‘And We never sent a Messenger save with the
language of his people, so that he might make [Our message] clear to them’ (14:4).
Despite the media stereotypes
fashioned by modern Islamophobic propaganda and Muslim extremists alike, there
is no place in Islam for any kind of ‘holy war’ for the spread of the faith:
the simple words ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ renders absurd any effort
to force people to become Muslims.
Another objection should be
addressed here. Verse 3:85 states: ‘And whoever seeks a religion other than
Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the
Hereafter.’ How can this be reconciled with the claim that Islam confirms and
protects all religions? One answer is to look at what the word ‘Islam’ means
here: is it the specific religion heralded by the Qurʾān and conveyed by the
Prophet Muḥammad, or is it universal ‘submission’, the literal meaning of the word,
that same submission spoken of in relation to all previous prophets and their
faithful followers? Abraham, for example, as we saw earlier, is referred to as
both a ḥanīf
and
a muslim. The religion,
‘Islam’, is therefore not to be identified exclusively with the final
manifestation of the principle defined by the Arabic word, islām.
islām encompasses all
revelations, which can thus be seen as so many different facets of the same
principle of submission. Rather than simply designating a specific religion, islām can be
appreciated as indicating a fundamental disposition of soul toward the guidance
bestowed by
divine revelation.
Plurality of Faiths
In respect of the creation of
man, we might see the ‘sign’ of the sheer diversity of races, languages,
colours and ethnicities as being a reflection of the infinite nature of divine
creativity, itself a ‘sign’ of the infinitude of God per se. Just as God
is both absolutely one yet immeasurably infinite, so the human race is one in
its essence, yet marvellously variegated in its forms.
The Prophet is instructed in the
Qurʾān: ‘Say: I am not a novelty among the Messengers’ (46:9). He transmits
nothing ‘new’, he merely brings, freshly minted, the one primordial message of
revelation, a message which comprises diverse modes and facets, but which
remains always one and the same in its essence. One of the glories of the Qurʾān
is the fact that it constitutes the consummation of the revelations preceding
it, a kind of crystallisation of the quintessence of all possible revelation;
He who counsels his own soul
should investigate, during his life in this world, all doctrines concerning God.
He should learn from whence each possessor of a doctrine affirms the validity
of his doctrine. Once its validity has been affirmed for him in the specific mode
in which it is correct for him who upholds it, then he should support it in the
case of him who believes in it (Ibn Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam 7:156)
Healthy Competition
- the kind of ‘competition’ in
good deeds enjoined by the Qurʾān has nothing to do with proving the superiority
of one’s religion, which thus becomes an extension of one’s egotism rather than
the means of overcoming it.
It is neither wise nor beautiful
to engage in mutual recrimination and religious polemics.
If Muslims indulge their own ‘desires’
that salvation be restricted to Muslims in the specific, communal sense, then
they are making exactly the same error as those Christians and Jews who assert
that they, alone, are the ‘chosen people’.
The qualities of fanaticism and
pride come together in a particularly striking way in the disobedience of
Iblis, the devil
Inevitability of Difference
The verse which tells us that ‘there
is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256) logically implies that differences of
opinion on that most contentious and potentially explosive of all subjects,
religion, must be tolerated and not suppressed
the Muslim is called upon to
bear witness to his faith, certainly, but the manner of doing so should be in conformity
with beauty and wisdom: the Qurʾān calls for bearing witness through wise
discourse and not polemical diatribe
The Prophetic Paradigm:
Compassionate Forbearance
- there can be no authentic
assimilation of the mysteries of divine revelation, the meaning of prophetic
guidance, or the depths of authentic knowledge, without the full participation
of the whole personality
- the Prophet’s character is
described, almost invariably, in terms of gentleness and kindness, concern and
compassion; and it is these qualities which must be emulated by all Muslims who
wish to ‘follow the Prophet’, and thus become lovable to God
his magnanimity and mercy
towards the Quraysh at the peaceful conquest of Mecca in 630
Imam ʿAlī refers to the forces
which are engaged in this battle for the soul: the intellect commands the
forces of al-Raḥmān
(the
Compassionate), while caprice (hawā) commands those of al-Shayṭān (the devil).
Ḥilm is closely
related to compassion and peace as well as the power necessary for
self-dominion. Jahl, on the contrary, is associated with ruthlessness and
agitation, along with the moral weakness of vainglory and self-aggrandisement
To truly ‘follow’ the Prophet is
to realise and to radiate—at least to some degree—that quality of loving mercy
which sustains and nurtures ḥilm and the qualities associated with it, such as the spirit of
tolerance
To venerate the Prophet is to
emulate his ‘noble example’—whence the inestimable importance of the popular
recounting of stories from the sīra (biographies of the Prophet) literature
and the immense wealth of the poetry in all Muslim languages, extolling the
qualities of the Prophet.83 Love of the Prophet is regarded as an indispensable
aspect of faith in God: ‘None of you will have [complete] faith until I am dearer
to him than his own soul’, the Prophet said
the true faqīh, ‘the one who
understands’, not just ‘the jurist’, the primary meaning of fiqh being ‘understanding’
or ‘comprehension’, and only later coming to acquire the specific idea of legal
comprehension
“The point we wish to stress
here is that the prohibition on compulsion in religion, together with its
implicit corollary, the necessity of tolerance in all matters pertaining to
religious faith and individual conscience, is not so much a simple injunction
arbitrarily plucked out of the air by the inscrutable will of God, and which
man must simply implement in unquestioning obedience to that will. Rather, it
is an injunction that presupposes a degree of discernment, and in turn contributes
to the full realization of that initial discernment.” (p. 126)
When one knows through
revelation that religious diversity is divinely willed, such knowledge inspires
tolerance as a spiritual, and not just an ethical imperative.
the well-attested episode in the
life of the Prophet: In the ninth year after the Hijra (631), a prominent
Christian delegation from Najrān, an important centre of Christianity in the
Yemen, came to Medina to negotiate a treaty and engage the Prophet in
theological debate - When the Christians expressed their desire to pray—presumably
to perform some form of congregational liturgy—the Prophet invited them to
accomplish their rites in his own mosque
Another such act was the
protection by the Prophet of the icon of the Virgin and Child in the Kaʿba. He
instructed all idols within the holy house to be destroyed, but, according to
at least two early historians, Wāqidī and Azraqī, he himself protected this
icon, not allowing it to be destroyed
the charter, said to be sealed
by the Prophet him - self, granting protection to the monastery of St Catherine
in Sinai. The charter states that wherever monks or hermits are to be found ‘.
. . on any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea or in
the deserts or in any convent, church or house of prayer, I shall be watching
over them as their protector, with all my soul, together with all my umma; because they
[the monks and hermits] are a part of my own people, and part of those
protected by me.’
Epilogue
- debunk the pernicious
stereotype of the unhealthy symbiosis between intolerant Muslims and prejudiced
Islamophobes
In July 2005, King Abdullah II
of Jordan convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world’s
leading Islamic scholars from 50 countries in Amman. The scholars unanimously
issued a ruling on three fundamental principles:
(1) They specifically recognised
the validity of eight schools of law within Islam: the four principal schools
of Sunni jurisprudence (Shāfiʿī, Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī); the two principal
Shiʿi schools (the Jaʿfarī madhhab, with which
the Ismaili school was affiliated, and the Zaydī madhhab); the ʿIbādhī
school; and the Ẓāhirī school.
(2) Based upon this
all-embracing definition of who is a Muslim, they forbade the practice of takfir, that is,
declaring infidel anyone who is included in the above mentioned schools of law.
(3) The scholars then affirmed
that only those fatwas issued by experts trained in the above schools of law
are to be recognised as valid.
‘A common Word’ - the most successful
interfaith initiative between Christians and Muslims to date
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu