Islam Professes and Practices Ethics of Pluralism
The
Quran Terms Jews, Christians and Other Monotheist Communities Ahl-e-Kitab, Not
Kafir
Main
Points:
1. Islam
preaches good relations with other religious communities.
2. Islam
preaches equality for all citizens.
3. The Charter
of Madina was based on the ethics of pluralism.
4. The Quran
describes a section of Jews and Christians as mumineen.
-----
By
New Age Islam Staff Writer
10 June
2022
The
relation between the Muslims and other religious communities has been a subject
of debate because of the exclusivist and inclusivist interpretations of the
Quranic verses. There is a small coterie of the Islamic scholars who, based on
their supremacist outlook, believe that the historical Islam is the only true
religion and all other religions are false. Even if they believe that the faith
of Prophet Jesus and Prophet Moses was revealed by Allah, they also believe
that with the revelation of Islam, all the previous religions have become
outdated and now those believing in them are heretics or Kafirs. The general
notion of the common Muslims thanks to this interpretation is that the Jews and
the Christians are Kafirs. They don't give a thought to the term Ahl ul
Kitab used by the Quran on a number of occasions. The Quran calls a section
of the People of the Book Fasiq (sinners) or Mufsid (corrupt)
because of their deviant ways and innovative beliefs not testified by the
Scriptures. The Quran does not brand all the People of the Book as Kafirs. Take
this verse for example:
"And
if the people of the book had believed it would have been better for them, some
of them are indeed believers but most of them are fasiqun."(Al-e-Imran).
Here the
actual word (Fasiq) has been reproduced to convey the true sense of the
verse. The Urdu translation has the word Nafarman which does not convey
the true sense. Here the Quran does not call them Kafiroon but calls
them Fasiqun. It is important to not that even a Muslim is called a Fasiq
when he is involved in un-Islamic practices.
Indeed the
Quran terms those among the people of the book who practice shirk or go totally
against the fundamental beliefs and practices of the Abrahamic religions as
kafirs. But not all the people of the book are considered Kafirs.
Therefore,
this was the reason the Charter of Madina was based on the ethics of pluralism
and it became the basis of the law making in the most Islamic nations. Later,
many modern Islamic scholars, exegetes and thinkers like Muhammad Asad and
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan stressed on the ethics of pluralism envisaged in the
Quran.
The
Ummayyid caliphate in Spain, the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt, the Ottoman
caliphate in Turkey and the Mughal Empire in India was based on this ethic of
pluralism.
It is also
a fact that in about a century of the foundation of the State of Madina, a
confessional identity emerged among the Muslims but this phenomenon was a
reaction to the confessional identity of other religious communities that tried
to weild a political influence on other religious communities. Therefore, this
confessional identity of Muslims was a result of their struggle to establish
themselves as a nation with a distinct political identity.
However,
this movement for making Muslims a distinct religious community gave to a
puritanical outlook of religion and later gave birth to sectarianism in Islam.
Sufism was discarded by a section of Muslims as a legacy of Christianity and so
on. Based on the puritanical beliefs of different sections of Muslims many
sects came into existence.
Dr. Adis
Dudreja's article deals with this issue of relationship of the Muslims with
other religious communities in the initial stage of Islam and in the modern
world perspective.This is an important issue which needs to be resolved in
order to bring the ongoing identity crisis in the Muslim world to an end.
----
The
Muslim and Religious ‘Other’: Reflections on Early Islam and Beyond from the
Perspective of Contemporary Scholarship
By Dr
Adis Duderija
June 6,
2022
Image:
Cordoba Mosque/Church, Spain. Credit: Marianne/Flickr.
------
How do the
primary sources of Islamic teaching, the Qur’an and Sunna (i.e. the living
tradition), approach the relationship between the Muslim Self and the religious
Other?
To begin to
answer this question more needs to be said about the environment in which the
Qur’anic revelation and the early living tradition unfolded. Even a cursory examination of the nature of
the Qur’an as Revelation and its content shows it was organically linked to this context, including its dimension that
relates to the relationship between Muslims and the religious Other. Beyond
scripture, the approach taken by various Muslim communities in history in
relation to this question has also varied.
Ze’ev
Maghen, a noted scholar of the nature of interactions between Muslims and non-
Muslims in early Islam, described the context and the dynamics behind the
relationship between Muslims and their normative tradition and non-Muslims,
with what the Qur’an terms the communities of the People of the Book (ahl
al-kitab – Christians, Jews and others), in the following manner:
‘Islam’s
relationship with the People of the Book has had its ups and downs. The growing
familiarity of the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula with the ideas, institutions
and communities of the surrounding monotheisms, followed by the initial and
increasingly intense encounters of the nascent Muslim Ummah with the same, bred
the complex mixture of attitudes to Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism
discernable through the classical literature of the faith. The seminal texts
and genres— Qur’ān, Hadīth, Tafsīr, Sharh, and Fiqh— evince a multifaceted and
pendulating posture vis- à- vis the religio- cultural “other” that partakes
more of dialectic than dogma’
Based on
Maghen’s analysis, in addition to studies done by noted scholars Yohanan Friedmann and Jacques Waardenburg, several general points need to be considered.
First, as
noted briefly above, the context behind the emergence of Islam was such that it
took place alongside other already well- established religious communities, the
most important of which, apart from Arabian pre- Qur’anic beliefs, were
Judaism, Hanifiyya, and Christianity. The very fabric and nature of the message
embodied in the Qur’an clearly depicts many of the events and attitudes of the Muslim
community toward the non-Muslim Other and vice versa.
Second, as
noted above, it is essential to point out that the Qur’anic attitude (and
Muhammad’s praxis) toward the non-Muslim Other is highly contextual in nature
and therefore could be described as context-dependent. As such, scholars have talked about the presence of salvifically
inclusivist and exclusivist verses in the Qur’an.
Additionally,
for the large part of the ‘formative period’ of the Muslim community in Medina,
a climate of conflict, friction, and hostility prevailed among Muslims, Arab
polytheists, large Jewish tribes, Christians, and what Qur’an terms religious
hypocrites (munafiqun), under which Muslims were constantly concerned about the
sheer survival of their community.
William
Montgomery Watt, a noted scholar of the formative Islamic period, described the circumstances and the motives behind the
relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially between the Prophet of
Islam and Jews in Medina, as follows:
‘In
Muhammad’s first two years at Medina the Jews were the most dangerous critics
of his claim to be a prophet, and the religious fervour of his followers, on
which so much depended, was liable to be greatly reduced unless Jewish criticisms
could be silenced or rendered impotent. . . . in so far as the Jews changed
their attitude and ceased to be actively hostile, they were unmolested’
This
context often expressed itself in a reactionary, antagonistic type of identity
toward the religious Other. This is well evidenced not only in the Qur’an but also in additional
‘canonical’ literature such as the hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. This has
led to the development of ideas and religious/legal concepts such as al- wala’
wa’l bara’ and tashabbuh bi-l kuffar that emphasised the distinctiveness of
Muslims in relation to the Religious Other.
In the
modern context, Islamic fundamentalist and extremist groups have employed these
concepts to not only distance themselves from whom they consider to be
unbelievers (kuffar) but from what they view to be deviant Muslims. Proponents
of Islamic moderation (Wasatiyya) and progressives are rethinking these
concepts through applying a contextualist and historical lens to them, thereby
either restricting their applicability or challenging their validity.
This
context-dependency of the scriptures toward the view of the Religious Other
(and, therefore, by implication the religious Self) led scholar Jacques Waardenburg to assert that ‘Looking back at the interaction
of the new Islamic religious movement with the existing religious communities,
we are struck by the importance of socio-political factors’.
Religious
ideas were also significant in understanding the nature of the Muslim Self and
Religious Other relationship, since, as alluded to above, Qur’anic Islamic
religious identity is inextricably linked with the religious identity of
others, notably Jews and Christians. Thus, the religious aspects of, and
interactions between, various religious communities in the Qur’anic milieu led
to the construction of religious identity of Muslims and played a particularly
important role in it. For example, in his study on the question to what extent
Qur’anic scripture emphasised confessional distinctiveness, Scholar Fred Donner asserted that, scripturally (that is, based
upon Qur’anic evidence) and in early Islam, the community which Donner terms
the Believers (Mu’minin) seems to have been originally conceptualised as
independent of confessional identities. (It was only later— apparently during
the third quarter of the first century A.H.— that membership in the community
of Believers came to be seen as confessional identity in itself: Being a
Believer and Muslim meant that one could not also be a Christian, say, or a
Jew.) In other words, Donner adduced substantial evidence that it could be
argued that Qur’anically (some) Jews and Christians qualify as Mu’minun
(believers) as well as Muslimun (those who submit to God).
Friedmann detected a similar ancient layer in the Islamic
tradition during which the boundaries of the Muslim community had not been
precisely delineated and according to which ‘the Jews and the Christians
belonged to the community of Muhammad.’
This ‘ancient layer of tradition … was in general more considerate
toward the People of the Book than that which eventually became the established
law’.
Another
trend significant in the historical development of the Muslim religious Self
vis-à-vis the Religious Other was the gradual, ever-growing, religious
self-consciousness of the Prophet of Islam and his early community. While
attempts to find common ground occurred more frequently during the earlier
periods of Muhammad’s life, later periods increasingly stressed confessional
and self-conscious Muslim identity.
An additional
point to be considered is the Qur’anic concept of a Hanif/Millat Ibrahim. Qur’anically, this belief system is presented
as a primordial, monotheistic Urreligion based on the belief in One, True God
as embodied by Abraham’s message (Arabic, Ibrahim)— considered as the universal
belief system and as potentially the final evolution in Qur’an’s attitude
toward the religious Self and the Other. As noted by Waardenburg, it is, however, unclear whether the Qur’an
identified what became historical Islam ‘as the only or merely as one possible
realization of the primordial religion, the Hanīfīya, on earth.’
Beyond
Early Islam
In the
post-revelatory times, the major delineating feature that marked the
relationship between the Muslim religious Self and the religious Other was the
fact that Islam became an imperial faith, and that Muslims in many contexts
belonged to the ruling elite. Hence, Muslims were in a position ‘to determine the nature of their relationship
with the others in conformity with their world-view and in accordance with
their beliefs.’ How Muslims determined
this relationship is varied, with examples of both the ethic of pluralism and
exclusivism. My focus will be on the ethic of pluralism.
The notion
of ‘ethic of pluralism’ that I use here is embodied in the idea of intrinsic
metaphysical unity between human beings. It is akin to the argument that in the
soul of each human being resides a spark of Divine flame which connects all to
the Divine as well as to each other. One consequence of this spiritual unity of
the entire human race is the idea of respecting the religious Other and, on
this basis, working together toward the achievement of common goals and
interests. This is only possible if coexistence and mutual respect regarding
the religious Other are the norm. This ethic of pluralism in Islam was, to
various degrees of success, implemented in past and present Muslim societies. Historians of Islam name the Umayyad Spain, Fatimid
Egypt, Ottoman Turkey, and Mughal India as examples of Muslims ‘who based their
policies towards minorities on the Qur’an’s intrinsically humanist ethos,
exemplified to them by the Prophet in his community at Medina’.
In more
contemporary times, some attempts by Muslim political and religious leaders,
such as those behind the Marrakesh Declaration on the rights of religious
minorities in predominantly Muslim majorities can be seen to stay true to and
amplify this ethic of pluralism. The immediate context that saw the urgent need
for the establishment of this legal framework and call to action was the rise
of violent extremist Muslim groups such as ISIS/Da’esh, but the timing of the Declaration itself was
to mark the 1,400th anniversary of the Charter of Medina which it describes as
a ‘constitutional contract between the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and
blessings be upon him, and the people of Medina, which guaranteed the religious
liberty of all, regardless of faith.’
Among
others, the Declaration calls upon the various national religious groups ‘to
address their mutual state of selective amnesia that blocks memories of
centuries of joint and shared living on the same land; we call upon them to
rebuild the past by reviving this tradition of conviviality, and restoring our
shared trust that has been eroded by extremists using acts of terror and
aggression’ and to ‘affirm that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the
purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim
countries.’
Some contemporary
progressive Muslim groups have taken the ethic of pluralism beyond its
moral, ethical, legal and socio-political dimensions and have developed an
Islamic soteriology and theology of pluralism.
The
Muslim Other
Early Islam
witnessed several foundational events that not only significantly shaped the
relationship between the Muslim Self and the Religious Other, but also the idea
of the Muslim Internal Other. Faced by
the mushrooming of diverse Muslim theological and juristic schools of thought
in the first two to three centuries of Islam in particular (some of which are
still present today despite a millennium of attempts by many to enforce an
Islamic orthodoxy) as the Islamic interpretive tradition began to take shape
one of the main questions that entertained the minds of many a Muslim
scholar/theologian is what it means to be a true Muslim and what are the
boundaries of faith (Iman). Some answers
to these questions are documented by pre-modern Muslim scholars such as
Shahrastani (d.1153 CE), one of the earliest Islamic ‘heresiographers’ and
scholar of comparative religion in his work Religious Parties and Schools of
Philosophy [i.e. Kitāb al-milal].
It is
noteworthy that, historically speaking, the major theological schools in Islam
have theologically invested a lot in the idea of a Saved Sect, a trend that
still exists today
predominantly in Athari/Salafi and Asha’ri schools of thought providing
a very narrow understanding and definition of the concept of a religiously ideal believer. Relatedly, the
accusations of unbelief, including in what today are considered mainstream approaches to the
Islamic tradition, were not infrequent.
The answer
to the questions of correct belief remains contested as does the idea of what
constitutes (Sunni) Islamic
orthodoxy to this
very day, reminding us of the reality of a very diverse number of Islamic sects
and denominations over time. Over the last two decades we have witnessed an
increase in Islamic sectarianism and despite some efforts to enhance Islamic ecumenism the
current socio-political and religious reality suggests that the major religious
players are too invested in their own versions of Islamic history to be able to
overcome this sectarian heritage that they carry and, in many ways, embody.
Conclusion
In summary,
it would be fair to conclude that the relationship between the Muslim religious
Self and the religious Other was contextual and underwent several shifts and
developments that are evident both in the nature of the Qur’anic revelation and
in early Muslim history. Given the
nature of the historical sources, the exact dates of these shifts cannot be
ascertained with certainty and therefore no uniform normative stance on the nature
of this relationship can be deduced. This conclusion is reflected in the
ongoing debates between various Muslims groups as to what this attitude or
approach toward the Religious Other should be. The aforementioned Marakesh
Declaration, the path of Islamic extremist and progressive groups are examples.
Just as
importantly the Islamic tradition, not unlike any other world religion, is also
steeped in debates pertaining to intra-Muslim differences, theological or
otherwise, and has given rise to an extraordinarily rich tapestry of Islamic
sects and denominations. In this respect the continued diversity of ways of
being a Muslim today and associated debates about what constitutes Islamic
orthodoxy is a timely reminder that the question of the normative relationship
between the Religious Self and the Religious Other is not something that
applies just across reified religious traditions but is also an integral part
of the very dynamic, historically contingent self-understanding of every
religious tradition, Islam included.
---
Dr Adis
Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of
Humanities, Languages and Social Science ; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith
and Intercultural Dialogue. Griffith University | Nathan | QLD 4111 | Macrossan
(N16) Room 2.27
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-pluralism/professes-practices-ethics-pluralism/d/127214
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism