This article addresses the question
of how to deal with religious diversity from an Islamic perspective. It
is divided into five parts. Part one is the introduction. The second part
describes three important responses to the phenomenon of religious diversity
and is accompanied by a mention of the strengths and weaknesses of each
of these approaches. The third part mentions an Islamic approach to the
solution of the problem.1
The fourth part mentions three criticisms on that solution and my responses
to them. The fifth part concludes the article.
I Introduction
Despite the undeniable contribution
of religion to human welfare, it threatens to be seriously divisive, especially
if limits of disagreement amongst religious people are not properly respected.
Whereas diversity of religious traditions can ideally help people in comparing
the relative strengths of the teachings of their respective faiths and
in adjusting accordingly, religious bigotry – the tendency to claim truthfulness
of one’s own faith and treating all others as worthy of condemnation –
leads not only to suffering for many, it also results in drawing many people
away from the idea of taking religion seriously. Although in the recent
past religious bigotry was beginning to appear less pronounced, many events
have led the conscientious people of the world to realize that the monster
is very much alive. The bloody civil war in Bosnia, the horrible events
of September 11, 2001 and their consequent aftermath, the lingering bloodshed
in Israel and Palestine, the unending manifestations of hatred between
Hindus and Muslims in India and many other similar unfortunate examples
around our misery-stricken world strongly beg all religious groups of the
world to urgently attend to the curse of extreme religious bigotry.
II Approaches to deal With the Phenomenon of Religious
Diversity
a) The Exclusivist Approach
The most commonly known approach on
religious diversity is the one followed by Religious Exclusivists who imagine
that they are the sole custodians of religious truth to the complete exclusion
of all others. It was the followers of this approach amongst Christians,
for instance, who sent an open letter in September 1991 to all Clergy in
the Church of England and the Church of Wales claiming that salvation is
offered only through Jesus Christ who is the only savior and the only way
to God.2 Similar strong Exclusivist
views are to be found amongst Muslims and Jews as well. The Qur’an mentions
the Exclusivist approach of the Jews and the Christians of the Arabian
society at the time of its revelation thus:
وَقَالُوا
لَنْ
يَدْخُلَ
الْجَنَّةَ
إِلَّا مَنْ
كَانَ هُودًا
أَوْ
نَصَارَى (111:2) .
They claim: No one shall enter the Paradise except
the one who is Jew or Christian. (2:111)
Ironically, the same Exclusivist approach
has been adopted by many Muslims who claim that it is only they who shall
enter Paradise. They claim that their understanding is based on the Qur’anic
teachings which mention that all Kuffar (plural of Kafir)
will enter Hell. Many Muslims understand that since all non-Muslims are Kafir, therefore all of them are destined to Hell.3
The basic problem with the Exclusivist
approach is that it prevents the believer in a particular religious tradition
from conceding that adherents of other traditions can have any possibility
of following some version of religious truth to any degree. This leaves
hardly any room for imagining that salvation in the afterlife is possible
for those who don’t formally believe in the Exclusivist’s faith. The consequent
understanding of hopelessness in the religious status of non-believers
that naturally results can at times lead to hatred against them which in
its worst manifestation expresses itself in the form of violence. Even
if an Exclusivist is peaceful and apparently respectful towards people
belonging to other faiths, he is not doing so as a consequence of his genuine
understanding that the other person deserves it. He only does it as an
unavoidable social adjustment or as a part of a cleverly contrived long-term
strategy of undoing the other faiths.4
Commitment to the Exclusivist approach by a group of people is a potential
dynamite that can explode any time if exploited by a misled religious leader
or a political opportunist.
However, it could be mentioned on
the positive side of the Exclusivist approach that it enables the believer
to have the much needed confidence in the ultimate truth of his belief.
Khan has rightly pointed out that the only purpose of religious truth is
to provide man with confidence. Man desperately needs confidence of certainty
to live in this world. Religious truth provides him with exactly that.5
In case of absence of conviction, a religious belief is reduced to a mere
philosophical hypothesis or the final product of a confused collection
of a few spiritual experiences.
The critics of this approach fear
that this much-applauded attribute of Exclusivists brings along with it
the dreaded feeling of negation of other faiths, or else the confidence
that the believer is seeking would be unachievable. However, I will show
later that this conclusion is not necessarily the only possible result
which may proceed from an Exclusivist approach.6
b) The Inclusivist Approach
In an Inclusivist approach, the presenter
accepts the right of other faiths to survive side by side with the faith
of the Inclusivist, despite not accepting their validity. It allows them
reasonable breathing space and the possibility to exist with dignity.
The Vatican, for instance, adopted the policy of Religious
Inclusivism through its Decree of 1967 which expressed sentiments of cordiality
for other important world religions. Words of sympathy were reserved in
the decree even for those who choose to follow the approach of Atheism.7
There are, however, some scholars
who believe that Religious Inclusivism despite being a welcome improvement
on Religious Exclusivism doesn’t go far enough to address the menace of
religious bigotry. They believe that there is a tendency in it to see other
faiths as good in so far as they have points in common with Christianity.
The Inclusive position remains convinced of its own superiority, even though
it recognizes how much it has in common with other faiths and with all
people of good will. Inclusivism goes a long way but not far enough.8
Badham’s criticism of Christian Inclusivists
is only partly valid. It is not quite fair to claim that the Vatican Decree
acknowledges the existence of other faiths only in so far as they have
points in common with Christianity. His observation is correct when one
views the Decree’s approach towards Muslims and Jews. However, with the
magnanimity of the Decree in accommodating Atheists,9
who share nothing with the basic understanding of Christianity, the Vatican
has done enough to escape Badham’s criticism.
I disagree with the basic spirit of
the Vatican Decree on account of its inconsistency with the Biblical teachings.
The New Testament of the Bible states thus:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life.10
If the Christians believe this understanding
to be correct, they should not expend their energies to unnecessarily vindicate
other faiths. After all, if Jesus Christ (sws) is the only saviour for
the humans, desperate efforts should be made by Christians to ensure that
those who don’t accept that understanding should be made to believe in
it. Praising the ‘misleading’ teachings of non-Christian faiths should
be seen by committed Christians as an attempt to guide the non-Christians
towards destruction. The polite and accommodating tone of the Vatican Decree
doesn’t seem to be doing justice with the real spirit of the Biblical text.
c) The Pluralist Approach
According to the Pluralist approach,
all important religions are genuine human responses to the same Transcendental
Reality, even though influenced by the respective cultural environments
of the religious leaders. Thus all of them are simultaneously correct,
and all offer important insights into the understanding of the Ultimate.
Religious Pluralism is claimed to
be ‘totally open-ended search for truth based on the assumption that all
the major religions of humanity have insights to offer, and it must also
accept that much of the secular critique of traditional religion is justified
and needs to be taken on board also.’11
The Pluralist position rejects both Exclusivism and Inclusivism and calls
for genuine Religious Pluralism.
According to an explanation of the
rationale of Religious Pluralism, in this religiously ambiguous world both
faith and non-faith may be equally valid responses. The issue has to be
decided on the basis of the individual’s own experience or non-experience
of transcendent reality. The person of faith may feel justified in believing
as he does, because that is how they interpret some of their most precious
experiences. In the final analysis, all our thinking about the nature of
reality is interpreted on the basis of our experiences.12
The Pluralist solution of religious
diversity has been rejected by Khan, who maintains that truth can never
be plural. If truth is not singular, it is not truth. There isn’t any logical
truth in the theory of Religious Pluralism. Even though harmony amongst
humans is indeed essential, it cannot be achieved through artificial slogans
like ‘I am on the truth, likewise you too’. The only right way of achieving
harmony is to consider all people worthy of respect. The right formula
leading to religious unity is: ‘Follow one, respect all.’13
Khan, however, doesn’t offer any methodology
of inculcating the basic spirit that would inspire that respect. You don’t
show respect to others for nothing. If respect is not inspired by a true
theoretical clarity, it is bound to be shallow, artificial, and brittle.
It is likely to whither away under pressure. Many religious people reject
others as not worthy of their respect because they believe that those others
reject their perception of religious truth. Something needs to be done
to pacify that feeling or else respect for other faiths would remain an
unrealizable dream.
Pluralism is not an acceptable approach,
because it assumes that all religions are simultaneously correct, which
is an obvious absurdity. An individual seeks religion to get definite answers
to the problems he is facing. The problems that religion helps in solving
can’t be solved through half-certain answers. Uncertain answers to questions
like purpose of life, truth about life beyond death, and expectations of
our Creator from us are in fact no answers. The suggestion that God has
manifested His will to different people in different ways is, at best,
confusing. It is in the very nature of the questions that religion seeks
to respond that answers to them should be offered in most certain terms.
Uncertain answers are as good as no answers. It is the task of religion
to inspire confidence in the believer. Failure to do so would push a certainty-seeking
religious person into an uncertain territory of philosophy, which may claim
to enjoy the luxury of objective reflection, but is devoid of the pleasures
of confidence that emerges from religious certainty.
An example would clarify my point. The New Testament
of the Bible mentions the claim that Jesus is the son of God.14
The Qur’an, on the contrary, clearly rejects the possibility that
God can have a son.15 The
two claims cannot be simultaneously correct. Moreover, these claims do
not seem to be influenced by the respective cultural environments of the
religious leaders. They are confident, though conflicting, claims about
a religious position.
There is no doubt, however, that it
is this element of certainty in religion that is the cause of many of its
problems as well. Those who believe that what their message is mentioning
is the ultimate truth do so to the complete exclusion of any possibility
of respect for all other faiths. This gives rise to bigotry amongst believers.
In most cases, people belonging to one religious tradition don’t realize
that their counterparts in other traditions are equally confident about
the certainty of their own version of religion. Badham rightly believes
that this understanding is often the result of a complete absence of interaction
with people belonging to other faiths.16
The above discussion gives rise to
an important question: How could one be certain whether what one is following
is the true message of his God? The answer is that an individual would
need to be objective in examining the teachings of his faith to inspire
within him confidence about its veracity. This objective appraisal would
indeed raise questions that would seek answers. The answers would either
satisfy the believer to confirm his confidence in his faith still further,
or else would weaken it and as a consequence he would be inclined to look
for other alternative explanations. This struggle would continue until
the seeker of truth would either get relative certainty or else he would
continue his journey.
This quest for truth is helped by
the preaching efforts of believers of other faiths. An intelligent preacher
would not only be conveying his own message to others but would also be
objectively receiving message from those others as well. Thus believers
of different faiths can enter into meaningful dialogue for mutual benefit.
The possibility of such exchanges are severely curtailed by the understanding
of Religious Pluralism, which takes away the sense of urgency from the
believer who considers the other religious explanations equally valid too.
One might ask whether there is ever
a realistic possibility of such exchanges of religious views. Does it really
ever happen that way? The answer is in the affirmative. It does happen
amongst religious people in many cases. That is what explains the phenomenon
of conversions that continue to take place on a regular basis all throughout
the world. If one were to accept the explanation of Religious Pluralists,
then all the religions of the world would become strictly inward looking
in religious matters and would cease to attempt any possibilities of influencing
people of other faiths. That would indeed deprive religion and its followers
of the vibrant spirit of serving their faith that keeps them motivated.
It would be a tragedy to kill that spirit because of the fear that its
misuse could cause damage. The fact that aeroplanes do sometimes crash
doesn’t lead us to conclude that we should do away with them. What is attempted
instead is that more measures are introduced so that the frequency of such
accidents could be minimized. Likewise should be our attitude towards exchange
of religious views and preaching.
This process also ensures that religious
beliefs of people do not remain the end result of the process of brain-washing
but should be the outcome of intelligent choice-making. It is this process
of preaching and exchanges of religious views that enables the intelligent
believer to feel confident that he is not believing in his faith as a consequence
of being subjected to the process of one-sided propaganda for his faith
and that he is not being negatively brain-washed against other faiths due
to his ignorance. He would know, and many religious people do know, that
his faith is the end result of a process of exchange and voluntary selection.
The questions that remain unanswered
are: i) Is there any one version of true religion? ii) If yes, then are
all other versions untrue? iii) Is it always guaranteed that if a person
undertakes an earnest effort to know the ultimate truth, he would get it?
iv) If that cannot be guaranteed, then what is the purpose of any such
version of the ultimate truth? v) Is the individual who despite sincere
efforts fails to embrace the correct version of the ultimate truth to be
blamed for his failure?
The next section will attempt to answer
these questions from an Islamic perspective.
III The Islamic Approach
Muslims have normally been considered
Religious Exclusivists, who would not consider people of other faiths worthy
of respect for their religious commitments. This author believes that although
this view truly reflects the attitude of many – though not necessarily
most – Muslims it is not consistent with the correct understanding of the
teachings of Islam. The following presentation attempts to show how Islamic
teachings propose to tackle the issue of religious plurality.
Islam, on the one hand takes a firm
position in claiming that its teachings are the true version of reality
from God, on the other hand it also calls for genuine respect for all non-Muslims.
Even though a person influenced by the understanding of Religious Pluralism
may not be immediately impressed by this view, a better understanding of
the various verses of Qur’an on the subject would suggest that not
only is it the correct Islamic understanding, this position can be supported
rationally as well.
The Islamic understanding regarding
religious diversity can be briefly mentioned thus:
Man started his religious journey
with utmost clarity. This clarity was gifted to him by God a priori. However,
because the temporary worldly life was meant to be a trial, humans were
granted freedom. This freedom inclined them to differ and disagree in religious
matters. In response, God sent prophets who confirmed what was right and
rejected what was wrong. In the presence of the prophets, their addressees
could see religious reality in its pristine form and therefore they had
no justifiable excuse to reject it. Those who rejected it were declared,
after an adequate time of effective preaching had passed, Kafir,
which means a person who denies the truth from God despite knowing it to
be from Him.17 Some of these
prophets were Rasul (messengers), which is a status higher than
the rest of the prophets, who are called Nabi.18
In case of a Rasul, if his nation rejected him, it got destroyed in this
world, either through natural calamities or through the military might
of believers. In times when prophets are not present, neither anyone can
be identified as a Kafir nor can he be punished in this world for
not believing in a message brought by a messenger, because of the existence
of the possibility that the message may not have been properly and fully
delivered by the non-prophet preachers. Believers are therefore expected
to only preach intelligently in the absence of prophets. Since Muhammad
was the last Rasul (and Nabi), the possibility of anyone
getting labeled as a Kafir or punished for his disbelief after his death
is eliminated for ever.
While they are preaching, believers
are expected to show respect to other faiths and behave in a manner that
would not tarnish the image of their own religion. In case a non-Muslim
(or a disgruntled Muslim) is drawn away from Islam because of a Muslim’s
poor behaviour, the latter will be held responsible for his misconduct
and its consequences. The Qur’an says:
ادْعُ
إِلَى
سَبِيلِ
رَبِّكَ
بِالْحِكْمَةِ
وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ
الْحَسَنَةِ
وَجَادِلْهُمْ
بِالَّتِي
هِيَ
أَحْسَنُ
إِنَّ
رَبَّكَ هُوَ
أَعْلَمُ
بِمَنْ ضَلَّ
عَنْ
سَبِيلِهِ
وَهُوَ
أَعْلَمُ
بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ
(125:16) .
Call them to the path of your Lord with wisdom
and words of good advice, and reason with them in the best way possible.
Your Lord surely knows who stray from His path, and He knows those who
are guided the right way. (16:125)
In another passage it says:
وَلَا
تَتَّخِذُوا
أَيْمَانَكُمْ
دَخَلًا
بَيْنَكُمْ
فَتَزِلَّ
قَدَمٌ
بَعْدَ
ثُبُوتِهَا
وَتَذُوقُوا
السُّوءَ
بِمَا
صَدَدْتُمْ
عَنْ سَبِيلِ
اللَّهِ
وَلَكُمْ
عَذَابٌ
عَظِيمٌ (94:16) .
So do not make your oaths a means for deceiving
one another, lest a foot should slip after having found its hold, and you
taste of evil for having hindered [others] from the way of God, and suffer
a grievous punishment. (16:94)
Politeness, concern, respect, and tolerance
are therefore at the heart of a Muslim’s desired behaviour towards non-Muslims.
a. Qur’anic Evidence of the Given Understanding
i) All humans had the same religion. It was freedom of
choice given to them that led to differences. Prophets were then sent to
clarify the truth. Teachings of prophets clarified truth beyond any possibility
of doubt:
كَانَ
النَّاسُ
أُمَّةً
وَاحِدَةً
فَبَعَثَ
اللَّهُ
النَّبِيِّينَ
مُبَشِّرِينَ
وَمُنذِرِينَ
وَأَنزَلَ
مَعَهُمْ
الْكِتَابَ
بِالْحَقِّ
لِيَحْكُمَ
بَيْنَ
النَّاسِ
فِيمَا
اخْتَلَفُوا
فِيهِ وَمَا
اخْتَلَفَ
فِيهِ إِلَّا
الَّذِينَ
أُوتُوهُ
مِنْ بَعْدِ
مَا
جَاءَتْهُمْ
الْبَيِّنَاتُ
بَغْيًا
بَيْنَهُمْ (213:2)
.
Mankind were [to begin with]19
one community [then they differed among themselves], so God raised prophets,
as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and sent down with them the
book containing the truth that He might judge between people wherein they
differed. [But then they began to differ about the Book], and none differed
about it except those to whom it was given, after clear signs had come
to them, out of jealousies among them. (2:213)
ii) Islam is the true religion of God.
إِنَّ
الدِّينَ
عِنْدَ
اللَّهِ
الْإِسْلَامُ
(19:3). Surely the true religion with God is Islam.
(3:19)
iii) Those who deny the message from God do so deliberately
and therefore are worthy of condemnation:
الَّذِينَ
آتَيْنَاهُمْ
الْكِتَابَ
يَعْرِفُونَهُ
كَمَا
يَعْرِفُونَ
أَبْنَاءَهُمْ
الَّذِينَ
خَسِرُوا
أَنفُسَهُمْ
فَهُمْ لَا
يُؤْمِنُونَ
(20:6).
Those to whom We gave [a part of] the Book [earlier]
recognize him [Muhammad] as they recognize their sons. But those who ruin
their souls, they will not believe. (6:20)
فَلَمَّا
جَاءَهُمْ
مَا عَرَفُوا
كَفَرُوا
بِهِ
فَلَعْنَةُ
اللَّهِ
عَلَى
الْكَافِرِينَ
(89:2).
When there came to them that which they knew
[to be the truth] they rejected it. Let the curse of God then be on the
disbelievers. (2:89)
iv) Non-Muslims are not necessarily always Kafir.
a) Even during a certain stage in
the presence of prophets, non-Muslims are not Kafir, until such
time they deliberately reject their message.
تَرَى
كَثِيرًا
مِنْهُمْ
يَتَوَلَّوْنَ
الَّذِينَ
كَفَرُوا
لَبِئْسَ مَا
قَدَّمَتْ
لَهُمْ
أَنفُسُهُمْ
أَنْ سَخِطَ
اللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِمْ (80:5).
You shall see many of them [the Jews and Christians]
making friends with those who disbelieve [against Muslims]. Surely evil
is that which their souls have sent on before for themselves, so that God
is displeased with them. (5:80)
The expression used in the above verse
is not ‘those who are disbelievers" (i.e. those who are Kuffar)
for Jews and Christians, but only for those Arabs who had already knowingly
denied the Prophet Muhammad (sws). The People of the Book are only accused
of being more friendly with the disbelievers than the believers (i.e. Muslims).
In other words, there was a stage in the preaching mission of the Prophet
Muhammad (sws) when the non-believing Jews and Christians were not categorized
as disbelievers (Kuffar)
b) So long as the Jews and Christians
were not convinced about the authenticity of Islam, they were required
to follow the message they thought was from God:
فَإِنْ
جَاءُوكَ
فَاحْكُمْ
بَيْنَهُمْ
أَوْ
أَعْرِضْ
عَنْهُمْ
وَإِنْ
تُعْرِضْ
عَنْهُمْ
فَلَنْ
يَضُرُّوكَ
شَيْئًا
وَإِنْ
حَكَمْتَ
فَاحْكُمْ
بَيْنَهُمْ
بِالْقِسْطِ
إِنَّ
اللَّهَ
يُحِبُّ
الْمُقْسِطِينَ
وَكَيْفَ
يُحَكِّمُونَكَ
وَعِنْدَهُمْ
التَّوْرَاةُ
فِيهَا
حُكْمُ
اللَّهِ
ثُمَّ
يَتَوَلَّوْنَ
مِنْ بَعْدِ
ذَلِكَ وَمَا
أُوْلَئِكَ
بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ
(5: 42-3).
[Muhammad!] if they [the people of the Book]
come to you [for judgment], judge between them or [if you so choose] turn
aside from them, they cannot harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between
them with justice. Indeed God loves those who are just. And how do they
make you their judge when they have with them the Torah, wherein is God’s
judgment, yet in spite of that they turn their backs. They are certainly
not believers. (5:42-3)
It can be inferred from the above verse
that an individual is acknowledged as a believer so long as he honestly
believes and sincerely follows what he thinks is the truth. The Qur’an
is
not condemning the people of the Book for not accepting Islam in the above
verse, even though the prophet was in their midst. It is condemning them
for not following a message they themselves claimed was from God. That
is what displeases God the most. The Qur’an says:
يَاأَيُّهَا
الَّذِينَ
آَمَنُوا
لِمَ
تَقُولُونَ
مَا لَا
تَفْعَلُونَ
كَبُرَ
مَقْتًا
عِنْدَ
اللَّهِ أَنْ
تَقُولُوا
مَا لَا
تَفْعَلُونَ
(61:2-3).
O believers, why do you profess what you don’t
do? It is most hateful in the eyes of God that you say what you don’t practice.
(61:2-3)
c) Some non-Muslims have in fact been
praised in Qur’an for their good character and attitude:
وَمِنْ
أَهْلِ
الْكِتَابِ
مَنْ إِنْ
تَأْمَنْهُ
بِقِنطَارٍ
يُؤَدِّهِ
إِلَيْكَ
وَمِنْهُمْ
مَنْ إِنْ
تَأْمَنْهُ
بِدِينَارٍ
لَا
يُؤَدِّهِ
إِلَيْكَ
إِلَّا مَا
دُمْتَ
عَلَيْهِ
قَائِمًا (75:3).
Among the people of the Book there are those
who if you trust them with a treasure, will return it to you; and among
them there are those who, if you trust them with a dinar, will not return
it to you, unless you keep standing over them. (3:75)
لَيْسُوا
سَوَاءً مِنْ
أَهْلِ
الْكِتَابِ
أُمَّةٌ
قَائِمَةٌ
يَتْلُونَ
آيَاتِ
اللَّهِ
آنَاءَ
اللَّيْلِ
وَهُمْ
يَسْجُدُونَ
يُؤْمِنُونَ
بِاللَّهِ
وَالْيَوْمِ
الْآخِرِ
وَيَأْمُرُونَ
بِالْمَعْرُوفِ
وَيَنْهَوْنَ
عَنْ
الْمُنْكَرِ
وَيُسَارِعُونَ
فِي
الْخَيْرَاتِ
وَأُوْلَئِكَ
مِنَ
الصَّالِحِينَ
(3: 113-4).
They are not all alike. Among the people of the
Book there is a party who stand by their covenant; they recite the Word
of God in the hours of night and prostrate themselves before Him. They
believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin good and forbid evil, and hasten
to vie with one another in good works. And these are among the righteous.
(3:113-4)
وَإِنَّ
مِنْ أَهْلِ
الْكِتَابِ
لَمَنْ
يُؤْمِنُ
بِاللَّهِ
وَمَا
أُنْزِلَ
إِلَيْكُمْ
وَمَا
أُنْزِلَ
إِلَيْهِمْ
خَاشِعِينَ
لِلَّهِ لَا
يَشْتَرُونَ
بِآيَاتِ
اللَّهِ
ثَمَنًا
قَلِيلًا
أُوْلَئِكَ
لَهُمْ
أَجْرُهُمْ
عِنْدَ
رَبِّهِمْ
إِنَّ
اللَّهَ
سَرِيعُ
الْحِسَابِ (199:3).
And surely among the People of the Book there
are some who believe in God and in what has been sent down to you and in
what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They trade
not the signs of God for a paltry price. It is these who shall have their
reward with their Lord. Surely God is swift in settling account. (3:199)
v) Disbelievers (Kuffar) are bound to fail.
إِنَّ
الَّذِينَ
كَفَرُوا
مِنْ أَهْلِ
الْكِتَابِ
وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ
فِي نَارِ
جَهَنَّمَ
خَالِدِينَ
فِيهَا
أُوْلَئِكَ
هُمْ شَرُّ
الْبَرِيَّةِ
(98:6).
Indeed those who disbelieve from among the people
of the Book and the idolaters, will be in the fire of Hell, abiding therein.
They are the worst of creatures.(98:6)
Such statements as the one above, if not
understood in the right context, result in are extreme form of religious
Exclusivism and bigotry.
vi) Well-meaning believers of different faiths have been
promised paradise.
إِنَّ
الَّذِينَ
آمَنُوا
وَالَّذِينَ
هَادُوا
وَالنَّصَارَى
وَالصَّابِئِينَ
مَنْ آمَنَ
بِاللَّهِ
وَالْيَوْمِ
الْآخِرِ
وَعَمِلَ
صَالِحًا
فَلَهُمْ
أَجْرُهُمْ
عِنْدَ
رَبِّهِمْ
وَلَا خَوْفٌ
عَلَيْهِمْ
وَلَا هُمْ
يَحْزَنُونَ
(62:2).
Surely, those who believe [the Muslims] and the
Jews and the Christians and the Sabians,20
whoever [from among them] believes in God21
and the last day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their
Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (2:62)
Those not included in the above-mentioned
list of people who have been promised salvation in the Hereafter are the
ones who deny God and the Hereafter, or don’t perform good deeds.22
The significance of this statement is that while there could be reasons
for people not accepting messages of rightful prophets because of lack
of proper information, belief in God and the life Hereafter and inclination
to do good deeds is naturally gifted in man. To turn one’s back on them
amounts to revolting against one’s God-given nature.
Concluding Remarks on the Islamic Approach
Although at the time of prophets,
truth from God used to be so clearly manifested that there was no possibility
for anyone to deny it, and therefore those who did so were considered worthy
of being punished, no such claim could be made for the non-prophetic periods.
Muslims have therefore got to perform only one role: preach and respect
others for their faith, because they can never be sure whether the other
people have rejected or stayed away from accepting the message of Islam
despite knowing it to be from God.
This approach is different from Exclusivism
in that it allows other faiths the space to operate given the realization
that full information about religious truth is unavailable and it is not
possible to deliver the religious message of Islam to non-believers as
effectively as prophets did. This approach is neither Religious Inclusivism
of the sort adopted by the Vatican Decree23,
nor Religious Pluralism as proposed by Rowland Williams, John Hick, and
Paul Badham. It allows the believer to be as confident about his faith
as an Exclusivist, but requires him to be as tolerant in dealing with the
people of other faiths as a Pluralist. It is, in fact, a call for religious
tolerance because of the possibility of lack of proper communication of
the true message of God. Since no body knows whether the other individual
has been communicated the message of Islam properly, therefore, no Muslim
has the right to condemn any non-Muslim on grounds of religious differences.
Having mentioned that, I feel that
an important question needs to be addressed: Why have all these differences
been allowed by the Almighty? John Hick has this to say about it:
He … has created us at an epistemic distance
from Himself in order that a response to Him can be genuinely free.24
This understanding comes close to the
Qur’anic
view
on the subject insofar as freedom is concerned. However the Qur’anic
understanding
would not entirely agree with Hick’s suggestion that we are at an epistemic
distance from God. The distance is there, but it varies from individual
to individual in all environments. It allows the individual to travel the
distance in his journey towards God freely within the constraints of his
environment and intellectual and spiritual potential. The important thing
is that there is a level of certainty which is achievable in this world.
The Qur’an calls it ‘Ilmu’l[-Yaqin’ (ie intellectual certainty).25
In other words, these differences are there because of differences in circumstances
and abilities. These differences were created to test the moral possibilities
of individuals in different circumstances. The Qur’an says:
وَهُوَ
الَّذِي
جَعَلَكُمْ
خَلَائِفَ
الْأَرْضِ
وَرَفَعَ
بَعْضَكُمْ
فَوْقَ
بَعْضٍ
دَرَجَاتٍ
لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ
فِي مَا
آتَاكُمْ (165:6).
And He it is Who has made you successors [of
others] on the earth and has exalted some of you over others in degrees
of rank that He may try you by that which He has given you. (6:165)
Religious differences, in other words,
were meant to see as to who performs well given his own range of information
constraints. Had He done it otherwise, it would have amounted to use of
force on His part, which would have defeated the very purpose of conducting
a free test. The Qur’an says:
وَعَلَى
اللَّهِ
قَصْدُ
السَّبِيلِ
وَمِنْهَا
جَائِرٌ
وَلَوْ شَاءَ
لَهَدَاكُمْ
أَجْمَعِينَ
(9:16). And upon God rests [the showing of] the right
way, and there are ways which deviate [from the right course]. And if He
had [enforced] His will, He would have guided you all. (16:9)
The circumstantial differences will however
not be allowed to influence the all-important outcome in the life hereafter
for the individual. According to the Qur’an, each individual shall
be rewarded or punished in the afterlife on the basis of a judgment that
will be made strictly in accordance with the individual’s circumstances.
It says:
لَا
يُكَلِّفُ
اللَّهُ
نَفْسًا
إِلَّا
وُسْعَهَا (286:2).
God burdens not a soul beyond its capacity. (2:286)
أَلَّا
تَزِرُ
وَازِرَةٌ
وِزْرَ
أُخْرَى
وَأَنْ
لَيْسَ
لِلْإِنسَانِ
إِلَّا مَا
سَعَى (53: 38-9).
No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of
another. And that man will have nothing but what he [himself] strives for.
(53:38-9)
This understanding also helps in explaining
why Muslims should behave differently in their treatment of the non-Muslims
despite the fact that the messengers in some cases at least could be seen
as inflicting apparently harsh treatment on their opponents. The reason
according to this explanation lies in the fact that those who were treated
that way were guilty of an extremely serious crime: denying the message
of God even after knowing that it was from Him. As for the non-believers
of the other periods, no one can be harmed for his faith due to the realization
of the other person’s information constraints. This limitation was recognized
even at the time when Muhammad (sws) himself had preached with utmost clarity
and was ultimately required to inflict Divine punishment on the disbelievers
for knowingly rejecting God’s message. Even at that time the Qur’an
makes
an exception for the people who may not have received the message clearly.
It says thus:
وَإِنْ
أَحَدٌ مِنْ
الْمُشْرِكِينَ
اسْتَجَارَكَ
فَأَجِرْهُ
حَتَّى
يَسْمَعَ
كَلَامَ
اللَّهِ
ثُمَّ
أَبْلِغْهُ
مَأْمَنَهُ
ذَلِكَ
بِأَنَّهُمْ
قَوْمٌ لَا
يَعْلَمُونَ
(6:9).
And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection
of you, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God; then
convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people
who have no knowledge.(9:6)
The teachings of Islam emphasize that
there should be no religious persecution and individuals should be allowed
the liberty to choose and practice their religion freely. A Muslim state
is allowed or, in some cases, even religiously obliged to undertake Jihad
(war)
against the society which is persecuting people because of their beliefs.
The Qur’an urges the believers thus:
وَمَا
لَكُمْ لَا
تُقَاتِلُونَ
فِي سَبِيلِ
اللَّهِ
وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ
مِنْ
الرِّجَالِ
وَالنِّسَاءِ
وَالْوِلْدَانِ
الَّذِينَ
يَقُولُونَ
رَبَّنَا
أَخْرِجْنَا
مِنْ هَذِهِ
الْقَرْيَةِ
الظَّالِمِ
أَهْلُهَا
وَاجْعَل
لَنَا مِنْ
لَدُنْكَ
وَلِيًّا
وَاجْعَل
لَنَا مِنْ
لَدُنْكَ
نَصِيرًا (75:4) .
What has come upon you that you fight not in
the cause of God and for the oppressed men, women, and children, who pray:
‘Get us out of this town, O Lord, whose people are oppressors; so send
us a friend by your will, and send us a helper’.(4:75)
The Qur’an expects similar force
to be used to defend religious buildings of other faiths as is desired
to be used to defend Islamic places of worship. It says:
الَّذِينَ
أُخْرِجُوا
مِنْ
دِيَارِهِمْ
بِغَيْرِ
حَقٍّ إِلَّا
أَنْ
يَقُولُوا
رَبُّنَا
اللَّهُ
وَلَوْلَا
دَفْعُ
اللَّهِ
النَّاسَ
بَعْضَهُمْ
بِبَعْضٍ
لَهُدِّمَتْ
صَوَامِعُ
وَبِيَعٌ
وَصَلَوَاتٌ
وَمَسَاجِدُ
يُذْكَرُ
فِيهَا اسْمُ
اللَّهِ
كَثِيرًا
وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ
اللَّهُ مَنْ
يَنصُرُهُ
إِنَّ
اللَّهَ
لَقَوِيٌّ
عَزِيزٌ (40:22).
And if God had not repelled some people by means
of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the
name of God is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And God
will, surely, help him who helps Him. God is indeed Powerful, Mighty. (22:40)
IV Criticism on the Islamic Approach
i) The point of view stated above
has been created from only a few verses of the Qur’an. If the entire
Qur’an
is
considered to form an opinion, then one could find many verses which appear
extremely intolerant towards non-Muslims. What has been presented is only
a one-sided picture which most fundamentalist Muslims don’t agree to and
therefore they behave with non-Muslims in an intolerant way. Even if the
point of view mentioned in this paper was assumed to be correctly reflecting
the Qur’anic view, the question that still remains unanswered is
this: Why then has it been mentioned in such an ambiguous way that even
most of the Muslim scholars were not able to understand it?
Response: This point of view, in fact,
claims to explain each and every verse of the Qur’an. The principle
on which it is based is that the Qur’an was revealed to the prophet
to enable him to accomplish his prophetic mission. A part of the mission
was to deliver a message which was meant for all times to come. However,
another part of the message of the Qur’an was meant for the prophet’s
immediate mission of establishing the practical dominance of Islamic teachings
in the Arabian Peninsula. There are many verses of the Qur’an about
which most Muslims agree that they were era-specific.26
There are some others about which there is ambivalence, not in the text
itself, but in the understanding of the scholars who have not been able
to place them properly. Those who are presenting a more aggressive, militant
understanding because of their claim that all verses of Qur’an have
practical validity for all times, would find it difficult to explain some
of them.27
ii) If the view presented in the paper
is accepted, it has to be conceded that God wanted non-Muslims at the time
of the prophet to be either crushed or subjugated. This understanding too
is not going to sink too well with the understanding of justice and benevolence
a humane religion is expected to display.
Response: The conclusion drawn
about the non-Muslims of the prophet’s era is true. Islam would not be
apologetic about it. The reason is that God wanted that the evidence of
religious truth be established with certainty and then people be allowed
to decide freely about their religion. If messengers (Rasul) were
not given the opportunity to dominate, the message of truth wouldn’t have
disseminated. Moreover, the Qur’an doesn’t want believers to have
sympathy for the criminals who received God’s message most clearly and
yet rejected it. No system would tolerate the activities of a criminal
who despite being informed time and again that what he is doing is unacceptable
still continues to indulge in acts of high treason against the state. If
an individual was convinced that a letter was sent to him by his Creator
and he tore it apart out of arrogance, no punishment should be considered
too harsh for him. On the other hand, if Muslims were unfair in their understanding
or implementation of Islam, they too would not be able to escape accountability.
The Qur’an says:
لَيْسَ
بِأَمَانِيِّكُمْ
وَلَا
أَمَانِيِّ
أَهْلِ
الْكِتَابِ
مَنْ
يَعْمَلْ
سُوءًا
يُجْزَ بِهِ
وَلَا يَجِدْ
لَهُ مِنْ
دُونِ
اللَّهِ
وَلِيًّا
وَلَا
نَصِيرًا (123:4) . It is neither dependent on your wishes [O Muslims]
nor the wishes of the people of the Book; whosoever does ill shall be punished
for it, and shall find no protector and friend apart from God. (4:123)
iii) Who is going to take the responsibility
for the suffering that has already taken place because of the incorrect
understanding of some Muslims?
Response: God Almighty has
made this temporary life an occasion for trial. The real life is the one
to come that would be eternal. If one is looking for complete justice in
this world, one is living in a fool’s paradise. This world is unfair and
would remain so as long as human freedom is allowed to be influenced by
desire, prejudice, hatred, and other weaknesses. The only reason why a
Muslim is looking for justice here is because that it is going to bring
him success in the Hereafter. Those who suffer in this world innocently
will be compensated adequately in the Hereafter. Suffering in this world
is a part of the package of trial. We can only lessen suffering in this
world, and all good Muslims ought to aim at that objective. However, the
way this life has been designed, injustice and suffering cannot be eliminated.
That is why, according to the Qur’an, it makes no sense to not believe
in the life Hereafter. God would make sure that all injustices of the worldly
life are fully taken care of in the next life. In fact, one cannot possibly
do greater harm to the cause of human welfare than to deprive humanity
of a confident hope of a lasting life after death, based on principles
of justice.
V Conclusion
The correct Islamic approach towards
non-Muslims is to assume that all of them have, as yet, not been properly
convinced about the authenticity of the Divine origins of the teachings
of Islam. It is for the Muslims to help the non-Muslims to appreciate the
truthfulness of the Islamic teachings. That would require not only intelligent
preaching on their part but, even more importantly, a behaviour of respect
for the fellow human beings, irrespective of their faith. In case if they
have to criticize other religious views, they should criticize only ideas
and those too intelligently.
The absence of the desired behaviour
on the part of some Muslims has been an important reason for their failure
to present Islam as a message that is worthy of being taken seriously by
non-Muslims. It will only be taken seriously by them if Muslims are peaceful,
tolerant, and respectful towards other faiths while they continue their
peaceful struggle to convince non-Muslims politely.
|