There is a pervasive view in the media today that Islam does not support pluralism. Sadly, we often hear how difficult it is for non-Muslim minorities to live in peace and harmony in Muslim countries. Violent extremists who misuse Islamic theology to justify terrorist attacks have exacerbated prejudices against Muslims and today many people think that Muslims do not believe in pluralism and diversity. By contrast, history reveals that Islam — as preached in the Qur’an and exemplified by the life of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions — actually accepts, celebrates and even encourages diversity.

It should be noted that the term "minority" has no place in Islamic law. It has no place in sharia (a legal system based on Islamic principles) and jurists have never used the term. Rather, it emerged from Western societies, which use it to distinguish between ethnic groups. According to Islamic principles, everyone who lives in a Muslim state is entitled to enjoy the same rights of citizenship, despite the differences they may have in their religion or population size.

In 622 CE, when the Prophet Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina in the Arabian Peninsula and started to build the first Muslim state, he ensured that its Muslim and non-Muslim inhabitants could coexist in harmony. There was a substantial Jewish community in Medina, and the Prophet proposed an agreement of cooperation — between Muslims and the 11 Jewish tribes — called the Constitution of Medina, which Muslim historians and scholars generally accept as the first written state constitution.

This constitution spelled out Jews’ rights as non-Muslim citizens in the Muslim state. As a result, the Prophet managed to establish a multi-faith political community in Medina based on a set of universal principles. The rules set out in the constitution were meant to maintain peace and cooperation, protect life and property, prevent injustice and ensure freedom of religion and movement for all inhabitants— regardless of tribal or religious affiliation. Allegiance to the community superseded religious identity, as spelled out in the rules for joint defence: “each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document”.

The Prophet’s treatment of the "People of the Book", in this case Jews, showed religious tolerance as well as prudence. The constitution established the pattern for the future relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, specifying non-Muslim citizens as equal partners with Muslim inhabitants.

Almost 15 years later, when Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines, Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab granted its people, who were mainly Christians, safety for their persons, property and churches. As well-known British historian Karen Armstrong writes, “...[Umar] was faithful to the Islamic inclusive vision. Unlike Jews and Christians, Muslims did not attempt to exclude others from Jerusalem’s holiness”.

Umar’s assurance of safety to the people of Jerusalem stands as an important example for leaders in multi-faith societies today, and history has proven that when these examples were put into practice, non-Muslims were treated kindly and justly.

These examples of Muslim and non-Muslim coexistence are not confined to a specific time or place, but are meant to be applied in all times and places. Today, for example, Jordan's constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief. Christians in Jordan, who form the majority of non-Muslims, enjoy by law nearly ten per cent of the seats in parliament and have similar quotas at every level of government and society. Their holy sites, property and religious practices are protected from any kind of interference by the state.

Cultural and social realities in many Muslim-majority societies have led to violations of the rights of non-Muslims in contemporary times. Looking at Islamic history, however, demonstrates that the path towards mutual understanding and tolerance does not deviate from the essence of Islam. On the contrary, to revive the spirit of inclusivity, Muslim societies should look to the Qur’an, and emulate the model it lays out.

An inclusive vision is, and always will be, the only safe haven for followers of other religions in an Islamic society.

(Photo: Hadar Naim)

I think most local muslim cultures accept some degree of pluralism even though they may be characterized as authoritarian, patriarchal and "traditional". It's a fiction that they do not...sure there are many movements, ideologies and ideologues who don't but who decides which is the exception?

"Violent extremists who misuse Islamic theology to justify terrorist attacks..."

First off, we need to dissect statement such as these that we have unconsciously learned from media outlets and commentators that do not know any better. Is the existence of the "violent extremist" the smoking gun evidence that muslims are inherently NOT pluralistic? Or is the existence of the "violent extremist" a manifestation of something else going in muslim society?

Also what about the non-violent folks who do not use islamic theology to justify terrorist attacks? And if they exist do they not have any responsibility in constructing a muslim society such that there are no violent extremists who justify terrorist attacks? Why do the Quran, past sacred muslim history, legal tradition, why are they the ONLY elements that should bear the responsibility (and provide the yardstick) of providing proof of pluralism? After-all aren't common muslims to some degree (large or small) walking-talking Qurans and evidence of Prophetic conduct?

Furthermore, why not also put the onus of the provision of pluralism to the dominant contemporary western consumerist culture that is enveloping the rest of the world and in some ways changing, manipulating and disfiguring other cultures?

These are all additional questions that need to be debated.

<According to Islamic principles, everyone who lives in a Muslim state is entitled to enjoy the same rights of citizenship, despite the differences they may have in their religion or population size.>

What utter nonsense! Can you say Dhimmi? :)

>Can you say Dhimmi?<

Can you say ignorant? Do you even know what a Dhimmi is?

"Can you say ignorant?"

How am I ignorant?

"Do you even know what a Dhimmi is?"

Do you know what a Dhimmi is?!

A Dhimmi is a protected person living under Muslim rule. The individual in question does NOT enjoy "the same citizenship rights" as s Muslim. Anyone who asserts otherwise is an ignoramus or a practitioner of taqiyya.

I think Mr. Abu-Munshar fits into the second category. My question is this: Why all of the dissimulation and apologeticism?

Why don't Muslims speak the truth about their history and the teachings of their faith tradition? As a Berber whose forefathers were at one time Dhimmis-or at least treated as Dhimmis by the descendants of the murders of Imam Hussain despite their conversion to Islam; I treasure that legal status more then the one conferred to me by the Global Humanist Establishment which demands that I rid my culture of any elements which erk it's Humanists sensabilities.

The Muslims unlike the Jacobin Fanatics in question are tolerant of social norms and values which are not in accordance with their dogmas and moral teachings.

Seems "dhimmi" is another misappropriated term that Islamophobes use to attack Islam and play off the ignorance of the public (similar to "Taquiyyah", "jihad", etc.).

Below is a well researched definition of what a "dhimmi" is:

http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/dhimmi-non-muslims-in-caliphate.html

"Caliphate Eu"

I am so sick and tired of the Islamic Modernists and their Marxist-Leninist Statism and Utopianism. No one wants to live in your police state!

Karen Armstrong in The Curse of the Infidel (Guardian, June 20, 2002) wrote: “In the Islamic empire, Jews, Christian and Zoroarastrians enjoyed religious freedom. This reflected the teachings of the Qur’an which is a pluralistic scripture, affirmative of other traditions. Muslims are commanded by God to respect the People of Book, and reminded that they share the same belief and same God.”

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/nationalism-another-name-for-racism/

>>> By contrast, history reveals that Islam..

How about present day reality? Islam is not promoting violence between different religions and communities in our current situation. There are numerous examples of Muslim charity and Muslim outreach that are amazing examples of the power of the message of the deen. Too much FOX and CNN is baaad for you.

And can we stop pretending that violence committed in Muslim lands is happening in an Islamic vacuum. I see this criticism levelled at the corrupt 3rd world countries as if being in a developing nation is the same as being corrupted. Its absurd supremacism and we're accepting its critique?

Asif >>> Why do the Quran, past sacred muslim history, legal tradition, why are they the ONLY elements that should bear the responsibility (and provide the yardstick) of providing proof of pluralism? After-all aren't common muslims to some degree (large or small) walking-talking Qurans and evidence of Prophetic conduct?

Thank you!

Massi >>> A Dhimmi is a protected person living under Muslim rule. The individual in question does NOT enjoy "the same citizenship rights" as s Muslim. Anyone who asserts otherwise is an ignoramus or a practitioner of taqiyya.

As always, not just enforcing a lower standard of civlisation, but calling it Islamic and just in the same breath. All the Caliphate utopian nuts need to look at the obvious flaws in this ones arguments to remind us that 13th century scholars like Taymiyyah are not our Prophet SAW.

We need a political model that works under present circumstances, and not a political model that may have applied a long time ago, as some philosopher imagined it a long time ago, about an age even older. And sucking up to the schools of some long gone days is not the same as respecting those men yet offering honest criticism of their unworkable edicts. 1400 years of history don't get washed away by an ideologues judgement of taqiyyah.

I respect the article for asserting core principles of Islam and verifying with clear examples from the life of the Prophet SAW and the clear guidance from the Quraan. Better analysis of revelation and its application, as well as a view of the world uncluttered by the political realities of the middle ages have proved Islams pluralist vision true. People who turn around and say that historical analysis is a ruse and our cultivation of civility and modern literacy is similar to disbelief are living double lives and have nothing to contribute to humanity but cynicism, and nothing to contribute to Islam but sucker punches and insults.

Civil Rights, Human Rights, Pluralism etc. are sophisticated ideas that serve the unifying message of our Deen. Denying wisdom and knowledge that is hard fought, is like letting a fruit fall to the ground and rot. We can't abandon knowledge once its found. Its unIslamic!

Karen Armstrong in The Curse of the Infidel (Guardian, June 20, 2002) wrote: >>>>

Karen Armstrong is to be taken with a very large grain of salt. She is known for painting history in monocromatic strokes that are designed to expalin history in a pluralistic fashion that is easily understood by the moderately eductaed liberal American reading public and she is highly regarded in the New Age and self-help community. She has also been critiqued for engaging in a wilful spin on history to push forth her own reconstructionist's view, a view that is, while well-meaning, naive and misleading and inaccurate.
As a Muslim, with a love of Islam and Islamic history, and a cultural love near eastern societies, I utterly reject Karen Armstrong. Her contention that 1400 years of Islamic history and numerous Muslim empires and principalities all uniformly practiced ANYTHING is absurd. And claiming that any society, ancient or modern, uniformly and completely manifested the high water tenets of it's faith is clearly false given the historical record and reveals itself as preaching to the incredibly gullible.
There were numerous variations on the participation plan by which non-Muslim peoples were allowed to live generally as they wished as long as they paid a special tax. This was smart and helped to ensure some measure of safety for these tax payers. And of course we all know Islam teaches all the great things it teaches. But to say that this whole vast swathe of history and peoples prac ticed what the Qur'an teaches, is like saying the Christian west lived up to the ideals of its faith. This is all just silly. People did what they did and people were as they are now, they got away with what they could. This kind of Hallmark treatment of history enrages me and does a vast disservice to the wonderful ingenuity and diversity that actually happened, good, bad, and all the rest. It might also serve to note that Karen Armstrong is making the circuits as a New Age quasi-guru figure and hamming it up with all the hubris of a carney figure.

>>> She has also been critiqued for engaging in a wilful spin on history to push forth her own reconstructionist's view, a view that is, while well-meaning, naive and misleading and inaccurate.

I can appreciate that we need to be faithful to the truth. Maybe her approach constitutes spin by more technical historians. But for Muslims, Abu-Lahab is not a victim, the kuffaar of Makkah rejected true faith etc. i.e. there was no other acceptable approach/view than what the Prophet SAW deemed as acceptable. As Muslims, we don't just acknowledge the judgement of the Prophet SAW, but we accept the judgement of the Prophet SAW as correct and good. Maybe she's failed as a historian.

>>> It might also serve to note that Karen Armstrong is making the circuits as a New Age quasi-guru figure and hamming it up with all the hubris of a carney figure.

Could you provide anything worth reading to verify this? I'm not undermining your critique, I'd just like to know the relevant voices here. Because people who are supportive of Islam and Muslims are quite thoroughly undermined by certain segments of the establishment. Things taken out of context. I just came across a a very popular book of "Heroes" (its title), that aims to present the criminals of the colonial project as histories truly brave and amazing players. Such literature hardly ever draws broad criticism.

Could you provide anything worth reading to verify this? I'm not undermining your critique, I'd just like to know the relevant voices here. Because people who are supportive of Islam and Muslims are quite thoroughly undermined by certain segments of the establishment. >>>


Yeah, me. I saw her speak along with Robert Thurman at the Open Center at 83 Spring Street in NYC a few months ago and this was how she came off. And the whole thing was being taped for a video and I would say she was hamming it up and sloughing off the audience to make a good show. That was my impression and I was disappointd I had paid to see her although glad because she is someone on the circuit and a growing "popular" voice. And I suppose as a highly published white voice that's a good thing, for some people who need that. Then I started to hear others, including other convert Muslims and white Muslim academics (for what that's worth) saying the same thing, that her spin on history is inacurate. But it's not just the inaccuracy that I have a problem with, its the monolithic painting of everything as rosy. That is so naive as to render the whole picture she paints, along with what IS accurate, as suspect. Just like the people who repaint history from a feminist narrative and talk about matrilineal societies as beautiful loving matriarchies where the world was just one big loving family of women and their beautiful healthy children. Just stupid and makes the whole picture sound idiotic and worthy of disregard. The history of Islam and the Muslim world is far more fascinating in its diverstiy than painting it as just one prolonged epoch of loving Sufi semas and colorful caravans of carpets and spices. Most scholars in the west like to pick out a few favorite themes and disregard the west. Listen to me sometimes and it might seem like I think the whole period of Medieval and Ottoman Islam was just one long epoch of enlightened scholars and wizened despots holding divans in the garden. I don't really think that but I know that was a part of the picture. But while focusing in on a closeup of that part of the scene, I can't forget all the other stuff too while painting an idyllic scenario. Armstrong has done that.

>>> I can't forget all the other stuff too while painting an idyllic scenario. Armstrong has done that.

Ok. I believe that there are two things we can't compromise in our efforts to promote Islam. One is the Truth, and the other is Compassion. I hope for everyone elses sake, she can shake off the populist elements of her historical analysis.

But populism, regardless of its bias, doesn't receive the complex tapestry of truth very well. Land of the Free, Land of the Brave...

And Ghulam, my whole point really is to get away from these monolithic polarities that have become so popular in the west, so popular in the simplistic media view. A thing is either evil or wonderful and pure. That's just plain idiocy. And it denies the human elements in culture, and the more interesting subtleties of vast and unlimited diversity. The dwindling education in people allows them to accept distant views of history through a Disneyland lense, or rather a Lord of the Rings lense. We're beautiful saintlike elves and everyone else is an orc. But I am in creasingly shocked at how many people at street level are striving desperately for these simplistic reductions which will explain everything once and for all and entitle them to feel good and superior about themselves.

I would say that this article has many major problems. Rather than look at ancient history, always debatable and not really followed today, one must look at how Islam is practiced in real time because there is no hint that that image will differ from the future, other than getting more rigid.

Egypt persecutes the Copts. Christians are being driven out of Iraq by death threats. Pakistan is fighting the Taliban.

Rather than look at supposed religious "tolerance" within Islam, lets look at cultural tolerance. Will all women have to be covered? Can anyone buy liquor? What's the position on the poll tax? Courtroom testimony? Dress codes? Beards?

Pointing at "liberal" Muslim countries such as Indonesia does no good, the tendency is for the most rigid elements to prevail if only because of nightly death threats, all to often carried out by the the "true believers".

BBill >>> Egypt persecutes the Copts. Christians are being driven out of Iraq by death threats. Pakistan is fighting the Taliban.

Why are you so certain that this is substantively true? Pakistan is involved in a civil war in SWAT but not with the former government of Afghanistan. I seriously doubt that Christianity is under attack in Egypt, anymore than Islam or democracy are under attack at least. And I doubt that anyone looks kindly on Christian missionaries in Iraq who come bribing Iraqis with food for their submission to Christ, knowing the situation and then openly saying "they have attained salvation" after they have been killed.

Can you tell us how many Iraqis have died at the hands of the American invasion and then still say with a straight face that the problem is Islam?

BBill >>> Pointing at "liberal" Muslim countries such as Indonesia does no good, the tendency is for the most rigid elements to prevail if only because of nightly death threats, all to often carried out by the the "true believers".

I think this is so vague and typical ideological banter. It can be said of the United States, Europe and Malaysia and Mars! Come on dude. You're literate. You can't seriously be that biased.

BigBill:

"Rather than look at supposed religious "tolerance" within Islam, lets look at cultural tolerance. Will all women have to be covered?..."

You really want to go there...pointing to the faults of everyone else (and that too in such a parochial manner) but your-self? Until westerners come to grips with the effects on women on the commercialization of their bodies you hardly have any moral standing on female issues in the rest of the world. Watch a clip from The Merchants of Cool where a 13 year old girl's desires, ambitions and sexuality are thoroughly shaped by standards set by substandard cultural products produced within the US dominated media conglomerates. Talk to female soldiers in the US army and explain to them why they have to suffer the non-prosecution of their rapes by fellow soldiers because the military folk at the top - THE TOP - don't feel it is important - even as they feel it is important to support the military in times of war...the list goes on and on and on....

To Ghulam

“I seriously doubt that Christianity is under attack in Egypt, anymore than Islam or democracy are under attack at least.”


Are you serious? Or willfully ignorant? There are a countless number of websites that list in great detail what is happening in Egypt and for that matter, most Muslim countries. The following is just one but there are many more.

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=7

Surely you know about the killings of Christians by Muslims in Indonesia. And you ignore the exodus of Christians from Iraq? Or maybe you think that they’re all going on vacation.

"Can you tell us how many Iraqis have died at the hands of the American invasion and then still say with a straight face that the problem is Islam?"

Where have you been and where do you hide that you are so out of touch with what's going on in the world?

The overwhelming majority of deaths in Iraq are caused by the Sunni/Shite difference of opinion of Islam where no American's are involved. This has been going on for over a thousand years, long before there was ever an America.

True, Saddam kept this dispute in check, but at a "minor" cost. Unless you were Shite. But who cares about them?

Take a look at today's newspapers. Bombings in Iraq that have nothing to do with America. Just some old fashioned religious rivalry.

bb999 >>> There are a countless number of websites that list in great detail what is happening in Egypt and for that matter, most Muslim countries. The following is just one but there are many more.

I'm sure there are many more rabidly hypocritical christian sites quoting biased information and passing off their religious agendas as social analysis (honestly ..look at your own link dude). If you were truly crying out at the inhumanity, you'd at the LEAST be honest about the effects of war. Grow up, nobody blames democracy every time a non-white is beaten up by a police officer in the US. Noone blames christianity for US's 1% prison population. Why is that? Why is there so much analysis that goes into that?

Similarly, you can't talk about the persecution of Muslims or compare the weight of it to your own critiques, because you don't care about those deaths or persecution in the first place! Even if you government sponsorred or intitiated those things, because if christians aren't the receiving end, you'd probably reason they had it coming. You don't care about torture and murder victims in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or a number of other eastern european sites. So why should everyone stand up and answer to you, when you lack that basic human fairness in yourself and you've proven to make ridiculous assertions about the Quraan .. I mean come on .. have you even read it?

bb999 >>> The overwhelming majority of deaths in Iraq are caused by the Sunni/Shite difference of opinion of Islam where no American's are involved. This has been going on for over a thousand years, long before there was ever an America.

Lol. It has nothing to do with the invasion or the US arming shia militias then giving cash loads of monies to Sunni tribes to defend themselves from militia. Yes..believe what pleases you.. Iraq is apparently not in a civil war because of the invasion. That was always there... boiling under the surface of gulf ware depleted uranium cancer victims. I can guarantee you that more people have died because of the invasion by this simple singular equation .. had there been no invasion there'd be no civil war! Because the US government does whatever it wants, anyway it pleases.

Thanks for not answering the questions honestly. Its the invading armies responsibility to police.. your government just enjoins a free for all. If someone dropped a cargo of guns in new york and cut off the water, food and medical supplies, we could all blame baseball rivalry for what would ensue.

But who cares how many people were killed by the war because of military bombings, lack of medical support, the end of the police service, the destruction of the food market.. because yesterday you read a about a bomb in a market place that could have happened for a number of reasons that you don't know or understand. I can lament with you though .. if only all societies listened to their invading army imperial masters and behave? Grow up and get a clue. This isn't a site "Rambo" type reasoning.

So why hold people, governments and armies accountable for what they've actually done.. when you can hold them accountable for what christian missionaries imply the quraan instructs them to do .. after minutes of deft analysis online.

"I can guarantee you that more people have died because of the invasion by this simple singular equation .. had there been no invasion there'd be no civil war! Because the US government does whatever it wants, anyway it pleases."

Yes, the Iraqi's would certainly have continued their happy and peaceful lives under Saddam in the paradise known as Iraq.