The compatibility of Islam and pluralism is sometimes defended by referencing examples of Islamic "tolerance" of minorities in centuries past. Some Muslims' interpretation of pluralism is colored by Islam's political power in the past,[1] and they define religious tolerance in terms of how religious minorities were treated in the Islamic Empire—that is, as groups that were free to practice their religion as long as they obeyed the Islamic political order and paid taxes in return for protection by the Islamic state. As some modern Islamic thinkers argue, however, this form of religious tolerance is inadequate in light of changing human rights standards.[2] Whereas the Islamic Empire's notion of religious tolerance may have been appropriate for that time, Muslims in the modern age must re-evaluate and realize that the historical approach to religious tolerance must be modified. Conditional and condescending "tolerance" must be redefined to include mutual respect, equal treatment, and robust pluralism.

Contemporary Muslims' effort to grapple with pluralism and their political position in relation to the religious "other" is in some ways analogous to the challenge the American religious right has faced realizing that America is not a "Christian country"—at least not in the sense that allows conservative Christianity to hold a privileged position. In both cases, a religious group that once dominated a society is coming to terms with greater diversity and the demands of justice in a pluralistic context.[3]

For Muslims, dealing with pluralism will require creative re-interpretation of their scriptural sources and re-evaluation of their historical experiences. This process of creative analysis is evident in Farid Esack's article, "Muslims Engaging the Other and the Humanum,"[4] which provides a new Islamic perspective on modern religious pluralism. The question Esack seeks to address is: "How do Muslims engage the religious other in a world that increasingly defies geographical, political, religious, and ideological boundaries?"

According to Esack, Qur'anic discussion of the other is framed largely in terms of the early Muslims' relation to the People of the Book. The reasons for this preoccupation are several and include the fact that, after the liberation of Mecca in 630 AD, most of the pagans converted to Islam. As such, early Islam formulated its position regarding religious tolerance with Jews and Christians living in the Muslim community.

Religious tolerance in the Qur'an is related to specific communities of Jews and Christians and the ways in which they treated and were treated by the early Muslim community. Because of the specificity of the groups addressed by the Qur'an, Esack holds that to generalize treatment of all Jews and Christians in a time and space beyond the original Medinan community is over-simplistic. Such a broad analysis ignores theological diversity within the Christian and Jewish communities; it also fails to recognize that these groups' practices and beliefs evolve or change with time. A more accurate reading of the Qur'anic discussion of Jews and Christians, therefore, should focus on the specific "sources of beliefs, as well as their many nuances, which characterized the various communities by the early Muslims."

Esack notes that throughout Islamic history the phrase "People of the Book" has not been defined in relation to a dogma; rather, the focus has been on "area of practice and attitudes." At various times in Islamic history, therefore, the category included groups as diverse as Hindus, Buddhists, Magians, Zoroastrians, and Sabians: "In all of these attempts to extend the boundaries of the [Q]ur'anic People of the Book, Muslim scholars implicitly acknowledged the situation-boundedness of the Qur'anic categories."

If "People of the Book" signifies those to whom Muslims are required to extend religious tolerance, and who as such hold a special place in Islam, then the exact definition of this term is central to any analysis of Islam's approach to religious pluralism. According to Esack, the main element differentiating the pagans from the People of the Book during the early Medinan period was the former's use of institutional religion to systematically oppress and exploit the disadvantaged. Pagans, or the "mushrikun," represent those who, according to the Qur'an, do not deserve Muslims' religious tolerance. Esack quotes Fazlur Rahman, who explains that the early Qur'anic texts:

[c]an only be understood against their Meccan background, "as a reaction against Meccan pagan idol-worship and the great socio-economic disparity between mercantile aristocracy of Mecca and a large body of its distressed and disenfranchised population ... Both of these aspects ... are so heavily emphasized in the Qur'an that they must have been organically connected with each other."

As Rahman's explanation demonstrates, the political act of resisting oppression is part of—indeed, central to—the Islamic approach to religious tolerance. This view of religious tolerance should not, however, be over-generalized and must involve an analysis of particular situations. For example, superficial judgments by Islamic extremists, such as Osama Bin Laden, that Jews and Christians oppress Muslims in various parts of the world and should therefore be fought may seem to fit Esack and Rahman's connection of social oppression to religious intolerance. However, even a mere cursory analysis of the issue reveals that it is over-simplistic to equate the acts of some Christians and Jews to all Christian and Jews. It is, moreover, logically and theologically problematic to equate the political acts of some individuals with their religion or religious beliefs.[5]

In the modern age, the analysis of the "other"—whether that "other" be the non-Muslim, the non-Christian, the non-Jew, the non-Hindu, etc.—must be nuanced, careful, and deliberate. Revisiting the historical context and theological basis of religious tolerance prompts a renewed focus on rooting out oppression. Mere "tolerance" is not enough; Muslims should unite with people of other religions and work toward the common goal of justice.

[1] Khalid Abou El Fadl, And God Knows the Soldiers: The Authoritative and Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses (University Press of America/Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, 2001).

[2] Abdullahi An-Na'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse University Press: New York, 1996).

[3] This is not to say that America has ever been a theocracy like the Islamic Empire.

[4] Farid Esack, "Muslims Engaging the Other and the Humanum," 14 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 529 (2000).

[5] This argument suggests that it may be better for countries, such as America, not to hold themselves out to the world as "Christian nations" because to do so may imply that their political acts are defined by their religious beliefs. Political opposition to a Christian nation may then be manifested in terms of religious intolerance and may affect the plight of Christians in non-Christian countries. This process may explain some cases of discrimination against Muslims in non-Muslim countries when a predominantly Muslim country makes a controversial political move.

(Photo: Alanah O'Connor)

<however, this form of religious tolerance is inadequate in light of changing human rights standards.>

Who cares?

Why should a Muslim living in Africa or Asia be troubled by the fact that his social norms, values, and religouse practices are not in accordance with the changing conventional standards of the peoples of Northwestern Europe?

"tolerance" must be redefined to include mutual respect, equal treatment, and robust pluralism.

How can unequals be treated equally?

I posited the previouse question because the speaker in the Quran stated he “sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of Truth, to exalt it over every other deen, even though the mushrikun detest it.” (9:33)

How can anyone who holds the Quran to be the ipissma verba of the creator of the heavens and earth himself logically defend the proposition that all religions deserve to be treated equally?

"I posited the previouse question because the speaker in the Quran stated he “sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of Truth, to exalt it over every other deen, even though the mushrikun detest it.” (9:33)

How can anyone who holds the Quran to be the ipissma verba of the creator of the heavens and earth himself logically defend the proposition that all religions deserve to be treated equally?"

Good question and discussion. But I think regardless of what the Quran says in its text above - it appears quite clear that the "speaker" in-fact does not consider all religions equal - muslims have and will continue to evolve contrasting and apparently contradictory (wrt to the Quranic text) views on "tolerance". Consequently, another question that comes to mind is in which realm or sense does the "speaker" of the Quran seek to exalt the guidance of His Messenger?

In the modern era muslims have in general opted for a complete separation from non-muslims and sometimes the targeting of non-muslims due to a specific non-muslim - muslim relational context. In the pre-modern era, in general, this was not so. I think the author of this piece seeks to argue for a different version of modern muslim - non muslim relations within the more comfortable paradigm of contemporary human rights and 21st century American democracy.

Regardless of what the above text might say (it is disingenuous to simply privilege the above quoted text in your post over all other text and range of historical social realities of Muslim - non Muslim relations) the author is well within her right to do so as long as it is recognized that the Palestinians have a right to object; that the Kashmiris (and others) have a right to object; that whereas upwardly mobile urban classes in muslim countries might be in favor of such a paradigm-shift, (for if they were not it would hinder their upward mobility :)) the poorer, perhaps oppressed, perhaps rural classes might not be and should have the right to object.

>>> At various times in Islamic history, therefore, the category included groups as diverse as Hindus, Buddhists, Magians, Zoroastrians, and Sabians .... "In all of these attempts to extend the boundaries of the [Q]ur'anic People of the Book, Muslim scholars implicitly acknowledged the situation-boundedness of the Qur'anic categories."

Firstly, we must admit that this extension of rights did not exist in the Quraan and Sunnah but an ethic of protecting peoples beliefs while not accepting them, was adopted in the light of the scripture by early Muslims i.e. they accepted more than the literal interpretation of the Quraan.

>>> Mere "tolerance" is not enough; Muslims should unite with people of other religions and work toward the common goal of justice.

We will never be able to do that until we take up the mantle we are required by the Quraan as the Middle Community who enjoins justice and forbids injustice. I appreciate the context of this article. But frankly, Muslims countries themselves don't even extend tolerance of beliefs to their own Muslim citizenry! Muslims ourselves don't extend this tolerance to the diverse Muslim communities that make up our Ummah! Expecting us to then be tolerant with others denies the fact that as a community we are extremely INtolerant of each other.

I also think that the philosophy of tolerance in Islam is already quite broad. Its a matter of politically biased jurisprudence that we don't apply it correctly. Question the legists for their misapplication. They are NOT above judgement. Don't posit the notion of respect of other relgiions as new to Islam.

>>> ...that it is over-simplistic to equate the acts of some Christians and Jews to all Christian and Jews.

My favourite muslimism double-standard "don't judge Islam by what some Muslims do"


Massinissa >>> How can anyone who holds the Quran to be the ipissma verba of the creator of the heavens and earth himself logically defend the proposition that all religions deserve to be treated equally? >> Asif>> it is disingenuous to simply privilege the above quoted text in your post over all other text and range of historical social realities of Muslim - non Muslim relations

Exactly Asif. This is being selective and blinkered with our traditions. But more importantly is the notion that disagreement can only be governed by "tolerance". How absurd is that? The idea that you disagree regarding beliefs and religion does NOT mean that you have to polarise yourself in every political context like an apartheid system in the hope that "good-neighbourliness" is then enough for a peaceful political co-existence.

I believe my ideas are superior to a zionist who posts here. But that doesn't mean that a zionist has less right to comment on the posts or that he should be badgered by the editors on this site. Its just stupid to think that a personal idea of superiority would diminish the functioning of society because some "superior" ideas cannot reconcile themselves to lesser ideas. Naturally, a conservative Christian believes his ideas are superior to a Liberal Jew. There wouldn't be a need for a political framework to govern society in the first place! We don't disagree because it's fun. We disagree because we believe we have better ideas. Everyone does .. duh

I'm just looking for a mutually agreed upon framework which says everyone of all religions is allowed to keep breathing.


>he “sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of Truth, to exalt it over every other deen, even though the mushrikun detest it.” (9:33)
- Posted by Massinissa


Christians have the same kind of passage in the bible. It leads them to proselytize everyone everywhere. No one is safe. I fervently hope Islam never decides to follow this model.

<Question the legists for their misapplication. >

Are you actually trying to insinuate that Muslim Jurisprudents "misunderstood" their own faith tradition for nearly 1400 years...

Some divinely revealed religion!

<Don't posit the notion of respect of other relgiions as new to Islam.>

Islam's respect for other faith traditions is neither old or new... it's NON-EXISTENT. Islam has historically tolerated other faith traditions but it has never afforded them mutual respect or equal status.

<This is being selective and blinkered with our traditions.>

I am not being selective and blinkered with Islamic traditions. The verse which I cited is representative of the way Islam sees itself in relation to other faith traditions.

Muslim's believe that Muhammad is God's final messenger to the human race and that his religion and nomos supersede every other religion and nomos previously revealed to the species.

<It's just stupid to think that a personal idea of superiority...>

Muslims who hold the Quran to be authoritative do not consider their religion's superiority to be a matter of "personal opinion"... they consider Islam's superiority to be a matter of fact.

<their inherent natural rights>

If natural rights were inherent to human nature their would be evidence of their existence in virtually every human society...

<the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,>

The historical evidence tends to suggest otherwise.

<the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,>

The historical evidence tends to suggest otherwise.

- Posted by Massinissa

True. The U.S. does not always live by it's own ideals.
However, America does have a penchant for exposing the flaws in itself, and improving.

requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens...

When I read the above cited lines I was immediatly reminded of the following passage from the Carl Schmitt's Political Theology:

All significant concepts of the modern theory of state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development— in which they were transformed from theology to the theory of state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent God became the omnipotent lawgiver—but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of the concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology.

The United States only tolerates forms of religious expression which are not at odds with the dictates of the Almighty lawmaker. This modern form of tolerance (unlike it's Islamic counterpart) does not afford religious minorities the legal and cultural autonomy needed for them to practice their faith traditions in their entirety.

This form of tolerance demands that all religious minorities residing within the territory governed by the newly constructed post-Christian godhead reform their faith traditions so that they may be in accordance with the new deity’s benevolent dictates.

This form of tolerance demands that all religious minorities residing within the territory governed by the newly constructed post-Christian godhead reform their faith traditions so that they may be in accordance with the new deity’s benevolent dictates.

- Posted by Massinissa

This shouldn't be hard for Islam. Allah recognizes that some aspects of faith will not be tolerated in other lands. As such, the faithful must obey the law of the land where they are. Aspects they are not able to perform as a result of this will not be held against them at judgement.

Massinissa:
"The United States only tolerates forms of religious expression which are not at odds with the dictates of the Almighty lawmaker. This modern form of tolerance (unlike it's Islamic counterpart) does not afford religious minorities the legal and cultural autonomy needed for them to practice their faith traditions in their entirety."

I'm afraid you miss the point when you say "unlike it's Islamic counterpart" especially since for various reasons a modern islamic form of tolerance has in-fact yet to develop. Furthermore, the islamic form of tolerance is not wholly based on scripture and is contingent upon social realities just like the American one despite the Bill of Rights. The difference is that the modern American form has a cohesive system whereby the notion of "tolerance" has been and can continue to be adjudicated and reinforced through a currently well-standing epistemology and legal system. A similar system and epistemology in Islam has been ruptured and has been rendered dysfunctional.

That is why Americans can continue to claim to be the supreme defenders of modern human rights and democracy whilst also formulating justifications to flout internationally established conventions on torture and treatment of prisoners - which themselves were established through the same tradition of human rights America bases its superiority on. Do you not see the contradiction here? Isn't this an example of the contingency of tolerance? Your impression of what Islamic "tolerance" is is also contingent on social reality. For there exist verses in the Quran and incidents in the sacred history of the earliest muslims that contradict the apparent meaning of the verses you quote. The historicization of these verses and their opposites would show up these contingencies as bright as day.

"This form of tolerance demands that all religious minorities residing within the territory governed by the newly constructed post-Christian godhead reform their faith traditions so that they may be in accordance with the new deity’s benevolent dictates."

Although Islam, just like Christianity, is considered a "religion" - the genealogy of which has a complicated history, it nevertheless developed in different ways than Christianity. For example, it developed a legal system which recognized the orthodoxy of a large number of differing theologies and jurisprudential methodologies. American pluralism cannot accommodate such pluralism achieved by the islamic legal tradition because it is based on its one constitution.

Furthermore, Islam extended this pluralism to peoples of other religions such that even as they were considered infidels, they nonetheless had the right to protection and the right to practice their faith as they deemed fit. Again, this tolerance developed more through a social and legal edifice rather than scripture and just like the ugliness of the American use of torture techniques is not without its own blemishes (I would argue brought about by social contingency). Arguably, yes, the American and pre-modern Islamic forms of tolerance are different, but I suppose the real question you are asking is which one is superior and which one is primitive. This is a value judgment and the answers to such questions reveal more about the political outlook of the one making this value judgment. I would say that the Islamic form of tolerance evolved under an imperial system of international relations that we are better off having gotten rid of, due in part to colonization and the American revolution.

Therefore, if you don't mind, let the author develop an alternative islamic paradigm (or islamic-american??) for the notion of tolerance.

Fester:
"This shouldn't be hard for Islam. Allah recognizes that some aspects of faith will not be tolerated in other lands. As such, the faithful must obey the law of the land where they are. Aspects they are not able to perform as a result of this will not be held against them at judgement."

I'm afraid I do not agree. It will be hard for Islam, not necessarily in the legal dos and donts but in the formation of a specific morality within American society. The logic of the secular Almighty lawgiver, as Massinissa refers to it, and the way Islam seeks to develop a certain kind of morality among its followers will inevitably clash in many respects - otherwise American Islam will not be the prophetic Islam of Muhammad but will become domesticated by the whims of the state. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not talking about the pathetic desire by some muslim movements in the world to establish a caliphate or even shariah law. American Muslims can either be rash and make a mess of things in this country, or if we truly care for the well-being of this country and its people then we might handle this clash in an intelligent manner. Its our choice.

...if we truly care for the well-being of this country and its people then we might handle this clash in an intelligent manner. Its our choice.

- Posted by asifsheikh

Just so we agree this is both possible and desirable.


...the ugliness of the American use of torture techniques is not without its own blemishes (I would argue brought about by social contingency).
- Posted by asifsheikh


The theory which allowed torture during the Bush administration has now been thoroughly discredited, and like you said, was brought about by a "social contingency". The Bush presidency was a disaster for our standing around the world. The failure of the Congress to act was almost as bad.

<For there exist verses in the Quran and incidents in the sacred history of the earliest muslims that contradict the apparent meaning of the verses you quote.>

These contradictions are usually cleared up the Islamic hermeneutic doctrine of al-nasikh wal-mansukh and the lovley juristic principal of darura.

Yes contingency exists, but all squares are usually circled somehow and someway.

<The real question you are asking is which one is superior and which one is primitive. This is a value judgment and the answers to such questions reveal more about the political outlook of the one making this value judgment.>

True.

As for the rupturing of the legal system and epistomology which allows this notion of tolerance to be adjudicated... we have to look at each polity which arouse out of the break up of the Ottoman and Mughal Empires and the Sultanates of Nusantara on a case to case basis.

I naturally favor the Islamic form of tolerance because I am a proponent of de-centralized polities which grant autonomy on the local level and respect the religious, cultural, and linguistic sovereignty of the peoples who reside in them.

<Mere “tolerance” is not enough; Muslims should unite with people of other religions and work toward the common goal of justice.>

How can Muslims and non-Muslims work towards the common goal of “justice” (a emotional construction whose truth-value cannot be rationally nor empirically assessed) when there is not even a consensus as to what the concept entails?

Apologies for the disorganization of the comment.

Massi >>> Are you actually trying to insinuate that Muslim Jurisprudents "misunderstood" their own faith tradition for nearly 1400 years...

This is so easily disreputed. Ignoriing the fact the "Muslim jurisprudents" disagreed amongst themselves, unlike you, I don't hold their interpretation of the Allahs truth to be the truth, only the best effort on the truth. And frankly, those same men proposed laws towards dhimmis, slaves, women and non-Arabs that are intolerable in OUR current context. So yes. Question their application to better apply that truth now. Questioning may also yield a greater understanding. This is something I don't think comes naturally with double-speak and blind acceptance of the orthodox view of Truth.

Massi >>> The verse which I cited is representative of the way Islam sees itself in relation to other faith traditions.

That has to be true of everyone. We are presented with a truth from Allah SWT. I naturally deem it superior to somebody elses. It wouldn't be sensible if it wasn't. Sunni believes their aqeedah is superior to Shiah. Were the madhabs formalised coherently or instead were the "lesser" madhabs replaced by a "superior" madhab. The Abbasids felt themselves superior to the Ummayads who felt themselves superior to the Fatimides. Islam sees itself? Or just the way you want to see Islam?

Massi >>> As for the rupturing of the legal system and epistomology which allows this notion of tolerance to be adjudicated... we have to look at each polity which arouse out of the break up of the Ottoman and Mughal Empires and the Sultanates of Nusantara on a case to case basis.

No we don't. The Ummah is already globalised by its Deen, and in cases like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, outside influence is necessary to save the people from their own excesses and misdeeds. We can discuss the best ways, but we can't deny that it remains our responsibility.

Aasif >>> Isn't this an example of the contingency of tolerance? Your impression of what Islamic "tolerance" is is also contingent on social reality.

Exactly. To put it bluntly, we make it up as we go along. As did 1400years of both successful and faltering Muslim civilisationary effort.

Massi >>> I naturally favor the Islamic form of tolerance because I am a proponent of de-centralized polities which grant autonomy on the local level and respect the religious, cultural, and linguistic sovereignty of the peoples who reside in them.
~ vs ~
>>> Islam's respect for other faith traditions is neither old or new... it's NON-EXISTENT. Islam has historically tolerated other faith traditions but it has never afforded them mutual respect or equal status.

You've contradicted yourself. Because your notion of decentralised polities contradicts directly basic notions of tolerance. It is fostered by a respect that demands you protect their lands and rights. You don't protect the rights and interests of people you merely tolerate. Respecting a persons right to practice their faith does NOT equal believing, accepting and supporting that faith. Correct me if I'm mistaken but you're proposing a model of Apartheid and imagining that to be the Islamic model.

And Frankly .. yes ... Muslims have learnt from non-Muslims and done their fair share of teaching. Caliphs would have not invited yogis and buddhists to have open discussion with Ulema. Scholars would not have studied Greek scriptures. The knowledge and personality of non-Muslims would not have been valueless in conditions of mere tolerance.

It's further inconceivable to me, that Muslims believe our religion to be so exceptionally different from pluralism in western societies and our revelation to complete and separate, that we can then find ourselves living and working in these countries .. no problem. Its absurd that such an extreme philosophical departure would come with such convenient compromise.

Asif >>> Arguably, yes, the American and pre-modern Islamic forms of tolerance are different, but I suppose the real question you are asking is which one is superior and which one is primitive. This is a value judgment and the answers to such questions reveal more about the political outlook of the one making this value judgment.

Now that is clarity of thought. Well said.

Fester >>> This shouldn't be hard for Islam. Allah recognizes that some aspects of faith will not be tolerated in other lands. As such, the faithful must obey the law of the land where they are.

Why am I not buying this notion that Muslims had at best accomplished a verneer of tolerance for others? And why do I think that we can obey Allahs commands quite completely in "other lands" without revolting at (or being revolted by) the locals? I just cannot accept that such a profound ultimate truth can be so neatly packaged in a human beings propensity for pride/egoism.

You've contradicted yourself.

No I havent.

Protecting the lands and rights of others has nothing to do with respect whatsoever. I would protect the rights of a rapist, murder, and highway man even though I have virtually no respect for the individual who perpetrates such actions.