Tolerance in Islam

ISLAM has never taught its followers intolerance, hatred and violence. Its teachings have never encouraged bigotry and fanaticism. It is against all brutality and bloodshed. On the contrary it stands for peace, love and tolerance.

The irony is that the religion that has always preached and promoted peace and tolerance is branded today as the religion of terrorists and militants.

The Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) whom the Qur’an has declared; “We have merely sent you as a mercy for the Universe.” and who had all reverence and compassion for human life and honour is portrayed today by the West, out of sheer ignorance and prejudice, as a prophet of war and violence.

In actual fact, Islam declares war against all kinds of tyranny, persecution and repression. It vehemently condemns aggression, injustice and every type of exploitation. It stands for justice and fairness. It is against all victimization and oppression. It, in fact, fights for freedom of thought and religion. Muslim history bears witness to the fact that whenever the Muslim invaders conquered a country, they did not indulge in wanton killings and manslaughter. They instead granted full protection and freedom to the people already settled there.

In the early period of Muslim conquests the Christians who had been persecuted and repressed by Byzantine Empire for a long time welcomed the Muslim conquerors as ‘saviours.’ They enjoyed full freedom and tolerance under Muslim rule as against victimization and repression under the Roman Empire. As a consequence a great deal of conversions took place during this period.

Religious and sectarian extremism is a recent phenomenon. And unfortunately it is gaining momentum day by day. It has worked up the emotions and sentiments of young people, in particular, and made them turn to intolerance, hatred and violence. They have deviated from the path of moderation that Islam prescribes for its followers. This has tarnished the image of Islam at home and abroad and has provided an opportunity to adversaries to play up on the fears of Islamic radicalism to vilify Islam. It is also responsible for misleading the people at home and abroad who have little knowledge about Islam.

What are the root-causes of religious extremism? Let us probe into it and address ourselves to the main problems and issues. A major cause of religious extremism relates to the tendency of quoting the Quranic ayat completely out of context. It happens when on isolates ayat of the Quran and derives from them the meanings that suit one’s purposes and serve his ends. This amounts to distortion of the meanings of the Quranic ayat. Whereas the ayat should be interpreted in their social and historical context.

Biographers and historians, in general, have described the battles fought during the Holy Prophet’s life time without discussing or referring to the causes that led to wars. Although Hadith literature and people like Ibn Sa’ad have mentioned the causes that sparked the battles, but still the mistaken version of Gazawaat portrays the Prophet and the believers as people carrying swords from time to time to invade neighbouring countries, declaring wars against the tribes who had not submitted and surrendered.

This led to a general perception that all the battles waged by the believers were offensive and were launched to spread the message of Islam. Whereas the truth is otherwise, It would be worthwhile to draw one’s attention to Surah al-Fath meaning ‘Victory’, where victory refers not to the conquest of Makkah or even miraculous triumph in the battle of ‘Badr’ but to the Truce of al-Hudaybia which averted bloodletting and fighting with the Quraish who had gathered with their allied tribes to prevent the Prophet and his 1400 followers (in 6 A.H.) from entering Makkah to perform umrah.

The Quran has declared “Treaty of Hudaybia” as “Fathe-e-Mubeen” (a clear victory) while the fact is that no battle took place between the believers and non-believers. All the clauses of the Treaty were apparently against the interests of the believers. But it turned out to be a blessing in disguise for them. All this was done to avoid conflict and to pave the way for an amicable and peaceful atmosphere in which they could spread dawah and convey Divine Message to the people around.

The same is the case with the ayah of Surah at-Taubah: “But when these prohibited months are over a (for fighting) slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and waylay them at every outpost.” (9:5)

This ayah of Surah at-Taubah is today frequently referred to by both Muslims and non-Muslims in case of war against non-believers. It is often quoted by Muslims and non-Muslims to justify the killing of non-believers. It is very much misquoted and misinterpreted. Again the same mistake rather a blunder is committed by them when they quote this ayah completely out of context.

The Ghassanid Christian tribes inhabited the Syrian border. Joining their forces with Caesar the chiefs of Ghassanid and other tribes began to muster their troops. In the meantime the munafiqeen (the hypocrites) of Madina, built a mosque called Masjid-e-Dharrar to sow seeds of dissension among the Muslims of Madina and tried to dissuade them from joining the battle against the Byzantine Empire They had close links with Byzantine Empire and Conspired against the Muslims.

There were also still some die-hard mushrikeen (polytheists) in Makkah who had evil designs and harboured enmity against the believers. They also joined hands with the enemies against the Muslims. They were all united to strike a final blow to Muslim community of Arabian Peninsula.

The Muslims were fighting against heavy odds. The near-famine conditions prevailed in Madina and scorching heat of summer was at its peak. The harvest season had just arrived. There was an acute shortage of material resources to wage war. The mushrikeen pinned their last hope on those allied forces that were arrayed against Muslims. The gravity of the situation was felt by every one in Arabia. They realized that the cause for which they had been striving for the last 22 years was in danger.

Under these circumstances Allah had given the mushrikeen three options: either (i) The mushrikeen (the polytheists) should surrender and submit to Islam. or (ii) They are given four months notice from hence, they must vacate the land. (iii) Otherwise they would be killed.

This ayah of Surah at-Tubah does not refer or apply to mushrikeen in general. But it applied to only those polytheists who had violated the treaties and the agreements and who did not stop from plotting and conspiring against the Muslims. A large group of renowned mufassareen (commentators of the Qur’an) hold this view. If it applied to Mushrikeen in general then there was no point in spreading dawah after that and the doors of dawah were to be deemed closed right in the beginning.

This ayah of Surah at-Taubah revealed after almost 22 years of Prophet’s relentless struggle in the field of dawah. As a result of this dawah the whole Peninsula of Arabia converted to Islam. There was a small number of Mushrikeen left who were trouble makers. They did not refrain from conspiring against the believers. Allah also wanted to close the holy places from the Polytheists. This was declared that no polytheist would enter Kaa’bah. This ayah was specific to those Mushrikeen.

We have also been taught that when a Muslim invades a country, he should first present to non-Muslims the message of Islam, if they accept it, they would be our equals and enjoy all rights and freedom as the Muslims do. If they want to practise their own religion they would be allowed to do so under Muslim rule provided they pay the Jizya (head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). But if they accept neither the first condition nor the second, then he sword will decide between the two. It all gives the impression that a believer is all the time in the battlefield waging ‘Jihad’ against the infidels.

There is as such no compulsion on non-believers to accept Islam. Coercion in any form or denomination does not exist at all in Islamic teachings. It is in the Divine plan that a man should be given absolute freedom to think and act. God does not snatch this freedom from man at any moment during his lifetime and nor the Prophet is allowed to do so. Every Messenger of God has said after delivering the message: “We have no responsibility except to convey (The message).”

While treading the path of extremism today, are we not repeating the history of Khawarij who existed in the time of the successors of the companions? They were cut off from the mainstream of Muslim Ummah and relinquished the path of moderation and tolerance that Islam prescribed for its followers. They were a large group of tens of thousands of Muslims, composed mostly of individuals who had memorized the Quran and who devoted themselves to much worship, prayers and fasting. They declared the totality of the companions of the Prophet and whoever of the Muslims were with them to be apostates, and disbelievers and took up arms against them.

Teachings of Islam keep to the middle path by avoiding extremes. Its pendulum does not oscillate between two extremes. The purpose of Islamic teachings is to create balance and equilibrium in human life. It aims at temperance and moderation in thought and behaviour both in individual and collective life.

After the Makkah summit

HASNAIN HEIKAL described summitry as the “Arab world’s principal political instrument. Like a political Trabant, it produces noise and hot air, but only the most lethargic motion.”

To a great extent, this is true not only of Arab summits but of Islamic summits as well. With most participants worried about their piece of the political puzzle, very few see the whole picture.

The declarations issued by the OIC summit last month are significant as an expression of political consensus in the Muslim world on issues of concern. However, if the OIC is to progress beyond this point and exercise concrete leverage on matters of significant interest to the Muslim world it would have to promote the complementarity of vital interest and political will at the highest level.

Member-states have to minimize any perceived areas of conflict so as to bring into play their combined political and economic clout. It is this perceived conflict of interests, coupled with the dependence of influential Muslim states on western support, which has contributed to the serious setbacks suffered by the Islamic world in the Gulf, the Middle East and South Asia.

The response to the outcome of the OIC summit at Makkah has alternated between its projection as a momentous event and a cynical assessment of the dichotomy between traditional OIC rhetoric and its actual lack of teeth.

This piece is an attempt to strike a balance between the number of positive initiatives taken at the Makkah summit on the one hand and the failure to go far enough in promoting real complementarity of economic interests and in pursuing credible security cooperation on the other.

The summit made a forceful attempt to correct the Muslim world’s negative image by reiterating the determination to combat extremism and terrorism through all means, reforming the educational curriculum where necessary and promoting tolerance, dialogue and diversity.

It was decided to set up an independent human rights institution to monitor the observance of ‘Islamic’ human rights in OIC states. Notwithstanding the cynicism this is likely to evoke in view of the sad record of OIC states in this field and the qualification of human rights by the term ‘Islamic’, the decision gives an opening to civil society to follow up on the functioning of such a, hopefully independent, human rights institution in the Islamic world.

It was decided to activate the hitherto dormant minorities wing of the OIC secretariat for the appropriate monitoring of the situation of Muslim minorities, while giving due regard to the sovereignty of the concerned states. Annual reports are to be prepared on the situation of Muslim minorities and steps to be considered for protecting their cultural heritage. NGOs representing Muslim minorities are to be given observer status in the OIC.

The summit displayed courage in tackling the divisive issue of sectarianism in the Islamic world, which is being exploited by outside forces. The Makkah declaration called for the extension of equal status to all schools of Islamic thought and of according legitimacy and acceptance to all those professing the uniqueness of Allah, the finality of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the principles of Islam. Such Islamic groups were not to be subjected to accusations of apostasy, an essential step towards addressing sectarian divisions.

Another positive step was the decision to strengthen the role of the secretary-general, with additional authority and enhanced resources and to empower him to take fresh initiatives in accordance with the summit’s new vision. The secretary-general would be expected to use his good offices, in consultation with the OIC troika, in promoting reconciliation, where necessary, amongst OIC member-states. The secretary-general’s new role would constitute a significant departure from the hitherto dormant role played by the holders of this office.

The secretariat itself is to be strengthened financially and administratively, with the addition of departments dealing inter alia, with strategic planning, early warning conflict resolution and other issues. The secretariat would be activated for pursuing the implementation of OIC decisions by member-states.

In calling for effective participation by OIC states in the UN process, the summit supported the expansion of the UN Security Council with adequate representation from Muslim countries. Although there was, understandably, no elaboration of how this enhanced representation was to be achieved, the consensus in support of this principle, was clearly spelt out.

While calling for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, the summit supported the inalienable right of OIC states to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, in accordance with international legality. This also implied support for Iran’s right, as a signatory to the NPT, for developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

While denouncing terrorism and asking member states to combat it by all means, the declaration differentiated terrorism from efforts to resist aggression and foreign occupation and from the exercise of the right of self-defence.

The joint communique expressed support for the Kashmir cause and asked that the Kashmiris be allowed to decide their own future, also calling on the concerned parties to respect human rights. Describing the Palestine issue as its central concern, the declaration asked member states not to normalize relations with Israel until the achievement of a just and comprehensive settlement.

In contrast to a number of positive initiatives taken by the summit in diverse fields the disappointing part was the failure to take enforceable, time-bound decisions in promoting economic cooperation and technical development and in strengthening security cooperation. While a number of recommendations were made including the promotion of free trade areas, increasing the capital of the Islamic Development Bank, establishing a special fund to combat poverty, a disaster relief organization, an institution to finance trade, etc., there was no indication that the more affluent states were convinced of the need to establish a complementarity of economic interests within the Islamic world, which is a pre-requisite for mobilizing political will at the highest level and for promoting meaningful cooperation.

President Musharraf had moved along this path when he proposed that all states mandatorily contribute a fixed percentage of their GDP towards promoting development in the Muslim world.

At this stage when Muslim states are being targeted, one after the other, it had been hoped that, without indulging in any sort of confrontation, the summit would bring into play the combined diplomatic, economic and political leverage of the Islamic world to forestall further aggression, Proposals had been made for a standing OIC mechanism at a high level to deal with crisis situations and for a credible policy decision pledging member states to oppose through diplomatic, political and economic means, any threat or pre-emptive attack against an OIC member.

Those hopes, however, were not realized since the Summit statement contented itself with suggesting that OIC states should actively cooperate amongst themselves in conflict prevention and conflict management and effectively participate in UN processes to create a credible collective security system. It was noted that the references to Iraq in the summit documents contained no call for any timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces and for the restoration of that country’s sovereignty.

To sum up, the positive decisions taken by summit in establishing an independent human rights institution, activating the minorities wing of the secretariat, combating sectarian divisiveness, empowering the secretary-general, strengthening the secretariat, calling for implementation of decisions, supporting adequate representation for the Muslim world in an expanded Security Council, upholding member-states right to development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, establishing a fund to combat poverty and one to deal with disaster, augmenting the capital of the IDB and setting up an institution to finance trade are all positive initiatives as are the recommendations for reforming educational curriculum, focusing on scientific and technical development, combating terrorism and respecting dialogue, diversity and tolerance.

In order to ensure, however, that these measures are implemented and do not meet the fate of many previous OIC decisions, it is important that the leaders concerned show the necessary political will and that civil society, the media and the intelligentsia in OIC states, pursue and monitor to the extent possible the implementation of these decisions.

The writer is a former ambassador.