The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (26 page)

One of the ambiguities in puritan thought is what to do about unbelievers who are not Christian or Jewish. Tradition- ally, only Christians and Jews, known as the People of the

Book, could occupy
dhimmi
status. So the question is what to do about individuals who are neither Christian nor Jewish. As Islam entered countries like India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa, the classical jurisprudential tradition was forced to modify its position and grant
dhimmi
status to Hindus, Bud- dhists, and Zoroastrians. But it is not clear whether puritans would be willing to accept this classical compromise; if they do not accept the classical compromise then they would have to extend
dhimmi
status beyond the People of the Book, which would necessarily mean that people who are not Mus- lim, Christian, or Jewish would have to be banished or killed. The motivating premise for the puritans is that Islam must prevail and dominate. Consequently, non-Muslims living in Muslim territories must be made to feel inferior so that they will grow tired with their status. This will be an inducement for them to see the truth and convert to Islam, and by doing so

abandon their lowly status.

The puritan worldview is bipolar—on the one end is Islam, which represents the unadulterated good, and on the other end are the non-Muslims, who represent evil. Relying on the writings of some classical jurists, the puritans strongly advo- cate a theology known as
al-wala’ wa al-bara’
(the doctrine of loyalty and disassociation), which states it is imperative that Muslims care for, ally themselves with, and befriend only Muslims. Accordingly, Muslims may ally themselves with or seek the assistance of non-Muslims only for limited and iden- tifiable purposes. Muslims should do so only if they are weak and in need, but as soon as Muslims are able to regain their power, they must reclaim their superior status. Muslims must not befriend non-Muslims or allow themselves to care for or love non-Muslims. The fact that non-Muslims are not Muslim is seen as a
moral
fault, and if Muslims care for non-Muslims, it is an indication that these Muslims are putting their emo-

tions before their religious commitments, a clear sign of weak- ness of faith. Muslims may show kindness toward non- Muslims to set a good example, and Muslims may ally themselves with non-Muslims if it is necessary. But in all cases, Muslims cannot love non-Muslims because this is equal to loving what is immoral, and Muslims must strive to assert their superiority as soon as they are able to do so. The ulti- mate and final objective is to bring the whole world under the fold of Islam, either as lowly
dhimmi
s or as converts to Islam. In other words, the camp of good (Islam) must not love the camp of evil. The camp of good must either dominate the camp of evil or turn evil to goodness.

Moderates start from very different premises. The moderate position is a product of their understanding of the very pur- pose of creation and the role of Islam. While puritans believe that the existence of non-Muslims is a temporary situation that Muslims should work hard to remedy, and that the world eventually should be converted to Islam, moderates reject this logic as fundamentally at odds with the Divine Will. Moder- ates argue that the Qur’an not only accepts, but even
expects,
the reality of difference and diversity within human society. Therefore, the Qur’an says: “O humankind, God has created you from male and female and made you into diverse nations and tribes so that you may come to know each other. Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous.”
1
Elsewhere, the Qur’an reaffirms that diver- sity is part of the Divine intent and purpose in creation, and so it states: “If thy Lord had willed, He would have made hu- mankind into a single nation, but they will not cease to be di- verse . . . And, for this God created them [humankind].”
2

Moderates argue that not only does the Qur’an endorse a principle of diversity, but it also presents human beings with a formidable challenge, and that is “to know each other.” In the

Qur’anic framework, diversity is not an ailment or evil. Diver- sity is part of the purpose of creation, and it reaffirms the rich- ness of the Divine. The stated Divine goal of getting to know one another places an obligation upon Muslims to cooperate and work toward specified goals with Muslims and non- Muslims alike. As Baqir Muhammad al-Hakim, the fifth Shi’i
imam,
said: “The well-being of people can only be achieved through coexistence.”

For example, the Qur’an emphasizes time and again that if God would have so willed, He would have created people all the same, and all of humanity would have believed as well.
3
In fact, emphasizing the inevitability of difference, the Qur’an in- forms the Prophet that even if he shows some people the most compelling evidence, they will not follow him, and he, in turn, will not follow them.
4
The fact that God has willed that people remain different, the moderates argue, illustrates God’s respect for human free will and also mandates that human be- ings recognize the virtue of tolerance. Since diversity is part of the Divine Will, moderates contend that human beings should not seek to undo what God has willfully done.

In addition to the obligation of tolerance, the Qur’an obli- gates people to work together in pursuit of goodness. Because of the critical importance of this point, and because this part of the Qur’anic discourse is unfamiliar to most people in the West, I will be quoting extensively from the Qur’an. In one passage, for example, the Qur’an asserts: “To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. If God would have willed, He would have made you a single people. But God’s purpose is to test you in what He has given each of you,
so strive in the pursuit of virtue,
and know that you will all return to God [in the Hereafter], and He will resolve all the matters in which you disagree” (emphasis mine).
5
Emphasizing the same recon- ciliatory point, addressing itself to Muslims, the Qur’an states:

“Do not argue with the People of the Book unless in a kind and fair way, apart from those who have been oppressive to- ward you. Tell them that we believe in what has been sent down to us and we believe in what has been sent down to you. Our God and your God is one and to Him we submit.”
6
Else- where, the Qur’an asserts: “Call to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and discourse with them in kindness and patience, for your Lord surely knows who has strayed from the path and also knows the rightly guided.”
7

I have already referred to the Qur’anic verse that states: “O People of the Book, let us come to a common and just word between us and you, that we worship none but God and that we associate no partners with God. And that none of us take the others as lords besides God. I will eventually judge be- tween you regarding the issues in which you used to dispute.”
8
The first part of the verse reminds Muslims, Christians, and Jews that they all worship the same God. The second part of the verse states a principle applicable to living together on this earth—accepting the reality of God means that one faction should not seek to dominate the other.

The same theme is emphasized in what might be called the
salam
verses—
salam
is the same term from which the word
Islam
is derived, which means peace, tranquility, repose, or serenity. The
salam
verses refer to Qur’anic passages that em- phasize the need not just for interreligious tolerance, but for cooperative moral ventures that seek to achieve Godliness on earth. In the
salam
verses, the Qur’an stresses that in dealing with their opponents, Muslims should seek to remind them of their moral obligations toward God, but if the opponents stubbornly reject the truth, Muslims should turn away while wishing their opponents
salam
. In this dynamic, Muslims should act to assure their opponents that their disagreements are not personal, and that Muslims do not bear a grudge or

enmity toward their opponents. Even as the opponents refuse the message and turn away, the Qur’an instructs Muslims that the only appropriate response to this rejection is to wish their opponents the bliss of peace.
9

Even if the call to Islam is rejected, something remains. What remains is that Muslims and non-Muslims search for and create mechanisms not just for tolerating each other, but for uniting in the pursuit of virtue. As the Qur’an succinctly puts it, “Work with one another in promoting goodness and piety, and do not work to promote crime and aggression, and fear God for God is severe in punishment.”
10
This injunction cannot be separated from the general command to achieve Godliness on the earth and thus to establish moral virtues such as justice, mercy, compassion, benevolence, and beauty on this earth. The fact that Muslims and non-Muslims ought to cooperate in pursuit of goodness does not mean assimila- tion or even diluting the differences. It means finding the com- monalities so that goodness can be served on this earth. In fact, the Qur’an insists that various groups can have their own laws and rules but this should not prevent them from cooper- ating. To convey an authentic and meaningful sense of what inspires moderate Muslims, I will quote the Qur’an at length on this issue. As part of a long chapter titled “The Feast,” ad- dressing itself to the Prophet, the Qur’an states:

But why should they make you a judge [between them] when the Torah is in their midst and it contains the Law of God? . . .

We sent down the Torah containing guidance and light, and in accordance with [the Torah] the prophets who were obedient [to God] gave instructions to the Jews, as did the rabbis and priests, for they were the cus- todians and witnesses of God’s writ. So, therefore, do not

fear men, fear Me, and barter not My messages away for a paltry gain. Those who do not judge by God’s revela- tions are indeed unbelievers. . . .

After that We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah, which had been [sent down] before him, and We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, as an affirmation of what We revealed in the Torah, and as a guidance and warning for those who are pious. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. And those who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed are transgressors.

And to you We have revealed the Book containing the truth, confirming the earlier revelations, and preserving them. So judge between them [Muslims] by what God has revealed to you, and do not ignore the truth that has been revealed to you by following people’s whims.
To each of you We have given a law and a way of life. If God would have desired He could surely have made you into a single people—professing one faith [and following one law]. But He wished to try and test you by that which He has given each of you. So excel in good deeds.
To Him will you all return in the end, when He will re- solve that upon which you disagreed.
11
(emphasis mine)

Particularly the followers of the Abrahamic message are ex- horted to work and excel in serving the good. While clearly there is a certain moral affinity and spiritual closeness between Muslims and the followers of the Abrahamic tradition, noth- ing in the Qur’an precludes cooperation with
all
others in order to create an earth that is morally more pleasing to God. Moderates argue that at the same time that humans ought to cooperate in the pursuit of goodness the Qur’an clearly em- braces the idea of multiplicity and pluralism of laws. In fact, it

is a part of the Divine objective that people remain different in some significant and important ways. From that perspective, any universalism that would ignore all differences and impose a unitary and single law upon human beings would be chal- lenged by the text of the Qur’an. People may have different laws, creeds, and rituals, but there are moral principles that unite all human beings. While laws pertaining to religious rit- uals and rites and organizational laws relating to the adminis- tration of justice are expected, or even encouraged, to be different, there ought to be considerable space for collective moral pursuits between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In response to this moderate position, puritans refer to Qur’anic verses that address the issue of
wala’
(seeking an al- liance with non-Muslims) in an attempt to prove that Islam forbids any friendship, let alone any active cooperation, be- tween Muslims and non-Muslims. Typically, such verses call upon Muslims not to ally themselves with the enemies of Islam. Significantly, however, the very same chapters in the Qur’an that speak about the basic unity of all Abrahamic reli- gions or that command respect for difference and diversity will also contain passages that instruct Muslims not to ally themselves with non-Muslims. This fact led some Western scholars to conclude that the two types of passages are funda- mentally inconsistent and irreconcilable. Puritans, however, deal with this same apparent inconsistency by arguing that the conciliatory verses have been abrogated and voided by the nonalliance verses. Moderates, on the other hand, insist that if the Qur’anic text is read from a contextual perspective, it be- comes clear that the different passages are a part of a complex and layered discourse responding to various historical situa- tions.

The verses that call upon Muslims to support the newly es- tablished Muslim community in Medina do not issue a blan-

ket condemnation against Jews and Christians (who “shall have their reward with their Lord”).
12
Instead, they accept the distinctiveness of the Jewish and Christian communities and their laws, while also insisting that
in the case of conflict,
Muslims should not ally themselves against their fellow Mus- lims. At the background of every single Qur’anic revelation warning Muslims not to ally themselves with non-Muslims is a historical context in which it was necessary to choose sides. But even then the Qur’an addresses itself to situations in which during active hostilities between Muslims and non- Muslims a Muslim party is commanded to refrain from giving active support to non-Muslims against Muslims—the opera- tive word here being
against
. In other words, the nonalliance verses were all revealed while there were ongoing hostilities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the Qur’an quite rea- sonably commands Muslims not to assist the enemy inflicting damage against Muslims. But this does not mean that the Qur’an mandates that Muslims create polarized and conflict- filled situations in the first place. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Qur’an calls upon all human beings to work to achieve goodness on the earth. This will become clearer when I address the positions of the moderates and pu- ritans on the subject of warfare.