Religious Tolerance: An Islamic Perspective

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.

This paper addresses the question of how to deal with religious diversity from an

Islamic perspective. It has been divided into five parts. Part one is the

introduction. The second part describes the three important responses to the

phenomenon of religious diversity. It 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 paper.

1. 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 were 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: “They claim: No one shall enter the

paradise except the one who is Jew or Christian.” Ironically, the same

Exclusivist approach has been adopted by many Muslims who claim that it is only

they who shall enter the paradise. They claim that their understanding is based

on the Qur’anic teachings which mention that all Kuffar (plural of Kafir)

will enter the hell. Many Muslims understand that since all non-Muslims are Kafir,

therefore all of them are destined to the 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 it later that this conclusion is not necessarily the only possible

result which may proceed from an Exclusivist approach.[6]

2. 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, 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 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.

3. 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 “a 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]

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 the

other alternative explanations. This struggle would continue until such time

that the seeker after 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 failed to embrace the correct version of the ultimate

truth to be blamed for his failure?

The next section would attempt to answer these questions from an Islamic perspective.

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

described 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: “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.” [19]

In another passage it says: “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.”[20] Politeness, concern,

respect, and tolerance are therefore at the heart of a Muslim’s desired

behaviour towards non-Muslims.

Qur’anic Evidence of the Given Understanding:

1. 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.

“Mankind were (to begin with)[21]

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 the 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.”[22]

2. Islam is the true religion of God.

“Surely the true religion with God is Islam.”[23]

3. Those who deny the message from God do so deliberately and therefore are worthy of condemnation.

“Those to whom We gave (a part of) the Book (earlier) recognize him (i.e. Muhammad) as

they recognize their sons. But those who ruin their souls, they will not

believe.”[24]

“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.”[25]

4. Non-Muslims are not necessarily always Kafir

1. Even during a certain stage in the presence of prophets, non-Muslims are not Kafir,

   until such time that they deliberately reject their message.

“You shall see many of them (i.e. 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…”[26]

The above verse has not used the expression “those who disbelieve” (i.e. those

who are Kafir) for Jews and Christians, but only for those Arabs who had

already knowingly denied prophet Muhammad. The people of the Book (i.e. Jews and

Christians) 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 prophet Muhammad when the non-believing Jews and Christians 

were not categorized as disbelievers (i.e. Kafir)

2. 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.

“(Muhammad) If they (i.e. 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.”[27]

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. 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. Qur’an says “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.”   [28]

3. Some non-Muslims have in fact been praised in Qur’an for their good character and attitude.

“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.”[29]

“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.”[30]

“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.”[31]

4. Disbelievers (Kuffar) are bound to fail.

“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.”[32]

Such statements as the one above, if not understood in the right context, result in

extreme form of religious Exclusivism and bigotry.

5. Well-meaning believers of different faiths have been promised paradise.

   “Surely, those who believe (i.e. Muslims) and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians,[33] whoever (from among them)

   believes in God[34]

   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.”[35]

   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.[36]

   The significance of this statement is that while there could be reasons for

   people not to accept 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 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 Decree[37],

   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.”[38]

   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 ‘Ilmul

   Yaqin’ (i.e. intellectual certainty).[39]

   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. Qur’an says:

   “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.”[40]

   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. Qur’an says:

   “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.” [41]

   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:

   “God burdens not a soul beyond its capacity.”[42]

   “… No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And that man will

   have nothing but what he (himself) strives for.”[43]

   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 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:

   “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.”[44]

   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:

   “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.'”[45]

   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:

   “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.” [46]

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.[47]

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.[48]

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 at a reasonable level of clarity 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 will not

be able to escape accountability. The Qur’an says: “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.”[49]

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’s why, according to 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.

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.