[Reader-list] Waris Mazhari: Islamic Ethics and Inter-Faith Relations

[Yogi Sikand]

Islamic Ethics and Inter-Faith Relations

By Waris Mazhari

(Editor, Monthly Tarjuman-e Dar ul-Ulum Deoband, New
Delhi, India)






In today�s global village a major challenge is that of
relations between different peoples and communities.
According to the rules of nature, familiarity should
breed love, not contempt or conflict. However,
precisely the opposite is happening today. This is
because the links that are being established today
across cultures through new technological innovations
are artificial, not real. They have been brought about
by external changes and circumstances. Real closeness
comes about, instead, through internal or inner
change, but this is not really happening today.

Even if Samuel Huntington�s theory of the clash of
civilizations is not true and is grossly exaggerated,
there can be no denying that there is a dimension of
conflict that is present. We must seek to understand
the causes for this and, accordingly, work out
appropriate solutions. There are three main causes for
this:
1.	Straying from the path of morality and ethics,
which is a reflection of denial of human nature and
revolt against religion.
2.	The misuse of religion, while ignoring contemporary
social changes and transformations and
3.	Politics based on communal and personal interests
while ignoring international as well as basic human
interests.

At the global level, in order to improve
inter-religious relations we will have to work on all
the above-mentioned fronts. In this we would need to
be guided by moral imperatives. Religion must not be
misused and politics must not be played out in such a
way that serving one�s own interests leads to the
suppression of others. This can only happen on the
basis of natural human ethics and morality.

If interpreted properly, religion provides human
beings with the appropriate standard of morality and
ethics. Through religion we learn to distinguish
between good and evil, and, accordingly, to shape our
lives in the right direction. Human beings have no
external standard other than religion through which
their moral worth can be judged. A truly religious
person considers his relations with other human beings
as intimately associated with his relations with God.
Accordingly, concern for other human beings should
form a basis of inter-personal relations. This is the
proper way to interpret and understand the social
ethics of religion. As the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.)
said, religion (din) is the name for welfare of and
concern for others (al-dinu-al-nasihatu). A practical
form of this is reported by another Hadith, which
relates that a believer should desire for others what
he would desire for himself.

In my opinion, there are four basic pillars of Islamic
morality insofar as it relates to inter-faith
relations:

1.	The Islamic conception of universal humanity
2.	The Islamic conception of human rights
3.	The Islamic conception of pluralism
4.	The Islamic conception of peace.

The Islamic conception of universal humanity

This conception is based on the three principles of
the unity, dignity and equality of all human beings in
their status as creatures of God. Firstly, the Quran
reminds us that the origin of all human beings is the
same, they being children of the same set of primal
parents, although they have been divided into
different tribes or communities. This division,
according to the Quran, is so that they may know each
other, based on equality and care for each other. The
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) said that all creatures are
members of God�s family, and that in God�s eyes that
person is the best who maintains the best relations
with His family. In other words, God wants to see
human beings united at heart. Their external
differences are part of the wisdom of creation and a
test for human beings. While acknowledging these
differences, we must strive to maintain the unity of
hearts.

Monotheism (tauhid) is ingrained in human nature and
is related to the nature of the one God. God says that
He made human beings in the best form. The best form
here implies that God created Adam in His own image.
He created Adam with His own hands and blew His spirit
into him. The relation between the essence of human
beings and God can be understood from this. It is this
truth that prominently figures in the wujudi
philosophy of Islamic Sufism. Some Sufis considered
this to be the essence and the spirit of Sufism, and
thus of Islam. A Hadith report exhorts human beings to
seek to acquire reflections of the attributes of God,
which reflects this very distinguishing feature of the
human species. Human beings cannot perform their role
as vicegerents of God if they are bereft of the
reflections of divine attributes and ethics.

The second theoretical basis of the oneness of
humankind is the Quranic understanding of human
dignity. God says in the Quran that He has dignified
the children of Adam and has bestowed on them
superiority over other creatures. Human beings are
worthy of dignity simply by their status of being
human. This point is made in the form of a
shariah-based principle by the famous Hanafi scholar
Ibn Abidin Shami, who writes that �A human being is
worthy of dignity even if he be a disbeliever� (al
adami mukarramun shar�an walau kafiran). In the
Islamic understanding of ethics this is reflected in
the insistence on respecting the essential humanity of
all human beings. Hence, when a funeral procession
passed by the Prophet (s.a.w.), he stood up. In
response to a question from his companions about this,
he answered that he did so because the Jew was also
human. He said, �Is he not a human being?' (alaisat
nafsan). This reflects the Prophet�s respect for all
humanity.

There are two aspects of human dignity which can be
perceived from the following two points mentioned in
Quran:

1) God made the angels bow down before Adam. Iblis
refused to do so and he was punished for all time for
this refusal.

2) God made human beings his vicegerents on earth and
bestowed on them custodianship, despite the human
capacity for doing wrong.  When the angels asked God
why he had done so, He replied that He knew what they
did not know.

The third basis of Islam�s universalism is its
insistence on the equality of all human beings as
creatures of God, despite their religious differences.
The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) was meant for the whole
of humankind.  He stated that all human beings are
equal to each other like the teeth of a comb. Another
Hadith report mentions that the Prophet (s.a.w.)
stated that all human beings are brothers to each
other. The Quran refers to prophets sent to various
communities as brothers of their people, although many
of these people denied or opposed them. Although the
Quran mentions that these prophets referred to their
people as members of their own community, many of
these people did not believe them. Many of these
people remained disbelievers and polytheists. This
suggests that, according to the Quran, what united the
prophets with their people was their common ethnicity
rather than common religion.

The Islamic Conception of Human Rights

The Islamic concept of human rights derives from the
Islamic notion of the oneness of humankind. All
humans, by virtue of being human, are eligible to
enjoy the same rights. The Quran refers to the killing
of one innocent person as tantamount to the slaying of
all human beings. The importance of a single
individual can be upheld only if he or she enjoys
universal human rights. This is similar to the case of
citizens of the same country, who can be considered to
be equal only when they enjoy equal rights. Every
individual is a citizen of God�s universal kingdom,
and so he is eligible for the same universal rights as
other human beings, be these religious, social,
political or economic or other rights.

According to Muslim scholars, right from Adam to the
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), the shariahs revealed to
various prophets aimed at the protection of rights of
the self (nafs), property (mal), religion (din),
intelligence (aql) and progeny (nasl). After Imam
Shatibi, some other ulama expanded this list of
rights. These rights reflect basic human rights that
must be protected. From the principal sources of Islam
it emerges that these rights have been bestowed on
people because God is the creator of them all and
loves them all. Accordingly, He bestowed on human
beings the status of His vicegerent, provided they
follow His will.

Islamic Pluralism and Coexistence

Pluralism and coexistence are core values in Islam. In
numerous verses of the Quran they are presented as a
natural phenomenon. Islam does not see colour, race,
language, ethnicity or nationality as the basis for
judging the relative worth of human beings. Instead,
these differences are accepted and tolerated as
natural.  The only criterion for difference is that of
religion. This is because the scale to measure the
deeds of human beings is religion. Despite this
religious distinction, Islam provides all human beings
freedom of faith and a person�s religion will not be
allowed to negatively impact on his rights.

The Quran explicitly states that there is no coercion
in religion. Human beings are free to adopt any
religion or ideology they might wish. This is because
it is not in God�s scheme of things that all human
beings should be made to subscribe to one way of
thinking or behaving. The Quran says that if God had
wished He would have made all human beings members of
one community. But He did not do so. Each community
has its own way of thinking, environment and natural
abilities. This is why, according to the Quran, God
has made a set of laws (shariah) and a path (minhaj)
for every community.  The Quran provides individuals
with freedom in matters of belief and action,
mentioning in this regard that each person is
responsible for his own deeds. Thus, the Quran lays
down �Your religion is for you, and my religion is for
me� (lakum dinakum wa liya din). It also says, �Our
actions are for us, and your actions for you (lana
�amaluna walakum �amalukum). The Quran also says that
the opposition posed by any community must not let one
stray from the path of justice.

The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) established the first
Islamic state in Medina. It was based on the
principles of multiculturalism, pluralism and common
welfare.  The Treaty of Medina that the Prophet
(s.a.w.) signed was the first written document in
Muslim history.  All the communities who had consented
to this agreement would enjoy the same rights,
although the state was headed by the Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w.). According to the terms of the agreement, the
Muslims, Jews and the polytheists who had consented to
it would be treated as members of one ummah or
community and the principle of freedom of religion was
respected.  An article of the Medina treaty reads,
�The religion of the Muslims is for the Muslims and
the religion of the Jews is for the Jews� (lil
muslimina dinuhum wa lil yahude dinuhum).

This respect for religious freedom is also enshrined
in the Quran itself, where churches and synagogues are
mentioned before mosques in the context of the Quran�s
condemnation of the unwarranted destruction of places
of worship:

If Allah did not check one set of people by means of
another, there would surely had been pulled down
monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in
which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant
measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid His
[cause].

From this Quranic verse it emerges that God has taken
it on Himself to protect places of worship belonging
to followers of other faiths, particularly the �People
of the Book� (ah lul- kitab).  This is because, as
this Quranic verse says, God�s name is oft-recited in
these places. This reflects the Quranic understanding
of religious pluralism.

In the treaties made between the Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w.) and the people of Najran and Heerah the
non-Muslims who were party to these treaties were
given religious, economic and social freedom and
rights. After the Prophet (s.a.w.), his companions
followed in his path.  In the treaty made between the
Caliph Umar and the people of Palestine, the
non-Muslims were granted full autonomy. This principle
was also reflected in subsequent treaties made in
Islamic history.

In this context, it is appropriate to quote Bernard
Lewis, who, in his book The Jews of Islam, writes:

Religious persecution of the members of other faiths
was almost completely absent. Jews and Christians
under Muslim rule were not subject to exile, apostasy
or death, which was the choice offered to Muslims and
Jews in re-conquered Spain. And Christians and Jews
were not subject to any major territorial and
occupational restrictions such as were the common lot
of Jews in pre-modern Europe.

The Islamic Conception of Peace

The Islamic conception of peace also bears an intimate
relation with the Islamic conception of inter-faith
relations.  Unfortunately, some fuqaha have undermined
this ethical principle.  In place of the principle of
lasting peace, they have taken the temporary principle
of war as a central defining feature of inter-faith
relations. This is why relations between Muslims and
others are such a problematic issue in the overall
fiqh tradition. This, in turn, has negatively impacted
on the image that non-Muslims have of Islam.

According to the Islamic code of ethics, the basic
principle that governs inter-personal and inter-faith
relations in ordinary situations and contexts should
be peace. The word �Islam� also means �peace� and to
be a �Muslim� also means to be at peace or peaceful.
The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) stated, �A believer is
he from whose hands and tongue people are safe�
(al-muslimu man saleman-nasu min lisanihi wa yadehi).
He (s.a.w.) also said, �A believer is he from whom
people�s life and wealth are protected� (al-mominu man
aminahu an-nasu ala dimaihim wa amwalihim). This
sentiment is also expressed in the form of the Islamic
greeting of Asalamu Alaikum, a supplication that the
person one is greeting should be at peace. War in
Islam is something imposed from outside, rather than
being intrinsic to its spirit. It is an exception
rather than the rule. Peace-making is considered to be
a noble action in the Quranic scheme of things. The
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) said that a person is not a
true believer whose neighbours suffer his persecution
and torment.. He said that the Angel Gabriel so
stressed to him the importance of neighbours that he
felt that they might even be included in the list of
one�s inheritors. And neighbours include both Muslims
as well as non-Muslims.

Clearing Up Misunderstandings

These points give us the essential principles to base
inter-community interactions between Muslims and
others on.  However, there are some crucial
misunderstandings that stand in the way of improving
these relations. Both Muslims and non-Muslims are
responsible for this and hence both need to clear
their minds.

Some Muslims think that Islam forbids them from
befriending non-Muslims and exhorts them to wage war
and kill non-Muslims or consign them to a subservient
position in an Islamic state, etc.. Other such issues
include the punishment for Muslim apostates and the
question of the salvation of non-Muslims after death.
Some Muslims think that they alone have the birthright
to enter heaven. They consider the global political
dominance of Islam as a divine mission, for which they
feel that violence can be used as a means. They
believe that non-Muslims are bereft of God�s mercy and
are subjected to eternal condemnation.

As far as Quranic teachings on such issues are
concerned, it must be remembered that they address the
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and his companions and are
often specific to that historical context. Further,
several of these prescriptions were intended to be
temporary and limited in their import. To see them as
other than this would lead to wrong conclusions.
Hence, the order to kill (qital) disbelievers is
specific to the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and his
companions. These disbelievers had waged war against
the Muslims and refused to respect the basic human
rights of the early Muslims. The Quran refers to this
refusal and the waging of war against the Muslims as
religious persecution, and exhorts the Prophet
(s.a.w.) and his companions to put an end to it. Now,
after the end of this persecution, this commandment
does not apply in the case of other people who do not
persecute Muslims.

Likewise is the question of friendship with
non-Muslims, which the Qur�an appears to frown upon in
several verses. However, in one chapter of the Qur�an
in which there is a verse that forbids befriending
non-Muslims another verse clarifies that God forbids
Muslims from befriending only those who wage war
against them on account of their religion and who have
forced them out of their lands or helped those who
forced them to leave. If the forbidding of friendship
with non-Muslims was a general rule, then how can one
explain the fact that Muslim men can marry women from
among the �People of the Book�?

In Muslim-ruled Spain and in India under the Mughals,
non-Muslims enjoyed their religious and other social
rights. This has been attested to by several
non-Muslim scholars themselves. With certain
exceptions, they were treated fairly, and not by the
harsh and prejudicial commandments that certain fuqaha
had prescribed. The institution of jizya, like that of
slavery, was prevalent in Arabia before the advent of
Islam in the ancient Roman and Iranian civilisations.
The word jizya is derived from the ancient Persian
word gazit.

Muslims living in non-Muslim lands and non-Muslims
living in Muslim lands were parties to treaties that
sought to respect their rights. These treaties were
given religious sanction. If they were not satisfied
with the status they enjoyed they could migrate to
other lands. To commit treason against a state with
which one has a treaty with was, and still is,
considered a crime.

As far as the question of whether non-Muslims deserve
God�s mercy and salvation, one must also ask if
Christianity and Judaism consider Muslims as so
deserving. As far as the Hereafter is concerned, every
religious community has the right to believe that it
is right and the others are wrong. Not to do so would
lead to hypocrisy and cheating. The right attitude is
to regard one�s religion as true but at the same time
to tolerate others and respect their beliefs and
customs, rather than denying the differences with them
or seeking to do away with these differences.

Many misunderstandings and misinterpretations upheld
by a large number of Muslims on matters related to
inter-faith relations have also to do with the
intellectual stagnation and downfall of Muslims over
the past few centuries. Several understandings of
Islamic identity are concoctions of later Muslims
themselves, and their intellectual foundations are
weak. Some Hadith reports forbid Muslims from
imitating people of other faiths, but these have to be
seen in the historical context of the emergence of a
new Islamic religious culture. That is why the
strictness in this regard was able to be watered down
later when Islamic culture had established itself. A
universal faith like Islam cannot be tied to any
particular culture because it seeks to unite the whole
world in a single universal culture.

The later fuqaha dwelt in great detail on questions
like greeting non-Muslims, exchanging gifts with them,
attending their festivals and solemn functions,
visiting them when they are sick, using their evidence
in cases, wearing their clothes and using their
utensils etc.. On some of these issues, they expressed
opinions that are not in accordance with general moral
principles. These opinions can also be challenged and
critiqued from within the broader Islamic ethical
framework. These views bear the stamp of the
environment of the Middle Ages, when expertise in fiqh
became a veritable profession, resulting in
complicated and technical reasoning and arguments. A
large number of Muslims are still influenced by this
mindset shaped by the medieval fiqh tradition and this
assumes the form of a major challenge.

Challenges and Problems

The ethical framework that has been suggested above is
indispensable for improving relations between Muslims
and non-Muslims at the practical level. Hence, the
ideological challenge is a major one that we need to
face. This requires a new interpretation of Islamic
theology, whose intellectual basis should be the broad
Islamic ethical paradigm. It can be made practical
through engaging in ijtihad. This process has already
begun, although the present global political climate
is not favourable for such a project. Today, there is
a great need for this, but its achievement is also not
easy. Most Muslims are victims of the post-Crusades
and post-colonial mentality.

The movement that ostensibly calls for the reformation
or rethinking of Islamic thought, which is so much
talked about in the West, particularly in America, is
influenced by today�s politics and indeed is an
integral part of this politics. However, it should be
evolved on purely intellectual and academic bases.
Ironically, it might well lead to the further
reinforcement of the fear that some Muslims have,
rooted in a traditional mentality, that the whole
world is against Islam and is allegedly bent on its
destruction. American aggression against Muslim states
has resulted in violent reaction and in the emergence
of certain interpretations of religion, which the
West, particularly America, regards as a threat.
Imposition must be replaced by dialogue, particularly
with serious Muslim intellectuals.

The task of reinterpreting Islamic theology has been
haltingly taken up and is proceeding but slowly.
Academic circles must explore the possibilities for
this and promote efforts in this regard. It can only
evolve gradually, and not suddenly or at once. This
rethinking of Islamic theology must be based on the
rich intellectual and cultural heritage of Islam.
Islamic thought is dynamic, not static, because it is
based on diversity of opinions. We need to explore
this diversity deeply. We need to evolve a proper
method of using the concept of the �aims of the
shariah� (maqasid-i shariah) in this regard. There is
a need for incorporating this issue into Islamic
discourse.

Dialogue

Dialogue is the most important issue with regard to
inter-faith relations within the broader Islamic
ethical paradigm. The task of rethinking Islamic
theology is for Islamic scholars to do. On the other
hand, dialogue must involve both Muslims and
non-Muslims, but not just religious specialists.
Dialogue must take place at the social and political
levels too, between people working in these fields.
The new way of thinking theology that is called for
today can be provided a conducive environment to
develop if dialogue is also promoted.

Dialogue is a continuous process. It is crucial not
only because today we are faced with the possibility
of the clash of civilizations, which needs to be
pre-empted, but also because dialogue is a basic human
imperative through which people can get to know about
each other, their beliefs and their culture. In the
past this happened essentially through polemics, but
it is clear that this can only further
misunderstandings and negative feelings. Another
traditional method for relating to other peoples was
missionary work. Missionaries sought to win others to
their fold. However, dialogue is wider than this and
should be based on the basis of our common humanity.
Inspiration for this should be derived from the
ethical values that are common to all religions.

Both the East and the West have adopted negative and
emotional approaches in seeking to relate to or
understand each other. A string of events, from the
Crusades to the Islamic Revolution in Iran and 9/11,
have indelibly influenced the way in which Islam has
been understood in the West, generally in negative
terms. On its part, the East has sought to understand
the West in the backdrop of the legacy of colonialism
and now new forms of imperialism. In this way of
relating to each other, both have focused only on the
negatives and not on the positive features of the
other. Today, some serious intellectuals in both the
Muslim world and the West are seeking to honestly
understand each other, but the walls of suspicion and
fear have become even thicker and higher than before.
In the aftermath of 9/11, in many Islamic circles the
terrorist actions were roundly condemned, and this
gives us hope for the future. However, the American
invasion of Iraq has led many Muslims to turn back to
their earlier way of thinking.

Dialogue between Islam and the West is rendered more
problematic by the fact that, unlike Islam, the West
is not a religious entity but, instead, is based on
the intermingling of various cultures. Contemporary
Western culture is largely based on secular
liberalism, which represents a revolt against
religion. In contrast, Islamic culture is based on
religious principles. Muslim thinkers, by and large,
have not engaged in any systematic and balanced
analysis of Western secular culture. Few Muslim
scholars who enjoy the confidence of the Muslim masses
have done so. Much of what has been attempted in this
regard has been one-sided, negative and based on
secondary sources. This is another hurdle in the path
of dialogue between Islam and the West.

According to the Quran, dialogue is an Islamic
imperative and duty. As far as Muslims are concerned,
contemporary political conditions are a major obstacle
to dialogue. Dialogue can only be possible if both
parties have a common goal and if both seek to achieve
that goal. The world cannot be changed for the better
unless the consciousness of individuals changes first.
Dialogue cannot proceed unless both parties realize
and admit that they may have been, to some extent,
wrong and that the other party may have been right, at
least to some extent. To think that one is one hundred
per cent right means that one believes that the other
party is one hundred per cent wrong. Dialogue entails
accommodation, the willingness to look again at one�s
way of understanding others and the capacity to judge
others by their norms rather than by one�s own.

Trapped in the utopian environment of talk of dar
al-Islam, Islamic Caliphate or pan-Islamism, a large
section of Muslims think of dialogue as a new form of
imperialism or intellectual colonialism. Likewise,
some extremist Christians and Jews regard dialogue as
na�ve romanticism and of no use at all. How should we
relate to such people? In the past we sought to
overcome this barrier by seeking to promote dialogue
between Islamic and Christian organizations. There is
a particular need for Islamic seminaries or madrasas
as well as seminaries belonging to people of other
faiths to get involved in the dialogue process.
However, we must now expand the scope of dialogue to
include social, educational and welfare organizations
as well as social activists from different religious
traditions.
----------------------------------------------

The monthly Tarjuman-e Dar ul-Ulum, of which the
author is the editor, is the official organ of the Old
Boys� Association of the Dar ul-Ulum, Deoband, India.

Waris Mazhari can be contacted on
w.mazhari at gmail.com