Dr. Farida Khanam
The Prophet Muhammad is introduced in the Qur’an in these words:
And We have not sent you forth but as a mercy to mankind (21:107).
This shows that his distinctive quality was that he was a blessing incarnate in word and deed.
According to a tradition recorded in the Sahih of Imam Muslim, when his opponents greatly increased their persecution, his Companions asked him to curse them. At this the Prophet replied, "I have not been sent to lay a curse upon men but to be a blessing to them." His opponents continued to treat him and his Companions with injustice and cruelty, but he always prayed for them.
Once he was so badly stoned by his enemies that the blood began to spurt from all over his body. This happened when he went to Ta’if, where the Hijaz aristocracy used to while away their summer days. When he attempted to call them to Islam, instead of listening to his words of wisdom, they set the street urchins upon him, who kept chasing him till nightfall. Even at that point, when he was utterly exhausted and bleeding from head to foot, all he said was: "O my Lord, guide my people along the true path as they are ignorant of the truth."
His heart was filled with intense love for all human kind irrespective of caste, creed, or color. Once he advised his companions to regard all people as their brothers and sisters. He added: "You are all Adam’s offspring and Adam was born of clay."
All this tells us what kind of awareness he wanted to bring about in man. His mission was to bring people abreast of the reality that all men and women, although inhabiting different regions of the world, and seemingly different from one another as regards their color, language, dress, culture, etc., were each other’s blood brothers. Hence a proper relationship will be established between all human beings only if they regard one another as sisters and brothers. Only then will proper feelings of love and respect prevail throughout the world.
According to a hadith (sayings of the Prophet), the Prophet once said, "A true believer is one with whom others feel secure. One who returns love for hatred." The Prophet made it clear that one who would only return love for love was on a lower ethical plane. We should never think it is only if people treat us well, that we should treat them well. We should rather be accustomed to being good to those who are not good to us and to not wronging those who harm us.
The Prophet once borrowed some money from a Jew. After a few days the Jew came to demand payment of his debt. The Prophet told him that at that moment he had nothing to pay him with. The Jew said that he won’t let him go until he had paid him back. And so the Jew stayed there, from morning till night, holding the Prophet captive. At that time the Prophet was the established ruler of Medina and could have easily taken action against him. His Companions naturally wanted to rebuke the man and chase him away. But the Prophet forbade this, saying, "The Lord has forbidden us to wrong anyone." The Jew continued to hold the Prophet captive until the following morning. But with the first light of dawn, the Jew was moved by the Prophet’s tolerance, and he thereupon embraced Islam. In spite of being a rich man, he had detained the Prophet the day before on account of a few pence. But now the Prophet’s noble conduct had had such an impact on him that he was willing to give all his wealth to the Prophet, saying, "Spend it as you please."
According to another hadith, the Prophet once said: "By God, he is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer; by God, he is not a believer, with whom his neighbors are not secure." This hadith shows how much he loved and cared for all human beings. One of the lessons he taught was that we should live among others like flowers, and not like thorns, without giving trouble to anybody.
In another hadith the Prophet said: "If a believer is not able to benefit others, he must at least do them no harm." This shows that to the Prophet the man who becomes useful to others leads his life on a higher plane. But if he fails to do so, he should at least create no trouble for his fellow men. For a man to be a really good servant of God, he must live in this world as a no-problem person. There is no third option.
The Prophet’s own example is testified to by Anas ibn Malik who served the Prophet for ten years. He says that the Prophet never ever rebuked him. "When I did something, he never questioned my manner of doing it; and when I did not do something, he never questioned my failure to do it. He was the most good-natured of all men." Such conduct gained him the respect even of his enemies and his followers stood by him through all kinds of hardship and misfortune. He applied the principles on which his own life was based in equal measure to those who followed his path and to those who had harmed or discountenanced him.I
In the present world, everyone’s thinking, tastes, aptitude, likes and dislikes can never exactly coincide. For many reasons, differences do arise in this world. But then, what is the permanent solution to the problem? The solution lies in tolerance, called i‘raz in Arabic. The Prophet’s entire life served as a perfect example of this principle. According to his wife, ‘A’isha, "He was a personification of the Qur’an."
That is to say, the Prophet molded his own life in accordance with the ideal pattern of life which he presented to others in the form of the Qur’an. He never beat a servant, or a woman, or anyone else. He did, of course, fight for what was right. Yet, when he had to choose between two alternatives, he would take the easier course, provided it involved no sin.’ No one was more careful to avoid sin than he. He never sought revenge—on his own behalf—for any wrong done to him personally. Only if God’s commandments had been broken would he mete out retribution for the sake of God. It was such conduct which gained the Prophet universal respect.
In the early Meccan period when the antagonists far exceeded the Prophet’s companions in number, it often happened that when the Prophet would stand to pray, his detractors would come near him and whistle and clap in order to disturb him, but the Prophet did not even once show his anger at such acts. He always opted for the policy of tolerance and avoidance of confrontation.
When the Prophet migrated to Medina he built the first mosque known as Masjid al-Nabi (Mosque of the Prophet), considered to be the second most sacred mosque in Islam.
One day the Prophet was sitting in the mosque along with his companions. A Bedouin entered the mosque and started urinating. The Companions rushed to catch him and give him a good beating. But the Prophet did not allow them to do so. After the Bedouin had urinated, he asked his companions to bring a bucket of water and wash the place. Afterwards the Prophet called the man and with gentleness and affection explained to him that this was a place of worship and that it should be kept clean.
When the opposition became very strong the Prophet left Mecca for Medina. But his antagonists did not leave him in peace. They began to attack Medina. In this way a state of war prevailed between the Muslims and non-Muslims.
Since the Prophet avoided war at all costs, he strove to bring about a peace agreement between him and the Meccans. After great efforts on his part, the non-Muslims agreed to the finalizing of a 10-year peace treaty, which was drafted and signed at the al-Hudaybiyyah.
While the al-Hudaybiyyah treaty was being drafted, the Meccans indulged in a number of extremely provocative acts. For instance, the agreement mentioned the Prophet’s name as ‘Muhammad the Messenger of God.’ They insisted that the phrase ‘the messenger of God’ should be taken out, and be replaced simply by ‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’. The Prophet accepted their unreasonable condition and deleted the appellation with his own hands. Similarly, they made the condition that if they could lay their hands on any Muslim they would make him a hostage, but if the Muslims succeeded in detaining any non-Muslim, they would have to set him free. The Prophet even relented on this point. For the restoration of peace in the region, the Prophet accepted a number of such unjustifiable clauses as were added by the enemy. In this way he set the example of peace and tolerance being linked with one another. If we desire peace, we must tolerate many unpleasant things from others. There is no other way to establish peace in society.
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Medina, along with his companions. During this time a funeral (procession) passed by. On seeing this the Prophet stood up. Seeing the Prophet stand, up, one of his Companion remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew, that is, a non-Muslim. The Prophet replied, ‘Was he not a human being?’
This incident illustrates how an atmosphere of mutual love and compassion can be brought about in the world only when we consciously rise above all insidious demarcation of caste, color and creed. Just as the Prophet did, we too must look at all men as human beings who deserve to be respected at all events.
Showing posts with label Tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tolerance. Show all posts
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Tolerance and Diversity in Islam
By: Asma Afsaruddin
In the thirteenth century, when the non-Muslim Mongols had taken possession
of Baghdad, their ruler Hulegu Khan is said to have assembled the religious
scholars in the city and posed a loaded question to them: according to their
law, which alternative is preferable, the disbelieving ruler who is just or
the Muslim ruler who is unjust? After moments of anguished reflection, one
well known scholar took the lead by signing his name to the response, "the
disbelieving ruler who is just." Others are said to have followed suit in
endorsing this answer.
Just and accountable government has long been considered essential in
Islamic political and religious thought. The Qur'an states that the
righteous "inherit the earth," righteous in this case referring to the
morally upright rather than the members of any privileged confessional
community. A righteous and just leader ruling by at least the tacit consent
of the people and liable to being deposed for unrighteous conduct remained
the ideal for most Muslims through much of the Middle Ages, even though
dynastic rule replaced limited elective rule only about thirty years after
the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 CE. That thirty year period of
non-dynastic rule became hallowed, however, in the collective Muslim memory
as the golden era of just and legitimate leadership.
The consequences of this memory could have potentially far-reaching
repercussions for the reshaping of the Islamic world today. The Qur'anic
concept of shura refers to "consultation" among people in public affairs,
including political governance, and was practiced in particular by the
second caliph Umar during the critical thirty year period. It is a term that
resonates positively with many contemporary Muslims who wistfully recognize
the intrinsic value of this sacred concept but find it rarely applied in the
polities they inhabit today. Contrary to certain popular caricatures,
Muslims are not somehow genetically predisposed to accept tyranny and
religious absolutism. There is a healthy respect for honest, reasoned
dissensus within the Islamic tradition; this attitude finds reflection in
the saying attributed to the Prophet, "There is mercy in the differences of
my community."
With the historical insight and interpretive rigor, one can discover common
ground between the modern Western ideal of democratic pluralism and the
praxis of various pre-modern Muslim societies. Long before the first ten
amendments to the United States Constitution were formulated, medieval
Muslim jurists developed what may be called an Islamic bill of rights meant
to ensure state protection of individual life, religion, intellect,
property, and personal dignity. Non-Muslims such as Jews and Christians
(later Zoroastrians and others as well) also had specific rights in the
Muslim community. Above all, they had the right to practice their religion
upon payment of a poll-tax to the Islamic state (from which priests, other
clerics, and the poor were exempt) and were consequently freed from serving
in the military. The Qu'ran after all counsels, "There is no compulsion in
religion." Within roughly twenty years after the Prophet's death, Islam lay
claim to the former domains of Byzantine and Persian empires in Persia,
Syria-Palestine, Iraq, and Egypt.
It is important to point out that territorial expansion did not mean
forcible conversion of the conquered peoples. The populations of Egypt and
the Fertile Crescent, for example, remained largely Christian for about two
centuries after the early Islamic conquests. Individual Christians and Jews
sometimes obtained high positions in Muslim administrations throughout the
medieval period. Syriac speaking Christians were employed by their Muslim
patrons in eighth and ninth century Baghdad to translate Greek manuscripts
into Arabic; their inclusion in the intellectual life of medieval Islam
helped preserve the wisdom of the ancient world. Centuries later, Jews
fleeing from the "excesses" of the Spanish Reconquista would find refuge in
Muslim Ottoman lands and establish thriving communities there. Clearly, the
Qur'an's injunction to show tolerance towards people of other, particularly
Abrahamic, faiths was frequently heeded by those who revered it as sacred
scripture.
To deny these lived realities of the Islamic past, which point to what we
would term in today's jargon a respect for pluralism and religious
diversity, is to practice a kind of intellectual violence against Islam.
Muslim extremists who insist that the Qur'an calls for relentless warfare
against non-Muslims without just cause or provocation merely to propagate
Islam and certain Western opinion makers who unthinkingly accept and report
their rhetoric as authentically Islamic are both doing history a great
disservice. Muslim extremist fringe groups with their desperate cult of
martyrdom are overreacting to current political contingencies and
disregarding any scriptural imperative. It is worthy of note that the Qur'an
does not even have a word for martyr; the word "shahid," now commonly
understood to mean "a martyr," refers only to an eyewitness or a legal
witness in Qur'anic usage. Only in later extra Qur'anic tradition, as a
result of extraneous influence, did the term "shahid" come to mean bearing
witness for the faith, particularly by laying down one's life, much like the
Greek derived English word "martyr."
*The question thus remains: if there is much in the history of Muslims that
may be understood to be consonant with the objectives of civil society, how
and why did it go awry? Zeal for political power and corruption on the part
of many ruling elites throughout history, and debilitating encounters with
Western colonialism and secular modernity in recent times are prominent
among the constellation of reasons advanced to explain this current state of
affairs.*
There has in fact never been a better time for collective introspection and
moral housecleaning. A contrite Christian Europe after the debacle of the
Holocaust was forced to question some of its interpretive traditions and
their moral and social consequences. After the atrocities of September 11,
the virulently militant underbelly of political Islam can and should be
eviscerated by debunking the interpretive strand that is in clear violation
of the most basic precepts of Islam, fosters the glorification of violence
and self-immolation. In its stead, reflective Muslims must engage in a
process of recovery and revalorization of genuine Islamic core values, such
as consultative government, religious tolerance, respect for pluralism and
peaceful coexistence with diverse peoples. The compatibility of these core
values with those of civil society imparts both urgency and legitimacy to
this process.
*Asma Afsaruddin is Assistant Professor of Classics at Notre Dame and a
Fellow of the Kroc Institute. Her scholarly research focuses on the early
religious and political history of Islam, Qur'an and hadith studies, and
classical and modern Arabic literature. She recently published Excellence
and Precedence: Medieval Islamic Discourse on Legitimate Leadership (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 2002). This article is adapted from "Recovering the Core Values
of Islam," published in Muslim Democrat, vol.4, no. 1, January 2002*
In the thirteenth century, when the non-Muslim Mongols had taken possession
of Baghdad, their ruler Hulegu Khan is said to have assembled the religious
scholars in the city and posed a loaded question to them: according to their
law, which alternative is preferable, the disbelieving ruler who is just or
the Muslim ruler who is unjust? After moments of anguished reflection, one
well known scholar took the lead by signing his name to the response, "the
disbelieving ruler who is just." Others are said to have followed suit in
endorsing this answer.
Just and accountable government has long been considered essential in
Islamic political and religious thought. The Qur'an states that the
righteous "inherit the earth," righteous in this case referring to the
morally upright rather than the members of any privileged confessional
community. A righteous and just leader ruling by at least the tacit consent
of the people and liable to being deposed for unrighteous conduct remained
the ideal for most Muslims through much of the Middle Ages, even though
dynastic rule replaced limited elective rule only about thirty years after
the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 CE. That thirty year period of
non-dynastic rule became hallowed, however, in the collective Muslim memory
as the golden era of just and legitimate leadership.
The consequences of this memory could have potentially far-reaching
repercussions for the reshaping of the Islamic world today. The Qur'anic
concept of shura refers to "consultation" among people in public affairs,
including political governance, and was practiced in particular by the
second caliph Umar during the critical thirty year period. It is a term that
resonates positively with many contemporary Muslims who wistfully recognize
the intrinsic value of this sacred concept but find it rarely applied in the
polities they inhabit today. Contrary to certain popular caricatures,
Muslims are not somehow genetically predisposed to accept tyranny and
religious absolutism. There is a healthy respect for honest, reasoned
dissensus within the Islamic tradition; this attitude finds reflection in
the saying attributed to the Prophet, "There is mercy in the differences of
my community."
With the historical insight and interpretive rigor, one can discover common
ground between the modern Western ideal of democratic pluralism and the
praxis of various pre-modern Muslim societies. Long before the first ten
amendments to the United States Constitution were formulated, medieval
Muslim jurists developed what may be called an Islamic bill of rights meant
to ensure state protection of individual life, religion, intellect,
property, and personal dignity. Non-Muslims such as Jews and Christians
(later Zoroastrians and others as well) also had specific rights in the
Muslim community. Above all, they had the right to practice their religion
upon payment of a poll-tax to the Islamic state (from which priests, other
clerics, and the poor were exempt) and were consequently freed from serving
in the military. The Qu'ran after all counsels, "There is no compulsion in
religion." Within roughly twenty years after the Prophet's death, Islam lay
claim to the former domains of Byzantine and Persian empires in Persia,
Syria-Palestine, Iraq, and Egypt.
It is important to point out that territorial expansion did not mean
forcible conversion of the conquered peoples. The populations of Egypt and
the Fertile Crescent, for example, remained largely Christian for about two
centuries after the early Islamic conquests. Individual Christians and Jews
sometimes obtained high positions in Muslim administrations throughout the
medieval period. Syriac speaking Christians were employed by their Muslim
patrons in eighth and ninth century Baghdad to translate Greek manuscripts
into Arabic; their inclusion in the intellectual life of medieval Islam
helped preserve the wisdom of the ancient world. Centuries later, Jews
fleeing from the "excesses" of the Spanish Reconquista would find refuge in
Muslim Ottoman lands and establish thriving communities there. Clearly, the
Qur'an's injunction to show tolerance towards people of other, particularly
Abrahamic, faiths was frequently heeded by those who revered it as sacred
scripture.
To deny these lived realities of the Islamic past, which point to what we
would term in today's jargon a respect for pluralism and religious
diversity, is to practice a kind of intellectual violence against Islam.
Muslim extremists who insist that the Qur'an calls for relentless warfare
against non-Muslims without just cause or provocation merely to propagate
Islam and certain Western opinion makers who unthinkingly accept and report
their rhetoric as authentically Islamic are both doing history a great
disservice. Muslim extremist fringe groups with their desperate cult of
martyrdom are overreacting to current political contingencies and
disregarding any scriptural imperative. It is worthy of note that the Qur'an
does not even have a word for martyr; the word "shahid," now commonly
understood to mean "a martyr," refers only to an eyewitness or a legal
witness in Qur'anic usage. Only in later extra Qur'anic tradition, as a
result of extraneous influence, did the term "shahid" come to mean bearing
witness for the faith, particularly by laying down one's life, much like the
Greek derived English word "martyr."
*The question thus remains: if there is much in the history of Muslims that
may be understood to be consonant with the objectives of civil society, how
and why did it go awry? Zeal for political power and corruption on the part
of many ruling elites throughout history, and debilitating encounters with
Western colonialism and secular modernity in recent times are prominent
among the constellation of reasons advanced to explain this current state of
affairs.*
There has in fact never been a better time for collective introspection and
moral housecleaning. A contrite Christian Europe after the debacle of the
Holocaust was forced to question some of its interpretive traditions and
their moral and social consequences. After the atrocities of September 11,
the virulently militant underbelly of political Islam can and should be
eviscerated by debunking the interpretive strand that is in clear violation
of the most basic precepts of Islam, fosters the glorification of violence
and self-immolation. In its stead, reflective Muslims must engage in a
process of recovery and revalorization of genuine Islamic core values, such
as consultative government, religious tolerance, respect for pluralism and
peaceful coexistence with diverse peoples. The compatibility of these core
values with those of civil society imparts both urgency and legitimacy to
this process.
*Asma Afsaruddin is Assistant Professor of Classics at Notre Dame and a
Fellow of the Kroc Institute. Her scholarly research focuses on the early
religious and political history of Islam, Qur'an and hadith studies, and
classical and modern Arabic literature. She recently published Excellence
and Precedence: Medieval Islamic Discourse on Legitimate Leadership (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 2002). This article is adapted from "Recovering the Core Values
of Islam," published in Muslim Democrat, vol.4, no. 1, January 2002*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)