Religious liberty in Islam

Religious liberty in Islam

542

1994 6 June 7-14 Religious liberty in Islam (2582)

In 1948 the United Nations gave the world its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a charter of what human beings in all walks of life could claim as theirs as a matter of fundamental human dignity. Article 18 of this declaration reads as follows:

Everyone has the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

These ideas are exactly in accordance with the principles of Islamic teaching, for in Islam man’s intellectual development is firmly believed in, and any system which favours intellectual development will, of necessity, uphold freedom of thought. Without this it is impossible for there to be any fruitful development of the human personality.

But what is perhaps even more important is the Islamic concept of the predetermination of the course taken by all inanimate objects and by all of God’s creatures except man. Man is held to be born free while every other animate or inanimate object is subservient to God’s will. There is nothing in the heavens or on earth which can decide upon the course of its own existence, this having been eternally predetermined while everything in the physical world – save man – must follow the path laid down by God, only man has been granted the freedom of choice and the power to take matters into his own hands, and make his own decisions.

Islam requires man to make his own quest for the truth. This is something of which he should be fully conscious and which he should impose upon himself as a matter of religious duty. This is the only way that true nobility of character can come into being. Externally given commands are meant for robots, not for fully mature human beings.

Real, alive, human beings cannot ever come into existence in an atmosphere of blinkered constraint. What truly moves the human psyche above all is the feeling in individuals that their achievements have been the result of their own personal deliberations. The opinions they have arrived at are their own. The beliefs on which they base their actions are the outcome of their own deep reflections. It is this freedom of choice that can lead to their being fully integrated personalities.

Here I shall make a few references to Islamic teachings, which I hope will bear out the above contentions.

AHEAD OF THE TIME

When Islam carne into the world in the seventh century A.D., it was a time when religious persecution was prevalent, but it is noteworthy that it remained uninfluenced by the common practices of the time. Islam, running counter to the age, proclaimed religious freedom. Although a missionary religion, it was against any imposition of restrictions on human thought, which meant that there should be no forced conversion. In his book, The Preaching of Islam, Professor T.W. Arnold has gone into considerable detail to show that under Islamic rule, other religions were allowed full freedom. He writes, inter alia, for the provinces of the Byzantine empire that were rapidly acquired by the prowess of Muslims found themselves in the enjoyment of a toleration such as, on account of their Monophysite and Nestorian opinions, had been unknown to them for centuries. They were allowed the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. The extent of this toleration – so striking in the history of the seventh century – may be judged from the terms granted to the conquered cities. (p. 56)

COMPULSION IMPERMISSIBLE

According to the Qur’an, ‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is now distinct from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the firmest handle that will never break.’ (2:256).

The verse of the Qur’an expresses the fundamental principle of Islam, according to which, if a person believes in the truth of something, he has every right to proclaim it as such, provided that he supports it by logical arguments. His task is complete once he has described his belief in the clearest possible way. But he has no right to compel others to accept it. Whoever accepts the truth does so for his own benefit and whoever denies it does harm only to himself.

FREEDOM FOR ALL

Likewise, the Qur’an states:

Say, the truth is from your Lord. Let him who will believe it, and let him who will reject it (18:29).

This also clearly expresses the notion that truth is something which should be accepted or rejected by one’s own decision, and not something which should be imposed upon one. The resulting belief is valid only as being the outcome of one’s own conscious decision. It is the very negation of truth to force its acceptance upon unwilling or unprepared individuals. Truth can be accepted as such only when man’s reason, his intellect attests to its being so. The imposition by force of a truth to which one’s reason fails to testify brings about not the recognition of truth but the recognition of force. It is an insult to truth itself if people are bludgeoned into accepting it.

NO ONE SHOULD ASSUME THE RIGHT TO BE ANOTHER’S KEEPER

A preacher’s mission is to convey the truth to the members of his congregation. And once he had done that, he has fulfilled his religious obligation. It is not part of his task to compel others to accept what he says. It is significant that in the Qur’an God thus admonishes the Prophet: ‘Remind them, for you are only one of the warners. You are not at all a warder over them (88:21-22).

This shows how different are the respective roles of the preacher and his hearers. It is the task of the preachers to convey the word of God, but his hearers have the right to reject his message. The most that the preacher can do to convince his hearers that he brings them the truth is to offer them strictly logical arguments. He must never stoop to coercion. God has never given His preachers this right.

RESPECT FOR THE RELIGION OF OTHERS

Certain of the companions of the Prophet of Islam, in their zeal to propagate the new faith, began to abuse those who worshipped other gods besides God. But this incurred God’s displeasure, and the following verse was revealed in the Quran:

Do not revile the idols which they invoke besides God, lest in their ignorance they should spitefully revile God (6:108).

The freedom of religion advocated in this verse can be explained as a policy of mutual benefit. If we want to have freedom for ourselves, the price we must pay is the granting of the same right of freedom to others. There can be no exclusivity about freedom if there is to be justice in this world. Only if we grant others their legal rights, will they be willing to reciprocate in like manner. But if we abuse or coerce them, we should expect to have the same treatment at their hands. The result would be that there would be no religious freedom whatsoever regardless of whether society were of only two or of multiple religious persuasions.

The fact that Islam is an upholder of religious freedom, in the fullest sense of the term, is so obvious that even those who are averse to it have not hesitated to testify to it. We shall quote here some instances which bear this out. After the defeat of Muslims in Spain at the hands of Christians a royal decree was issued by Spain’s Christian ruler, Philip II, ordering the forcible re-conversion of Spanish Muslims (Moriscoes) to Christianity. But the Archbishop of Valencia favoured the extreme step of expulsion rather than forced covers ion and, in an account of the Apostacies and Treasons of Moriscoes, in 1602,in which he makes this recommendation to the king, he sets forth one of his principal reasons for wishing to banish the Muslims: “That they commended nothing so much as that liberty of conscience, in all matters of religion, which the Turks and all other Mohamadans, suffer their subject to enjoy’ (T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, p. 144).

It is noteworthy that by the time of the last expulsion in 1610, over 500,000 people had been affected. In earlier times when religious freedom was inconceivable to any faith, neither Christianity nor Judaism nor Buddhism permitted any freedom. Yet even the opponents of Islam could not but appreciate the religious liberty offered to all faiths under Islamic rule. Again in seventeenth century, on an occasion when fearful atrocities had been inflicted by Catholic Poles on the Russians of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Macarius, the Patriarch of Antioch, bewailing the cruel martyrdom of 70 to 80 thousand innocent souls, said, ‘God perpetuate the empire of the Turks for ever and ever! For they take their impost and enter into no account of religion, be their subjects Christians or Nazarenes, Jews or Samarians.’ (Ibid., pp. 156-157)

Another remarkable example of religious tolerance was set by Uzbek Khan who was leader of the Golden Horde from 1313 to 1340, and who distinguished himself by his proselytising zeal. It was his mission to spread the faith of Islam throughout the whole of Russia, but although the Mongols were paramount in Russia for two centuries, they exercised very little influence in the people of that country. T.W. Arnold, in his book, The Preaching of Islam, says that, “It is noticeable, moreover, that in spite of his zeal for the spread of his own faith, Uzbek Khan was very tolerant towards his Christian subjects, who were left undisturbed and even allowed to pursue their missionary labours in his territory.

One of the most remarkable documents of Muhammadan toleration is the charter that Uzbek Khan granted to the Metropolitan Peter in 1313. He then goes on to give the highly specific details of this lengthy charter which gave every conceivable protection to Christians, their institutions, and their way of life.

“Their laws, their Churches; their monasteries and chapels shall be respected; whoever condemns or blames this religion, shall not be allowed to excuse himself under any pretext but shall be punished with death”. Arnold later points that these were no empty words and “that the toleration here promised became a reality may be judged from a letter sent to the Khan by Pope John XXII in 1318, in which he thanks the Muslim prince for the favour he showed to his Christian subjects and the kind treatment they received at his hands.” Ibid., pp. 240-241).

A similar contrast was made in 1605 by Richard Staper, an English merchant who had been in Turkey as early as 1578: “And notwithstanding that the Turks in general be a most wicked people, walking in the world of darkness... Yet notwithstanding do they permit all Christians, both Greeks and Latins, to live in their religion and freely to use their conscience, allowing them churches for their divine service, both in Constantinople and very many other places, whereas to the contrary by proof of twelve years’ residence in Spain I can truly affirm, we are not only forced to observe their popish ceremonies, but in danger of life and goods” (M. Epstein, The Early History of the Levant Company, p. 157, London 1908).

PERMITTING NON-MUSLIMS TO WORSHIP IN MOSQUES

How far Islam goes along the road to religious freedom is made clear by an event which occurred in the Prophet’s lifetime. The famous eighth century biographer, Ibn Ishaq, records how a delegation of Yemenese Christians came to see the Prophet of Islam and had a long dialogue with him in his mosque in Medina, which went on until the Christian’s hour for prayer. They then expressed a desire to worship there, according to their own rites, in this mosque which is considered by Muslims to be second in importance only to the. Masjid-e-Haram in Mecca.

Tradition has it that they were beginning their orasions when one of the Muslims attempted to stop them from praying in the Christian way. But the Prophet intervened, and asked him to refrain from interrupting them, and they were thus permitted to complete their prayers inside the mosque.

GUARDING AGAINST EVEN REMOTE POSSIBILITES OF INFRINGING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS

Islam gives such serious consideration to religious freedom that it takes pains to avoid infractions of it which exist only in the realms of remote possibility. There is an incident in Islamic history which illustrates this point with great pertinence. Palestine having been conquered in 16 AH (638 AD), Umar Faruq, the second Caliph, travelled to Palestine at the request of the Christians in order to finalize the agreements between them and the Muslims. T.W. Arnold in his book, The Preaching of Islam, relates how ‘In company with the Patriarch, Umar visited the holy places, and it is said while they were in the Church of the Resurrection, as it was the appointed hour of prayers, the Patriarch bade the Caliph offer his prayers there, but he thoughtfully refused, saying that if he were to do so, his followers might afterwards claim it as a place of Muslim worship’ (p. 57).

He obviously foresaw later generations of Muslims might feel inspired to attempt to build a mosque on that very spot, thus setting up restrictions upon religious freedom. This discretion shown by Umar is all the more remarkable for his having been the ruler of Palestine at that time and, therefore, in a position to do anything he wished. A man with less insight and forethought would have regarded his praying inside the Church as an apparently harmless event and one which could in no way be interpreted as depriving anyone of his rights. Umar, in fact, moved a stone’s throw away, and said his prayers at a discreet distance from the Church. Muslims did indeed come to this city later on, and, as he had foreseen, they built their mosque at the exact point where he had said his prayers. The mosque exists to this day, but presents no obstacle to Christian worship.

It is true that in later times certain excessively zealous Muslims converted a number of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques. But such actions, far from being an application of the teaching of lslam are to be deplored as deviations from it. Says Arnold, ‘But such oppression was contrary to the tolerant spirit of Islam.’ (p. 77). Islam, in actual fact, is the name given to teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith, and the finest example of living up to this standard was set by the Prophet and his companions. The deeds of later generations, when judged by these primary criteria, will be seen to be sadly deficient in true Islamic spirit. Those who make no attempt to live up to the Prophet’s example are in no way representative of Islam.

On the question of religious tolerance, everyone must be granted the right to present his thoughts, and to be given a quiet hearing. This does not mean, however, that everyone is right, and that Islam believes in the manyness of truth. On the contrary, Islam believes in the oneness of reality. Even so, the truth is not something to be forced upon one, but something which one is gently assisted to go in quest of as a matter of personal discovery. In this respect, Islam is the greatest upholder of religious freedom.