Islam and The Religious Other -Some Reflections on The Nature of this Relationship in early Islam and Beyond

 

Islam and The Religious Other -Some Reflections on The Nature of this Relationship in early Islam and Beyond

Adis Duderija, Ph.D.

Paper prepared for the Paris UNESCO webinar/Conference, February 2022

How do the normative fountainheads of Islam, the Qur’an and Sunna approach the relationship between the Muslim Self and the religious Other? To begin to answer this question more needs to be said about the revelatory environment in which the Qur’anic revelation and the Prophet’s embodiment of it (Sunna) took place as it relates to the question of Muslim confessional identity and that of the religious Other. The emphasis on context is based on the fundamental consideration that that even a cursory examination of the nature of Qur’an as Revelation and  its content (and therefore the Prophet’s legacy) was organically linked to this context, including its dimension that relates to the relationship between Muslims and the religious Other. Beyond scripture, the approach taken by various Muslim communities in history in relation to this question has also varied.[1]

Ze’ev Maghen, a noted scholar of the nature of interactions between Muslims and non- Muslims in early Islam, described the context and the dynamics behind the relationship between Muslims and their normative tradition and non- Muslims, with what the Qur’an terms the communities of the People of the Book (ahl- kitab), in the following manner:

Islam’s relationship with the People of the Book has had its ups and downs. The growing familiarity of the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula with the ideas, institutions and communities of the surrounding monotheisms, followed by the initial and increasingly intense encounters of the nascent Muslim umma with the same, bred the complex mixture of attitudes to Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism discernable through the classical literature of the faith. The seminal texts and genres— Qur’ān, Hadīth, Tafsīr, Sharh, and Fiqh— evince a multifaceted and pendulating posture vis- à- vis the religio- cultural “other” that partakes more of dialectic than dogma ( p.267-268).

 

Based on this analysis of Maghen, in addition to studies done by Y. Friedmann and J. Waardenburg,  several general points need to be considered in order to understand nature of the relationship between the Muslim Self and the religious Other during the time of the Prophet as depicted in the Qur’an and the Prophet’s embodiment of it.

 

First, as noted briefly earlier , the context behind the emergence of Prophet Muhammad’s message in seventh- century Hijaz was such that it took place alongside other already- well- established religious communities, the most important of which, apart from Arabian pre- qur’anic beliefs, were Judaism, Hanifiyya, and Christianity. The very fabric and nature of the message embodied in the Qur’an clearly depicts many of the events and attitudes of the Muslim community toward the non- Muslim Other and vice versa.

 

Second, as alluded to earlier, it is essential to point out that the qur’anic attitude (and Muhammad’s praxis) toward the non- Muslim Other is highly contextual in nature and therefore ambivalent or context- dependent. Additionally, for the large part of the “formative period” of the Muslim community in Medina, the climate of conflict, friction, and hostility prevailed among Muslims, Arab polytheists, large Jewish tribes, Christians, and whom Qur’an terms religious hypocrites (munafiqun), under which Muslims were constantly concerned about the sheer survival of their community.

 

W. Montgomery Watt, a noted scholar of formative Islamic period, described the circumstances and the motives behind the relationship between Muslims and non- Muslims, especially between the Prophet of Islam and Jews in Medina, as follows:

 

In Muhammad’s first two years at Medina the Jews were the most dangerous critics of his claim to be a prophet, and the religious fervour of his followers, on which so much depended, was liable to be greatly reduced unless Jewish criticisms could be silenced or rendered impotent. . . . in so far as the Jews changed their attitude and ceased to be actively hostile, they were unmolested (p.217).

 

 

This context often expressed itself in a reactionary, antagonistic type of identity toward the religious Other. This is well attested not only in the Qur’an but also in additional “canonical” literature such as the hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. This has led to the development of ideas/religio-legal concepts such as al- wala'  wa’l bara’ and tashshabuh bi-l kuffar that emphasised distinctiveness of Muslims in relation to the Religious Other. In the modern context, Islamic fundamentalist and extremist groups have employed these concepts to not only distance themselves from whom they consider to be unbelievers ( kuffar) but from what they view  to be deviant Muslims. Proponents of Islamic moderation (wasatiyya) and progressives are rethinking these concepts through applying a contextualist and historical lens to them thereby either restricting their applicability or problematising their (continued) validity.

 

This context- dependency of the scriptures toward the view of the (religious) Other (and, therefore, by implication the religious Self) led Waardenburg to assert that “Looking back at the interaction of the new Islamic religious movement with the existing religious communities, we are struck by the importance of socio-political factors.”(p.99).

 

Apart from the socio-political factors, religious ideas were also significant in understanding the nature of the Muslim Self and Religious Other relationship, since, as mentioned earlier, the Qur’anic incremental consolidation of Islamic religious identity is inextricably linked with the religious identity of others, notably Jews and Christians. The aspects of religious- identity continuity and commonality with other faiths in the Qur’an are intimately intertwined with those of the emergence and emphasis on the Muslim identity’s originality and distinctiveness. Thus, the religious aspects of and interactions between various religious communities in the qur’anic milieu led to the genesis of the construction of religious identity of Muslims and played a very important role in it.

 

For example, in his study on the question to what extent Prophet Muhammad and Qur’anic scripture emphasized confessional distinctiveness, F. Donner averred that, scripturally (that is, based upon qur’anic evidence) and in early Islam, the community of that Donner terms the Believers ( mu’minin) seems to have been originally conceptualized independent of confessional identities and that it was only later— apparently during the third quarter of the first century A.H., a full generation of or more after the founding of Muhammad’s community— that membership in the community of Believers came to be seen as confessional identity in itself, when, to use a somewhat later formulation of religious terminology, being a Believer and Muslim meant that one could not also be a Christian, say, or a Jew. In other words, Donner adduced substantial evidence that it could be argued that Qur’anically (some) Jews and Christians qualify as mu’minun (believers) as well as muslimun (those who submit to God).

 

Friedmann detected a similar ancient layer in the Islamic tradition during which the boundaries of the Muslim community had not been precisely delineated and according to which “the Jews and the Christians belonged to the community of Muhammad”(p. 195) . This “ancient layer of tradition . . . was in general more considerate toward the People of the Book than that which eventually became the established law” (Ibid,p.194).

Another trend significant in the historical development of the Muslim religious Self vis-à-vis the Religious Other was the gradual, ever- growing, religious self- consciousness of the Prophet of Islam and his early community. While attempts to find common ground and syncretism occurred more frequently during the earlier periods of Muhammad’s life, later periods increasingly stressed confessional and self- conscious Muslim identity.

An additional point to be considered in relation to the question under examination is the qur’anic concept of a hanif/millat Ibrahim.  Qur’anically, this belief system is presented as a primordial, monotheistic Urreligion based on the belief in One, True God as embodied by Abraham’s message (Arabic, Ibrahim)— considered as the universal belief system and as potentially the final evolution in Muhammad’s attitude toward the religious Self and the Other. As noted by Waardenburg, it is, however, unclear whether the Prophet of Islam himself identified historical Islam “as the only or merely as one possible realization of the primordial religion, the hanīfīya, on earth.”( p. 106-107).

 

Beyond Early Islam

In the post- revelatory times, the major delineating feature that marked the relationship between the Muslim religious Self and the religious Other was the fact that Islam became an imperial faith— and that Muslims in many contexts belonged to the ruling elite. Hence, Muslims were in a position “to determine the nature of their relationship with the others in conformity with their world- view and in accordance with their beliefs.”(p.1).  How Muslims determined this relationship is varied with examples of both ethic of pluralism and exclusivism being present. My focus here will be on the ethics of pluralism.

 

The notion of ‘ethic of pluralism’ that I use here is embodied in the idea of intrinsic metaphysical unity between human beings. It is akin to the argument that in the soul of each human being resides a spark of Divine flame which connects all of them to the Divine as well as to each other. One consequence of this spiritual commonality/unity of the entire human race is the idea of respecting the religious Other and, on this basis, working together toward the achievement of common goals and interests. This is only possible if coexistence and mutual respect regarding the religious Other are the norm. This ethic of pluralism in Islam was to various degrees of success implemented in past (and present) Muslim societies. Historians of Islam name the Umayyad Spain, Fatimid Egypt, Ottoman Turkey, and Mughal India as examples of Muslims “who based their policies towards minorities on the Qur’an’s intrinsically humanist ethos, exemplified to them by the Prophet in his community at Medina” (p.31).

In more contemporary times, some attempts by Muslim political and religious leaders, such as those behind the Marrakesh Declaration, on the rights of religious minorities in predominantly Muslim majorities  can be seen to stay true to and amplify this ethic of pluralism. Although the immediate context that saw the urgent need for the establishment of this legal framework and call to action was the rise of violent extremist Muslim groups such as ISIS/Da’esh,  the timing of the Declaration itself  was to mark  the 1,400th anniversary of the Charter of Medina which it describes as  “constitutional contract between the Prophet Muhammad, God's peace and blessings be upon him, and the people of Medina, which guaranteed the religious liberty of all, regardless of faith.”

 

Among others, the Declaration calls upon the various national religious groups “ to address their mutual state of selective amnesia that blocks memories of centuries of joint and shared living on the same land; we call upon them to rebuild the past by reviving this tradition of conviviality, and restoring our shared trust that has been eroded by extremists using acts of terror and aggression” and to “affirm  that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries”. Some contemporary progressive Muslim groups have taken the ethic of pluralism beyond its moral, ethical , legal and socio-political dimensions and have developed an Islamic soteriology and theology of pluralism.

Conclusion:

In summary, it would be fair to conclude that the relationship between the Muslim religious Self and the religious Other was contextual and underwent a number of shifts and developments that are evident both in the nature of the Qur’anic revelation and in early Muslim history.  Given the nature of the historical sources, the exact dating of these shifts cannot be ascertained definitely and therefore no uniform normative stance on the nature of this relationship can be deduced. This conclusion is reflected in the ongoing debates between various Muslims groups as to what this attitude or approach toward the Religious Other should be. The aforementioned Marakesh Declaration, the path of Islamic extremists and progressive groups are but examples in point.

 

---

[1] Friedmann encapsulates this idea as follows: “Islam formulated toward each community that it faced a particular attitude, which was shaped by the historical circumstances in which the encounter took place, and was influenced to a certain extent by the nature of the respective non- Muslim religious tradition”