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”
No comments:
Post a Comment