Tolerance in Islam

This Qur'anic verse is used by Muslims to defend themselves against the charge that Islam is an intolerant religion. The charge of intolerance has been haunting Muslims everywhere since the beginning of Islam. Is this charge well founded or is it a false one?

To answer this question we shall look at what the Muslim scholars have said about the issue and at this verse in particular. We will also look at some historical facts related to that issue.

In exempting the Jews and the Christians from Q. 2:256, the Muslim scholars agree that the idol worshippers can be compelled by force to embrace Islam.

It is clear that, whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or not, the scholars quite naturally admit to the historical fact that "the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam."

The Muslim theologians had to justify this compulsion. Here is the reason given by a famous scholar:

1. Muslims believe that they have the right to compel people to accept Islam because it is the truth.

2. Muslims believe that Mohammad was given a divine command to fight against people, not in self defence or for economical or political reasons, but because people do not worship the one Mohammad worshipped.

3. The above scholar had no value for the human free will. To him, forcing Islam on people is justified if later on they will become Muslims. It is not an exaggeration then to say that the sword is Allah's final word.

Q. 2:256 is not the only verse that speaks of tolerance and which has been "abrogated". We find other verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam; Q2:62, for example:

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, the author of an-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, informs us that there are 114 verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam, but all were abrogated by one verse, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. 9:5), before the death of Mohammad.[4] We mention here some of the abrogated verses:

Not all scholars however agree that these verses were abrogated. They recognise that to abrogate His own commands is unworthy of the character of God. For example Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary academic, does not see in Q. 2:256 and Q. 9:73 a case of abrogation but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels. To support his view he quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote:

Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said :

We can see that whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or Q. 9:73 was delayed the result is the same: the infidels should embrace Islam or face death at the hands of its followers.

The authentic Hadith confirms the above. In the collection of Hadith known as Sahih al-Bukhari there is a chapter headed "'The statement of Allah, 'But if they repent and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity then leave their way free'"(9:5) In this chapter al-Bukhari recorded the following Hadith:

In the chapter "Paradise is under the blades of the swords", al-Bukhari mentioned the following Hadith:

We can see that al-Bukhari's authentic Hadith confirms and praises the concept of compelling the infidels to embrace Islam by force.

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari into English, had this to say in the introduction to his translation:

Dr. M. Khan, in a very straightforward manner, tells us that by the one verse Q. 9:5 Allah ordered Mohammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans and Jews; even the Christians of whom the Qur'an had earlier spoken in the following terms:

Here is a clear confession from the Qur'an about the love of the Christians for the Muslims in the time of Mohammad.

We would like to draw the attention of the readers to the fact that while Allah commanded Mohammad to fight even those who loved the Muslims, Christ commanded his followers to love their enemies.

Contrary to the above commandment, so called Christians have committed many atrocities throughout history. Christ never taught his followers to fight but to love their enemies. Allah and Mohammad, however, commanded the Muslims to cancel all treaties and fight even their friends.

To this point, the argument is sound and logical and no one can argue with that. But listen to the rest of the statement:

Could the explanation for the flight of thought in the above words be that it is the work of two authors, one of whom believes that 'Only the person who lacks logic and proof would resort to force'; the other author obviously lacking this logic, but passionately believing in the right of Muslims to use force?

Al-Ghazali (died AH 505, that is AD 1127) who earned the title "hoggat al-Islam, meaning rock of Islam", some five centuries after the time of Mohammad, is not apologetic in stressing the use of force in the preservation and progress of Islam:

What al-Ghazali referred to in this quotation is known as the wars of apostasy (hurub ar- Riddah) which occurred in the time of Abu Bakr when the Arabic masses rejected Islam, and had to be brought back by the sword. These wars (not one war) lasted almost two years (632-634 AD). This is a fact of history. Some modern writers want us to believe that those wars were economical and political in nature, but historians tell us otherwise. The historian Ibn Ishaq quoted 'A'isha the wife of the Prophet who said:

Besides, the word riddah that describes the wars means "apostasy", and thus the wars are recognisable as being religious in origin because of this use of religious terminology. If those Arabs accepted Islam willingly, why did they reject it when the Prophet of Islam died? A contemporary writer admitted that the Arabs were forced to embrace Islam. He wrote,

It is a historical fact that except for these wars, those tribes that rejected Islam would have remained non-Muslims. Were these wars an act of religious tolerance? These wars stand in history as the supreme example of religious intolerance by Islam.

The use of the sword in the spread of Islam is attested to by the following statements from the lips of the renowned scholar al-Ghazali,

We have seen earlier that the sword was Allah's final word, and according to the above statement (apart from scholastic theology) the sword was Mohammad's most eloquent argument.

The most telling assessment of the whole issue, confirming the centrality of the sword in Islam; comes from a modern scholar who wrote in al-Azhar, which is the most celebrated magazine in the Muslim world:

With this assertion, the Qur'an, the Hadith, the history of Islam, and scholars, ancient and modern, concur.

Other languages: We are looking for Christian organisations to publish / distribute the above article in German, French, Russian, Mandarin etc. If you are interested please contact P. Newton via email, giving full details of your organisation and the reasons for your interest.

Correspondence: Mr. Newton and Mr. Rafiqul-Haqq also invite you to write them with any requests, further questions, clarifications, disagreements ... by sending email to newton@integrity.org.

References:
1. al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p. 80. See also Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, 1986, p. 42.
2. Abu Bakr Mohammad Ibn 'Abd Allah known as Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. 1, pp. 232-234.
3. Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, 1986, p. 19.
4. Ibid., pp. 12-18.
5. Ibid, p. 27.
6. Sobhy as-Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.
7. Ibid, p. 270
8. Sahih al-Bukhari, English translation, Vol.1, Hadith No. 24
9. Ibid., Vol.4, p. 55
10. Ibid., Vol.4, p. 55
11. Dr. M. Mohsin Khan, in the introduction to his English translation of Sahih al-Bukhari, p. xxiv.
12. Ibid, p. xxv
13. Australian Muslim Times, "Behind Misconceptions" by Sayyed Hashem Nasserallah, 19/4/91, p. 9.
14. Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by al-Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol. V, p. 35.
15. Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah, 4:316.
16. 'Omar Abun-Nasr, Al-Hadarah al-Amawiyah al-'Arabiyah, p. 132.
17. Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by al-Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol. V, p. 35.
18. Al-Azhar magazine, Cairo, the opening article by Ahmad Hasan az-Zayat, August 1959.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, printed or electronic, without written permission, except for brief quotations in books, critical articles, and reviews.

Sophistry, Relativism, and Dubious History

This article is a counter rebuttal to Mike G. Wotruba's rebuttal of a A Brief Resume of Muhammad's life from "The UK's Leading Atheist Page." Mr. Wotruba's charges of relativism and sophistry are laughable, because those charges are more accurately leveled at his rebuttal.

…arguing against the character of Mohammed by citing his marriage to a child demonstrates nothing more than the modern obsession with prolonged independence and childhood, due to the lengthened life spans which are now common. …While I do not condone such practices now I do say that do to the high infant mortality rate of the time it was essential to marry so young to ensure as many surviving offspring as possible.

Mr. Wotruba claims not to condone the practice of marrying young, but his talk of the "modern obsession with prolonged independence and childhoold" smacks of sophistry to endorse pedophilia. In the case of Mohammed's child bride Ayesha, this argument makes no sense, because Ayesha had not reached child-bearing age when Mohammed married her at age 6, or when he consummated his marriage with her at age 9. Furthermore, Ayesha did not bear any children by Mohammad.

Mohammad was curiously sterile after age 40, even though he visited his wives on a rotation system, spending each night with a different wife. His son Ibrahim, born to his concubine Mary the Copt, died in infancy. Mohammad did not leave a male heir who grew to maturity. A speculative article on the pathology of Mohammad may be found in the article The mysterious illness of the Prophet Muhammad identified.

This also fits the argument of polygamy. In warring cultures there were obviously many more women than men.

The imbalance of women v. men in warring cultures is an indictment of warring cultures, and moreover, of ideologies such as Islam that promote war and thereby inflict widowhood or involuntary spinsterhood or the indignities of polygyny (where the husband's attentions are spread among several wives and he cannot do justice to them all) on women.

I've also heard the argument made that [Mohammad] was bad because he had slaves. I hate to say it but there are slaves today especially in the materialistic secular world we live in. Is it not true that the majority of the western world's population acquire debts they spend their whole life paying off? They must work in order to pay the financial institutions, and may not even if they desire to with their property and their resources as they see fit. …Now we are all slaves to governments and powerful corporations.

Islam has used materialism and consumerism as cudgels to whip western culture. I do not endorse the materialism and consumerism of western society, but neither I do believe that Islam is THE solution to the ills of western society. I live in a city where there is a sizeable and visible Moslem community. One merely has to go to the shopping malls in my area to see how Muslims are embracing consumerism and materialism.

Dubious history

In addition to this you attempt to use 'history' as a key component to your argument, yet the majority of this 'history' comes from either enemies of Mohammed or from Hadith written down so long after the prophet's existence that they are unreliable or irrelevant. Hadith are good for stories but nothing more, they are proof of nothing because they developed in different areas by oral tradition. They are unnecessary they simply give basic guidelines for things like charity and salot.

Many Muslims would disagree with the idea that the Hadith are "unreliable," "irrelevant," "unnecessary," and " good for stories but nothing more, they are proof of nothing." A writer from the Islamic Institute on Information and Education, based in Chicago, USA, wrote:

…The other source of Islamic legislation is teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) called Hadith or Sunnah. Teachings that come from the Sunnah have the same weight as that of the Qur'an. For example, the Qur'an teaches that Muslims should do prescribed prayers (Salah) in the morning, afternoon and at night but it does not say how many times nor it tells you how to do it. We learn from the Prophet that we are required to pray five times a day and how to do it. Similarly, there are techings about Zakat, Fasting, Hajj, inheritance, business dealings and others which are explained by the Prophet.

Why would the Jewish men be killed that you made reference to? I cannot say but who can. Such an obscure and removed history cannot be used to judge the truth.

The Sunnah cannot be considered as "obscure and removed." It faithfully records Muhammad's sayings and actions, even his most personal hygienic habits. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the Sunnah got it wrong about the Banu Qarayza and the Battle of the Trench. It seems that the men of the Banu Qarayza tribe were beheaded and the women and children were taken captive merely on the suspicion of betrayal, not on demonstrated evidence of betrayal. Even if there was demonstrated evidence of betrayal, this punishment is unnecessarily severe.

Mohammed's deferring judgment to Sad in the matter of the Banu Qarayza seems to be another example of his not taking responsibility for his actions or going back on his word, as are the "revelations" he received from Allah to wiggle out of some dilemma involving his relations with his wives. So much for al-Amin (the faithful one), as Mohammed is called!

When the Koran says make verses similar to itself that means make a whole volume…

If that were the meaning, then there would have been no objection to the Suralikeit Web site. Muslims became enraged (as they do when their precious religion comes in for criticism) and threatened boycotts and legal action (what one person referred to as "extortion") against America OnLine (AOL) for hosting the Web site Suralikeit (to respond to the challenge to produce a "Surah like it."). AOL caved in to Moslem demands. This site contains only 4 suras (chapters) that mimic the style of the Qur'an. Three are New Testament stories retold in the style of the Qur'an. The other one was scatological, pertaining to Mohammed, but justified by citations to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

…certain people will burn in the fires of hell, but these are warnings. The final judgement is that of Allah and that is when there will be mercy… Allah does not force us to comply but tells the consequences.

What mercy? I participated in a forum where Muslims claimed that Allah does not let anyone burn in hell eternally. This may be supported by verses 6:127 and 11:107, that a person burns in hell as long as Allah sees fit, but these verses are inconsistent with verses 14:17, 20:74, 43:74, and 87:13, that indicate that a person will burn in hell eternally.

If Allah is a capricious judge, pity the poor Muslim who has devoted his life to Islamic virtues such as paying the poor rate, keeping up prayer, and killing unbelievers in hopes of entering Paradise to be surrounded by perky-breasted houris (virgins). If Allah denies him entry to Paradise, all his efforts would have been in vain!

I do not need an Allah or a God who uses threats of punishment to compel me to practice virtues such as kindness, compassion, and charity. I practice these virtues because they are right and good.

Now why the harsh punishments? …These penalties (beating cutting off hands, cutting off feet, death) are ways to ensure the produce of the society was not wasted on the violators of the understood 'social contract'. Maybe such penalties don't seem relevant today, but that is only because we live in an age of mass consumption and waste, and the western Europeans let the apples rot on the trees while people world wide starve. The only reason the crimes which were so heinous at the time seem small now is because we are so wasteful in the western world…

These arguments supporting Quranic punishments indicate that you have to waste life in order to save life and resources. What about the unfortunates who survive flogging, crucifixion, and amputation of alternate hand and foot (all punishments recommended by the Qur'an)? As cripples, can they be restored as productive members of society, or do they become burdens to society?

Conclusion

The arguments of Mike G. Wotruba are "inherently relative" (to use his words) and at best support cultural norms that may have existed in desert Arabia in 500-600 CE, if those cultural norms applied then. I do not accept that the pagan Arabs were the brutes that Islam would have us believe.

Per relativism, I would like to close this article with a quote from the pamphlet The Dead Hand of Islam by Colin Maine, printed and published by the Rationalist Association of New South Wales (Australia).

It might be said that Mohammed was a man of his time. But we must judge him according to the standards of today, not those of 1200 years ago. We should try to improve on the ethics of the past. Moslems claim that Islam is a religion for our time, and it is by the ideals of this century that we should measure it, not by those of the 7^th century. According to these standards, Mohammed was a cruel barbarian, merciless and fanatical. He introduced religious hatred into large parts of the world that before were tolerant on such matters. He curtailed the freedom of women. He endorsed slavery. He broke up families. He ordered cruel punishments. The world would been a better place if he had never been born.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.