Muslim Attitude towards Other Faith Communities

 There are, in the Muslim world, amongst masses, Sufis, poets, intellectuals though not amongst most of professional theologians, broadly, three attitudes regarding treating the religious other: a) Taking salvation of non-Muslim believing communities for granted, b) not worrying about it c) considering it to be not an object of enquiry here as it is God’s call while maintaining hope in the dominion of Mercy. Our view regarding salvation of religious other may be substantiated by noting how relations with it are here on earth as they figure in the historical record of community. One can’t here review all the major positions and events but only indicate possibilities that may or mayn’t have been fully realized so far at given place and time.

    There has been general amnesty in principle to believers and nonbelievers of all kinds. The Islamic holy text can be and has been interpreted as extending freedom of religion to “disbelievers” or those outside the Abrahamic tradition. None could be oppressed on account of religion.  As Considine notes:

Although he encouraged Muslims to engage in defensive warfare against the polytheists, it is clear that Muhammad was willing to grant them the same rights that he would later grant Christians (immigrants) in the Covenants. History shows us that Muslim rulers and empires followed in the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad by granting non-Abrahamic communities privileges and political rights under ‘Islamic rule.’ For example, governments of the Indian subcontinent readily extended the dhimmi status to Hindus and Buddhists of India.”

    The special case of polytheists constituting Meccan aristocracy who were in war against nascent Ummah that, in the Medina constitution, included the People of the Book, can’t and wasn’t extrapolated to fighting or exterminating Hindus who are ordinarily perceived as polytheistic.  All kinds of relationships including trade and marital ones with the People of the Book and arguably, for some, with those resembling them on account of claims them (Muslims have been marrying with their women). Social relations were not premised on the assumption that these other communities are adversaries of God and thus destined for hell. Theological differences were real but didn’t translate into perception of disloyalty to God and thus their sight was not disturbing. They were part of administration and intellectual culture.

    Islam mandates Muslim preservation of all places of divine worship: “For had it not been for God’s checking some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the name of God is often mentioned, would have been destroyed” (22:40)

    In turn, many Muslims including their scholarly/literary elite (HasratMohani) have been paying visits to sacred places of Hinduism such as Kashi almost in the same spirit as for Mecca. They have also called for veneration of Krishna, Rama and Buddha as prophets or respected out of consideration for the possibility that they could be prophets.

    Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal in the classic Love in the Holy Quran states that “God enjoins upon Muslims—in addition to having respect, justice and mercy in general towards all humanity—to have affection and admiration for the People of the Scripture in general (notably Christians and Jews). In addition to respect, justice, mercy, affection and kindness, God requires believers to love one another more than they love themselves.” The point noted by Naseer Ahmed that “there is no verse that mentions fighting with the Mushrikin, Christians or Jews but only against the Kafirin among these people” is important as is the notion of dialogue implying prior recognition of elements of truth and holiness in other religions. From another context, Craig Considine  has noted that

the term “infidel” is not just a noun or an adjective; “infidel” is the word that the Qur’an uses to describe exclusively the Meccan aristocracy with which the Muslim community was at war with. Scholars of the Qur’an tell us that verses dealing with “infidels” are not meant to encourage the use of violence among Muslims. In fact, “such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings.”

    Here we may refer to significant hermeneutical move echoed in various scholars but most compellingly embodied in the writings of Muhammad Shahrur. A few points he has raised are enough to problematize exclusivist thesis:

• If we keep postulating that the shahada is the first pillar of al-islam and the ultimate criterion for adherence to al-islam, we would deny—since the shahada demands that one must follow Muhammad as the Messenger of God—not only that the Pharaoh had converted to al-islam by following Moses (r) but also that the disciples of Jesus adhered to al-islam by following the prophet Jesus (r). We would negate their adherence to al-islam on the grounds that they did not follow Prophet Muhammad(SAW).
• “..the distinct universal nature of the term al-muslimån(those who assent to God), which can be (generically) applied to all believers in this world, and this in contradistinction to the term  al-mu’minån (those who believe), which, because it describes a more particular type of religious belief, must be used only for the followers of Prophet Muhammad.” For Shahrur, a Muslim is defined in terms of belief in God and the final judgement as well as performs good deeds.
• The thesis maintained by exclusivists that Allah approves of only one religious community (and its specific rituals), Islam in its narrow [conventional and historical] sense,  Shahrur, argues, contradicts,
• Allah’s notion of al-islam as a religion that is inherent in human nature (al-fitãra  al-insaniyya) and that Allah has bestowed upon all of His creation. So [Prophet] as a man of pure faith, stand firm and true in your devotion to the religion ... This is the natural disposition [fitra] God instilled in mankind—there is no altering God’s creation—and this is the right religion [ al-din  al-qayyim], though most people do not realize it” ( Al-Quran 30:30). Rituals or specific forms are neither demands of fitrah nor universally followed or applicable across cultures. As such the universal content of islam can’t be identified with its historical form and this implies if salvation is in principle universally accessible can’t be linked to historical form.
  

And contradicts the thesis that

Al-islam is the more general type of faith. It is the universal, human religion of all people on earth. That is the reason why it is called ‘Islamic religion’ (al-din al-islami), not ‘religion of faith’ (al-din al-Êmane). We also remember that God said: ‘the religion before Allah is al-islam’ (3:19) and ‘if anyone desires a religion other than al-islam, never will it be accepted of Him’ (3:85).  Al-Êman, in contrast, is a very specific term for those who follow Muhammad….  Allah has coined the term ‘believers’ (al-mu’minån) to refer to those who believe in His Prophet (s). The term ‘commander of the faithful’ (amir  al-mu’mineen) has been specifically created for Muslim-Believers. It was first used during the reign of Umar bin al-Khatããb; note that the Caliph was not called ‘commander of the Muslims’ (amir al-muslimeen). Also, the wives of the Apostle Muhammad (s) were called ‘mothers of the believers’ (ummahat  al-mu’mineen) and not ‘mothers of the Muslims.’

    While Sharur has been subject of many criticisms on various grounds and his point on Islam/iman distinction doesn’t engage with the whole of canon, the thrust of his point regarding generic and specific uses of the term Islam and his proposal to limit the use of Muminoon for historical Islamic community call for further debate and reflections, especially the later point. What is important to note is cumulative consideration of certain classical attempts in Al-Biruni, Dara Shikoh, Mohsin Fani, for instance, that display more careful attitude towards self understanding of other faith communities, have been seconded by various scholars in contemporary period though it is generally the case that the proper study of religious other is yet to evolve in Muslim scholarship as a discipline. Polemical use of the discipline of comparative religion in certain seminaries has huge limitations from this academic point of view that is fundamentally interested in understanding and not refuting religious other. A galaxy of modern scholars including Fazlur Rahman, Farid Essack, Abdulkarim Suorush, Asghar Ali Engineer, Reza Shah Kazmi, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Farhad Shafti and number of scholars belonging to the traditionalist school of which Nasr is the best known face in the Muslim world– to name only a few – have advanced a number of separate arguments that cumulatively serve to correct the recent perception of exclusivist face of Islam. They have thoroughly questioned the perception that exclusivist reading is more orthodox, uncontested within emergent Muslim community and classical exegetes, rational and literal or supported by mass of prophetic traditions,  actual practice of the State and creedal statements that have had great influences in Muslim communities.