On his victorious rerun to Mecca after 20 years, the Prophet Muhammad bore no animosity for the locals who had persecuted him and his band, forcing them to emigrate to Medina. He offered blanket forgiveness, the only condition being that Meccans accept universal freedom of conscience.

In keeping with this spirit of tolerance that Prophet Muhammad demonstrated during his lifetime, today’s Muslim thinkers feel there exists no imperative to distance themselves from this tradition of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence that the Prophet prescribed. They are plumbing it to find resources to help them adapt to the modern world and to shape it on those lines.

Advertisement

Muslim religious scholars are exhuming and popularizing principles and practices that allowed Muslims in the past to coexist with others, in peace, and on equal terms, regardless of creed and faith. They keep reminding themselves that the seventh-century Medina accepted Jews as equal members of the community (umma) under the Constitution of Medina drawn up by the Prophet in 622 A.D. By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence.

However, Muslims will have to acknowledge that in countries ruled by Muslim rulers, the minorities must be afforded full protection against intolerance and bigotry. The liberalised class just can’t enjoy the luxury of freedom provided by the elitist controllers of political and economic power. This is the real test where Muslims are failing, particularly in societies controlled by the elite and rulers who share a common faith with them. This is a major reason why sanctions were introduced.

Most practitioners agree that sanctions are overused, that they often come with costs, both predictable and unforeseen, and that they should therefore be employed on a more surgical basis. Historian Stanley LanePoole said, “The day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Quraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn in which they had afflicted him and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca.”

For example, the current modern definition of jihad is contrary to the linguistic meaning of the word and also contradicts the beliefs of many Muslims, who equate it with religious extremism. The word jihad stems from the Arabic root “J-H-D” which means “strive”. Other words derived from this root include “effort,” “labour” and “fatigue”. Essentially, jihad is a struggle to stand by one’s religion despite persecution.

Prophet Muhammad explained that true jihad was an inner struggle against egotism. There is a lot of misunderstanding on account of this verse: “Slay them wherever you catch them…” (chapter 2, verse 191). But who is this referring to? Who are “they” in this verse? They are those who persecute and kill the innocent for their faith. There are cases where fanatical groups and masses get utterly deranged by their religious faith and religion produces perverse solidarity that we must be able to find some way to undercut.

Many believe that there is a violent essence inherent in religion which inevitably radicalises any conflict ~ because once combatants are convinced that God is on their side, compromise becomes impossible and cruelty knows no bounds. The fanatical bigotry that religion seems always to unleash has to be contained if we have to prevent it from imploding into a destructive archipelago.

M Scanlon’s now-classic essay, ‘The Difficulty of Tolerance’, offers material for an attractive affirmative answer: Tolerance is valuable for its own sake because of the attitude it allows us to bear towards our fellow citizens, an attitude of fraternity and solidarity that is deeper than the intractable disagreements that divide us.

Tolerance makes it possible to view all our fellow citizens as equally entitled to participate in defining and determining the shape of society. Intolerant individuals, Scanlon argues, don’t view their fellow citizens as so equally entitled. Intolerant individuals think they have a special status as compared to others and do not view others as full members of society. Marxism has had a long and troubled relationship with religion.

In 1843 the young Karl Marx wrote in a critical essay on German philosophy that religion is “the opium of the people”, a phrase that would eventually harden into official atheism for the communist movement, though it poorly represented the true opinion of its founding theorist.

After all, Marx also wrote that religion is “the sentiment of a heartless world” and “the soul of soulless conditions” as if to suggest that even the most fantastical beliefs bear within themselves a protest against worldly suffering and a promise to redeem us from conditions that might otherwise appear beyond all possible change. To call Marx a “secularist”, then, maybe too simple.

Marx failed because he was not a chosen prophet and he could never serve as a role model who could prove a genuine and authentic guide for generations. His philosophy could hardly survive a generation. Moral virtues form the cornerstone of Islamic civilization. It is this fundamental trait that distinguishes it from any other civilization in history.

The argument that other civilizations, too, have a moral core is countered by the fact that Islam is a way of life ~ ad-deen ~ and not simply a religion. Our values shape our lives; they are the qualities that define us. They make us who we are and guide us in our life choices, what we believe in and what we commit to. It is ultimately our character that will influence the perception of others about us.

All religions, of course, do imply a total way of life and define a believer’s most fundamental values and thereby shape their influence within the family, the society, the polity, and the economy. But Islam provides an elaborate code of religious law; it lays out a blueprint for a specific social order.

(The writer is an author, researcher and development professional)