Tolerance & Islam

Guide Rating -

The terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 intensified the spotlight on Islam and its ability to peacefully coexist with other religious traditions. Who can be said to speak authoritatively on behalf of Islam - Osama bin Laden? Is Islam inherently violent and intolerant? If not, why is so much terrorism carried out in the context of Islam?

In a recent book, "The Place of Tolerance in Islam," Khaled Abou El Fadl has written an essay of the same name addressing just these questions. Alongside his essay are a series of responses from scholars around the world, as well as some concluding remarks from Fadl. This is certainly not a complete picture of the dialogue going on within Islam about religion and violence, but it does provide an interesting sample of some of the topics being discussed.

A Fellow in Islamic Law at UCLA, Fadl argues that Islam is essentially and theologically a religion of peace and tolerance but that individual Muslims - in particular radical Islamists - can adopt intolerant positions which pervert and distort Islam. This is a familiar refrain, but particulars of Fald's arguments may be new to some readers.

With regards to the intolerant interpretations of the Quran which have made headlines and incited terrorism, Fadl argues that the verses used should interpreted as part of particular historical contexts and hence are not necessarily applicable today:

It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings.

With regards to the Islamic "puritans" who lead the way in terrorism and intolerance, Fadl argues that they are only a marginal faction of Islamic society, although neither he nor other writers who agree with him on this point are quite able to explain how, if they are so marginal, they manage to remain so popular.

And what do the respondents in the book think of Fadl's arguments? For the most part, they agree with his basic points about radical Islamists, but there is disagreement with some arguments and with some of the ways in which he frames the problems.

Milton Viorst argues that even conventional interpretations of the Quran inhibit individual creativity and innovation, contributing factors of the social stagnation which afflicts many Muslim societies. Tariq Ali argues that the real problem is political and social, not religious and theological - although he doesn't explain how religion (especially Islam) can really be separated from political and social issues. Stanley Kurtz points out that Fadl's arguments are very appealing to Muslims and non-Muslims in academia and the liberal West, but they will hold little appeal to the average Muslim in the Middle East.

So, is Islam intolerant? The very question itself is problematic because it presumes the existence of a single Islam, a single Islamic tradition, and the existence of some single authority who can speak for Islam. None of those assumptions are true.

Can Islam be tolerant? Certainly - Islam has a long history of tolerance towards other religions and other traditions, something pointed out by more than one of the authors in the book. However, what isn't pointed out is the fact that this tolerance typically occurred when Islam was the dominant faith and had little competition.

It is easy to "tolerate" groups and beliefs which appear to pose no threat to your power and privilege. The real tolerance of a religion or ideology is not genuinely tested when it is on top; it is tested when it is a minority in society or when the threat of competition is real and immediate. In those contexts, Islam's record is much less admirable.

Can Islam be intolerant? Certainly - it doesn't take much effort to find evidence of that, and to his credit, Fadl doesn't deny that intolerance is a "false" Islam. Instead, he claims that it relies upon a less valid understanding of Islamic scriptures and history. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how his understanding really is superior - opponents make equally plausible arguments which seem to be gaining wider acceptance among Muslims in the Middle East.

This is a short book, but surprising in the way it is able to engage the reader. The variety of responses allows one to reconsider Fadl's original arguments anew each time, illuminating new ideas and new perspectives in ways which would not be readily achieved in another format. The complexity of the problems facing Muslims and of Islam itself becomes much more apparent than in other works by a single author. Islam does face difficult issues, and ultimately the solutions will have to come from within Islam and through dialogues among Muslims - a glimpse of which readers are able to experience in this book.