It is perhaps unfortunate that Death, that greatest of mysteries, keeps her lips tightly sealed regarding her secret. Man, in his infinite arrogance, seeks to escape the terror of the unknown that lies behind that one veil that remains impenetrable. He does so by building glorious monuments to his legacy, by writing his mighty sciences and great achievements down, by passing on his seed so that his name may live on, and by achieving the greatest of heroics that he may be remembered valiantly. Yet amidst all this greatness, with palms faced upwards in futility, an exhausted Achilles or Hector breathes a heavy sigh of despair, for each step away from death leads only back to it.

Mecca itself was once sacked, by Muslims no less; Constantinople too, by the very crusaders that had been sent to return Jerusalem to Christendom. There is nothing sacred that we all, each and every one of us, do not have the capacity to pollute. Nor is there a horror that we are all not capable of visiting upon one another. The savagery of the recent attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad is no exception. For if we are to point the finger at the crazed men who went and perpetrated this tragedy, are we really any better than them? The answer, for those honest enough to look at history, is no. These men, for they are only men, were not monsters, but a product of our world and the mad passions it produces. It is for this reason, and for the infuriating silence from the hereafter, that Machiavelli judges Prophets not on their promises of eternal salvation, but on the strength of their arms and the paradise that such strength brings with it.

Islam brought its own peculiar version of paradise as it swept across the collapsing world of the 7^th century. Within one hundred years of this conquest any respectable Arab merchant could, relatively safely, travel and trade across the known world, from Andalucia to India, and on to the great markets of China, without so much as a travel document. But it was not only Arabs but Jews, Venetians, Greeks, Persians and countless other races of man who took advantage of this extensive trade network. Muslim society then, as it is today, was never homogenous or united singularly, but it was forged by men of titanic energies who, at various times of crisis, were able to reinvent and reshape Islamic society. In the periods when history had not yet called them forth for their parts, minorities suffered. In other words, the status of minorities in Islamic societies has, as it has ever been in all human societies, been dependent on the rising and falling fortunes of destiny and the struggle between nations. It is easy for one to be a virtuous man when life is good and her bounties plentiful, quite another when fortune has turned her face from him in even the simplest of things.

Today, we are being asked to consider whether there is something inherently within Islam or Islamic societies that makes the toleration of minorities and difference impossible. This is a fallacy and one which this author believes is politically inspired. There is far too much excellent research that can demonstrate this fact, although one need only point to Syria, where Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, is still in use as a living language. Were Islam somehow incapable of tolerating minorities, why should such a community have continued to exist till the present day?

In fact, the reality is that it is not Muslim-majority states that have been the greatest threats to the minorities that exist within them, but Western European and North American political and military interventions. The sectarian strife that afflicts Lebanon today is a direct result of a conscious effort by French mandate forces to create a Christian dominated future ally in the region. Iraq itself never had al Qaeda prior to the American invasion and occupation, and in fact al Qaeda itself would never have existed were it not for covert American funding in Afghanistan against the Russians. Furthermore, the strife of that war gave birth to the Taliban, who are today poised to wrest control of Afghanistan yet again. Also, the Ahmadi’s in Pakistan were actively encouraged and nurtured by the British, and today they and the Bahai’i community remain a pet favourite of the West, especially as a stick to beat Iran with. The centre of the Bahai’i faith was formed in what is today occupied by the state of Israel, its continued existence there allegedly incidental to that fact. The Israeli state itself, a product of European Jewish nationalism, was a catastrophe for ancient Jewish communities from Morocco to Baghdad; however, aaliyah to the newly formed Jewish state was actively encouraged regardless of the destruction of those communities. Again, Western European diplomatic manoeuvring offered the backdrop for this historical travesty.

All this, yet somehow, articles are expected by editors in journals and online media throughout the world to appear where they discuss the inherent inability and backwardness of Islam and Muslims at tolerating people of other faiths or backgrounds. Like the Hydra of ancient Greek myth, new categories of minorities, based on sexuality or gender, can be constantly created and therefore new benchmarks, which Muslim societies also fail to achieve, are set. Yet where minorities are subject to harsh treatment or scrutiny, there can always be found, although certainly not an excuse, a source of danger and apprehension that causes the state to react in a paranoid manner. So we find that in Islamic-majority societies allied to the West, such as Bahrain, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia there is the blatant discrimination and marginalisation of Shia Muslims, although this receives far less news than the whiff of an al Qaeda cell that might be a threat to the West. Even where no trouble to a minority exists, such as with the case of Egyptian Copts who think they are oppressed, we find that this is only a concern to Western media in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yet in the case of countries like Iran, Iraq or Lebanon, the slightest scent of controversy is enough to send Western media into a frenzy of activity; films are made, documentaries are aired and pop-stars wear rubber bracelets or wave green flags in solidarity. The question has never been about how minorities can be protected, but about the political capital to be gained from their oppression, this is a fact that many naïve Muslim or Arab political commentators have been far too unimaginative to grasp. To concede a foreign enemies’ criticisms concerning minorities is a defeat; to ignore it, a political bombshell that could snowball. In other words, the entire discourse surrounding minorities and their treatment is heavily politicised. Whether or not minorities should be a strategic resource to be harnessed or a fifth-column to be feared, is ultimately a matter for political theory, but, we must conclude by pointing out that it is not Islam as a faith which inherently promotes or reduces the tolerance of minorities. Like the common cold, the intolerance of minorities on the scale we have just seen in Iraq is a symptom of weakened and debilitated Muslim societies. The politicised discourse surrounding minorities in Islamic-majority countries wishes that the symptoms and not the cause of the illness are treated. They wish, whether intentionally or not, to place the donkey behind the cart, thus perpetuating tragedies such as we saw at the church of Our Lady of Deliverance in Baghdad.

Karl Marx – On the Jewish Question, 1843

The factual answers to most of the questions brought up in this topic are overwhelmingly clear. Yes, minority rights in Islamic states are being restricted, if not completely repressed. But, the answers themselves are neither complete, nor are the questions accurate.

Is it not true that the political and civil rights of the whole society are being confiscated by the state? Is it not true that these concerns are not particular to Islam, or any other religion, as a faith or ideology, and thus should not be posited as such?

To better understand the issue, we must look at Islamic states not as Islamic, but as representatives of the theological model of the state (one that still prevails in many other countries, at different levels). Even a superficial overview of most Islamic countries (from the most openly theological as in the case of Saudi Arabia, to the pseudo-secular and pseudo-constitutional ones such as Syria) provides us with plenty of examples of the inherent theological nature of these states. In this vein, the talk of equal rights for the minority becomes rather meaningless, because it presupposes a universal formula of rights that is based on citizenship, one that abstracts the citizen, and regulates his relation with the state. This formula, in our case, is at best archaic and theological in its nature, and at worst, completely non-existent.

The Syrian civil code, in a country that officially subscribes to values of secularism, is an anachronistic collection of texts designed to treat each sect/religion separately, as opposed to a universal one. The citizen, if we can label him as such, is therefore defined by his religious affiliation, rather than his status as a citizen. How could one then embark on comparing the rights of a “majority” and those of a “minority” within such an archaic structure?

In most, if not all, of these cases, religion is relegated into an arm of the state, the tool that is best suited to exercise complete hegemony over society. Islam, as a religion, is not fundamentally different from any other. To say that Islam is inherently more susceptible to being a tool of oppression than any other religion, is to ignore a long and dark history of European Christianity. Conversely, to say that it is less so, is to ignore the present. The fact of the matter is that Islamic texts and interpretations of these texts hold within themselves the contradictions that allowed Islam to be as inclusive (as any theological state could be) as it was in the case of Córdoba, and as exclusive as it is the case in modern day Riyadh. Contradictions which, and one cannot stress this enough, are found in every other religion, or ideology.

If you agree with me thus far, then you must agree that shaping the debate in such a narrow format and such an exclusive narrative (the religious rights of the minority as opposed to the more inclusive civil rights of the whole society), is hypocritical, and selfserving at best. For those who labor to take the debate in this direction are the same voices that use this argument to explain, and advocate the “death of multiculturalism.” As if Islamʼs evolution, as a religion and ideology, is completely independent from the path of all other religions, and as if the oppressive nature of the theological state has not been traded back and forth throughout the history of mankind.

As one reads through the piles of op-eds written on the nature of Islam, one begins to wonder how people who are completely ignorant of Islam as to assume that its nature is any different from the nature of religion itself, could hold so much contempt toward it. And the answer is that they really donʼt. Their contempt is really leveled against the people. It is the people that they donʼt like. It is the people that they feel are inferior to themselves, even in their status as humans. For it is much easier, and more acceptable in this day and age, to label these people as Muslims, and as such, believers of a primitive faith (as opposed to all the progressive faiths out there), and run away with the ubiquitous “Islamophobia” slap on the wrist, than to confess to your real object of contempt. But, I digress.

Modern day states of Saudi Arabia and Israel are just two examples of different levels of theological tyranny. The fact that the oppressive nature of a theological state is easy to quantify and describe vis-à-vis its disenfranchised minorities should not lead us to think that the majority is better off. The struggle for political, and eventually, human, emancipation in our societies must not be dictated, divided and hijacked by a contemporary sense of racism, but rather be professed as such: a struggle for a universal emancipation, a struggle for a state of citizens with universal rights rather than a collective of majorities and minorities each with its own set of archaic “rights”.

The difficulties in answering the question on how do Islamic states deal with their religious minorities lies in its subjectivity, due to its dependence on one’s definition of an Islamic State. If we are to take countries that are part of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an organization with 57 states, then the spectrum of intolerance so to speak is quite wide. With several nations defined as democratic and protective of their minorities’ rights. Coincidentally these countries happen to also be some of the most populated Muslim nations in the world and non-Arab (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey). While others implementing a fundamentalist form of Sharia’ law deprive minorities from simplest of religious rights such as freedom to pray or build places of worship.

While I hate to cluster so many countries into a sweeping statement; generally speaking, I personally feel that an uneven number of nations constituting the ‘Umma’ are lagging behind world average in religious tolerance. This says less about their interpretation of Islam as a religion and more about the non-progressiveness of nations that happen to be Muslim. Civilizations of western Christian and Far Eastern religions have developed their societies in a progressive manner for the well-being of their society without restricting individual religious rights by separating Church from State. This has helped create  a more tolerant society, albeit less religious one (to the disappointment of some), that undoubtedly assisted in economic and social development of these nations through intellectual diversity and most importantly, democracy. I am not trying to say that Islam as a religion is inherently more intolerant than others. On the contrary, Islam in my humble opinion presents slight more flexibility because it offers salvation to the followers of the two other Abrahamic religions while most religions believe only they hold the path to salvation.

That said, Islam constitutes a challenge because it is more specific than other religions, with clear laws that define how one should live their lives on a daily basis while other religions are more philosophical and generalistic in their teaching. Also Islam’s Ulama have much to answer to on very fundamental dilemmas stemming from contradictions in Islamic text and/or interpretations, such as clarifying the violence towards infidels in Islamic holy text, the place of women in society, the fatwas which spew hate and bigotry towards other sects and religions and the failure to shut them down effectively, etc. It is one thing to say God will punish non-believers in the afterlife and another for Muslims to take it upon themselves to do it on God’s behalf. How can one in the 21st century accept women inheriting half of what their brothers are receiving? It’s this lack of theological evolution in Islam that I believe is where many Muslim societies have clearly taken steps backwards in nation building and placed them at bottom of religious tolerance lists. Saudi Arabia along with a few other Arabian Gulf nations and Afghanistan are prime examples of what is damaging Islam’s international image in today’s world. Countries where corrupt political systems have created failed societies while claiming it to be based on the law of God (i.e. Sharia).

As in Europe’s medieval period, religious men are hired by the government to publicly support the regimes in power in Friday sermons in countries across the Middle East and other non-democratic countries including sectarian ones. While at the same time regimes, some of which are actually supporting the fundamentalist discourse, are legitimizing their rule to the west by scaring them with the alternative, fundamentalist Islamic governments. Conflict of interest anyone? One should be careful though, not to
merely blame all these problems on Wahabi financing. The collapse of Islamic progressiveness is not a new phenomenon that just developed in the past few decades. Instead it can be traced back to the economic fall of the so called ‘Muslim Golden Age’ (10th-13th century). The reasons of which are linked to several factors such as invasions by the Moguls, erosion of large-scale agriculture and irrigation systems, oppressive rule of the Ottomans, political instabilities and the rise of intolerance that grows with all economic downturns. But this raises other important questions; why have Muslim nations continued to stagnate further into their own version of the Dark Ages and how, if it’s even possible, can they get out of it without losing their religion? How much of this intolerance can be blamed on the undemocratic regimes of these nations and how much of it can be blamed on Islam itself. As bonafide non- believer I am no fan of any religion but I put the majority of blame on non-religious tribal traditions that have woven themselves into religious doctrine, lack of economic and democratic development and corruption as major factors.

There isn’t one simple solution to the intolerance problem of some Islamic nations and exceptions to the rules will always exist. Yet it is clear that democracy along with separation of Mosque from State are absolutely vital since either alone is not enough. Turkey is more religious since the army finally allowed Islamic parties to come to power and yet it is also more tolerant by finally opening its border with Armenia, becoming a leader in humanitarian aid, allowing Kurdish to be taught in schools etc. Whereas less than 10 years ago it was staunchly secular but highly intolerant even to its own Muslim majority. Pakistan while going through several stints under military authoritarian rule are generally democratic and yet lag miserably when compared to their genetic sister India due to tribal and conservative religious traditions that are hindering social diversity and economic development. Why do Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey fair much better than their secular Arabic counter parts? Simple, the formers elect their leaders.

My key message is that overcoming these challenges is not only vital to promoting religious tolerance but also improving the economic and social wellbeing in these nations.

Hypothetically speaking; what if we did not value the efforts of the different segments (or minorities) within a society? What if we limited advancement opportunities to a specific (or a dominant) segment of a society?  In the MBA example, we would have ended up with a much smaller pool of graduates. In the extreme case, there would not be a need to even have the program as a select few would be bequeathed key positions in industry and government without regard to competence, skill and experience.

To elaborate further, let us mentally compare the total population within a society to an orange and then consider each segment of society as a proportional slice of that orange. By removing different slices for reasons of ethnicity and religion; we also reduce the overall productivity of society as we are limiting the potential output and creativity of many people. By continuing to carve out slices from our orange; the fully contributing segment grows smaller and smaller and we are left with one slice representing the dominant segment of society. Even within this slice, productivity may be diminished tremendously by not providing equal opportunities or discriminating against women, young people, the elderly and people with special needs. This is not hypothetical. It is the reality of many societies. How do you see your particular society with respect to its different slices and their contribution?

By providing this model, we turn the question around with respect to the situation of both Muslim and non-Muslim religious minorities.  The question becomes not whether minorities are treated fairly within the states they live in. The issue becomes not of tolerating minorities. Instead, each nation is challenged on how best to create the environment in which each citizen can fully participate and contribute. Merely tolerating minorities is demeaning to them and stands in the way of fully integrating them and their contribution.

Many societies have fell prey to conformism, shortsightedness and dogmatism. The gap between the political class and society in general continues to grow. Trust continues to be eroded between the different classes, segments and minorities with different societies. A doctrinaire and exclusionary approach is advocated with little possibility for discussion and debate. Those who are disenfranchised and discriminated against, including religious minorities, typically react in a number of ways that lead to further losses. They might reduce their contribution to society or they might migrate to other places in which they have better opportunities.

To break out of this logjam, each society will have to ask some hard questions and to challenge the existing mental models and ways of doing things. It is of utmost importance to define our values, the model of society we live in and the kind of civilization we want to give to our children. Questions such as the value of volunteering, the value of leisure and importance of the environment we live in would have to be debated. Minority rights need to be made the vanguard for measuring the rights of all. Only when the least of society has their rights, will all of society enjoy their rights. A productive society is not just high productivity and other economic metrics. It is much more and it involves all.

Citizens would need to understand the value of citizenship and how political institutions work.They would need to be educated on civic training and scientific approaches to problem resolution. They need to realize (and internalize) that religious beliefs are personal and each person’s belief does not change their potential contribution to society. This is a grass root activity. We can no longer afford to have intellectuals and experts arguing between themselves while citizens disconnect and look in other directions for solutions to their problems.  Politicians would have to work with the different stakeholders in society including civil society to decide on the direction and instigate the changes required to arrive there. We cannot relegate this to politicians alone. The responsibility is for all to find ways to unleash the full potential of society.

We are close to the abyss in an interrelated world. We cannot leave the blind to lead the blind nor can we have swaths of society discriminated against. Many of us have read the fable of the blind men and the elephant. In this fable, several blind men were asked to describe an elephant by touching it. The one who touched a leg described the elephant like a pillar; the one who feels the tail said the elephant is like a rope and so on. Assuming we are all blind to certain truths, then we need all the hands, skills and senses we have in our society to really understand the true nature of the elephant we have in front of us.

Much has been written of Saladin’s treatment of Christian and Jews, so I won’t
rehash it for you. Yet very few know that his actions were not a product of his
unique world view; it was accepted Islamic dogma and this may explain Islam’s
astonishing acceptance amongst the people its armies conquered. Things began
to change around the time of the Fatwa of Ibn Taymieh, when anti-foreigner
groups started to subvert Islamic universalism. Prior to that time Islam was
magnificent in its inclusiveness. Muhideen Ibn Arabi was the Grand Sheik of Islam
in the 12th century. He is buried in Damascus in the small beautiful district of
Ṣāliḥiyya. He once wrote; “My heart has adopted every shape; it has become
a pasture for a gazelles, and a convent for Christian monks. A temple for idols,
and a pilgrim’s Ka’ba, the tables of a Torah, and the pages of a Koran. I follow
the religion of Love.” These were the words of the highest authority on Islam at
the time, so we can put to rest allegations that Islam is inherently intolerant of
Christians and Jews, and less “Love” driven than Jesus’ message.

Islam is (or at least was) universal and inclusive so how come many Muslims
treat their fellow human beings so poorly today? The answer is that Muslims are
trending towards a form of exclusivism that assumes that one starts reform from
the outside in and not from the inside out. How we now look is more important
than how we treat others. The Prophet, peace be upon him, went out of his way
to stress the continuity of many prophets who preceded him from Abraham,
to Moses to Jesus to Mohammad. The verse that captures this universality
and inclusiveness is s 3:84. Other Quranic verses continue the importance of
tolerance and acceptance such as s109:6: “To you your religion, to me mine.” In
addition the well known verse 2:256: “There can be no coercion in religion.” This
is ample evidence of the “universalist” and tolerance message. On the other side
of the coin you have what some call the “Islamists.” Islamists define religion so
narrowly that it excludes most who do not subscribe to their narrow definition
of true faith. Included among the exclusivists are those who wear the Hijab as

a statement and consider anyone who does not wear it to be non-Muslim. As
the exclusionists become militant and belligerent in imposing their beliefs upon
others, I must take exception to the kind of Islam they are proposing. I refuse this
infringement upon personal freedom and “There is no coercion in religion” should
be a constant reminder to them. God, not man, will ultimately judge us.

Our prophet’s Islam drew its power from its “universalist” nature. In spite of their
internecine successional bickering, all Islamic leaders who followed Mohammad
instinctively retained this critical quality. This Universalist quality allowed people
from many cultures to accept Islam. At its core, Mohammad’s religion opened
its doors to anyone willing to make a simple declaration of faith: “I proclaim that
there is no god but God, and I proclaim that Mohammad is the messenger of
God.” It is that simple, and it is powerful. Mohammad put few restrictions on his
followers. All he asked of them is to accept the basic truth that we are all united
by the worship of one God and only one God; the Merciful and Magnanimous.

Now here is a tiny example of this intolerance in an encounter my mother
recently had at a women’s reception in Damascus. My mother is an 80 year old
well respected practicing Muslim who is unveiled. My mother believes that the
veil is not synonymous with real Islam and she can cite chapter and verse in the
Koran to support her belief but her protests fall on deaf ears. At this reception,
Mom rose to shake hands with a young woman, only to be rebuffed because,
the woman said, “I assumed she was a Christian!” A few blocks away Ibn Arabi
must have been turning in his grave. Lest I be (again) accused of being anti-
Muhajabat, I want to stress the fact that my problem is not with the Hijab itself.
My Childhood friend is a Muhajabeh who preaches inclusivity and has taught me
more about Islam than anyone, and the Hijab itself is a time honored Islamic
ritual. My problem is in the assumption of some that those who don’t choose this
ritual (and other rituals) are not Muslims or people worthy of a simple handshake.
My issue is with Islam’s new exclusionary identity.

I hope we can one day go back to the Islam of old, and transcend the Islam of the
last eight hundred years, because we can all see where exclusion has gotten us.

The above fatal fallacy could easily be avoided through the incorporation of the ideas embodied in the principle of the Golden Rule. This simple but profound idea has been traced to practically all cultures all over the world, although one of its most popular and common manifestations are encompassed in the saying: Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you.  As it is obvious it would not be difficult to suggest that this ethics of reciprocity is the foundation upon which human rights and fair treatments are based.

What often goes unnoticed, in the Arab world, is that this simple but yet elegant idea about justice and equality has been traced as far as the middle kingdom of Egypt, 19th century BC, as well as the Code of Hammurabi not to mention the Torah and Confucius. Furthermore it is also important to note that The Parliament of World Religion during its centenary held in 1993 adopted the idea of reciprocity found in the Golden Rule as the common belief in all religions. This document of Global Ethics declared to the world:

We are interdependent….We take individual responsibility for all we do. All our decisions, actions, and failures to act have consequences. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. We make a commitment to respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so that every person is treated humanely, without exception. We must have patience and acceptance…. We consider humankind a family…We commit ourselves to a culture of non-violence, respect, justice, and peace. We shall not oppress, injure, torture, or kill other human beings, forsaking violence as a means of settling differences.

We in the Arab world seem to have conveniently decided not to adopt and apply the above principle despite the admonition by the prophet Mohammad, PBUH, that such a principle of respect and reciprocity to others is essential as can be seen clearly in more than one Hadith:

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

An Nawawi

“No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself.”

Forty Hadith

“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you”.

Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon on Mount Arafat in Mecca.

“Woe to those . . . who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”

—Qur’an (Surah 83, “The Unjust,”

The principle of justice and reciprocity is as seminal to Islam as it is to other cultures and we choose to neglect it at our peril. This is not the place to describe in full details the practices in separate countries against non Moslems.But it should be clear that when we close our eyes on discriminatory practices by our neighbours and friends then that amounts to an acquiescence in these wrongful and hurtful practices.

The Arab world has paid dearly for the inequities that its non Moslem population is subjected to. Why is it not evident that the time of the dhimmis is gone  forever and that if we consider ourselves to be part of this global community then no one has the right to deny any other person the right to self expression and the freedom of thought and religious belief. Why can we not see that when we discriminate against others then we automatically give up our right to complain when others discriminate against our fellow co religionists? Saudi Arabia could not possibly object to a rule preventing school girls from wearing a Moslem headdress when a non Moslem is not allowed to practice her religion openly in the kingdom. Egypt was not in a position to complain against the Swiss rule that regulates the size and location of minarets when  even minor repairs to churches in Egypt require almost presidential approval. The Arab league could not join in the important dialogue about the advisability of building a Mosque close to ground zero in Manhattan when many Arab countries have strict prohibitions against the construction of Churches and other non Moslem houses of worship.

Yes this is a different world than it was 1500 years ago in many respects but the principles of justice and universal humanity and equality are still the same.  Many of the Arab governments that claim that they are only doing the work of Allah and that of his Prophet, PBUH, would do well to review  the treaty of Medina which L Ali Khan argues could serve as the basis of treating minorities justly and offering them equal rights under Islam. And most importantly we cannot disapprove of the acts of others when we sanction these same acts either in our countries or we are silent when these same human rights violations are committed by our neighbourly countries. There ought to be no prejudice or partiality in civil rights.

This latter point is a red herring that deserves to be ignored. American religious freedoms as affirmed in its constitution are not beholden to the lack of human rights in a distant land. However, this should not mean that the point should be ignored altogether. Why shouldn’t a church be built in Saudi Arabia? And why is this not of greater concern to the proverbial Muslim world? Historical nostalgia about Islamic tolerance has clouded the view of a climate today that is unfriendly at best and hostile at worst to religious minorities in most Muslim-majority countries.

The advent of Islam was revolutionary in affirming rights for marginalized groups. It was a fundamentally progressive religion that sought to curb if not eliminate abuses and discrimination against women, orphans, minorities, slaves and others. In an oft-cited verse (109:6) the Qur’an commands, “Unto you your religion and unto me my religion.” Another verse (2:62) further embraces those religious groups outside Islam: “Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord.”

Enshrined within the faith from its inception was the concept of Ahl al-Kitaab or people of the book. This meant that Jews and Christians were part and parcel of any Islamic society. Subsequent empires such as the Ummayads, Fatimids, Mughals, and Ottomans incorporated this structure into their governance to safeguard the rights of minorities. The above definition sometimes expanded to include other groups such as Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians. Within the Ottoman Empire, something called the Millet system developed that allowed for religious minorities to have their own courts of personal law. This general culture of tolerance spurred Muslim lands into safe havens for Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, particularly from Russian pogroms and the Spanish Inquisition.

It would be mistaken to idealize this past as a utopia. Certainly amidst the coexistence was a clear acknowledgement that Jews and other religious minorities would be second-class citizens. Moreover, in Andalusian Spain, the 11^th and 12^th centuries experienced intermittent repression of Jews for example. In India, some Mughal emperors such as Aurangzeb forced Hindus to adhere to Islamic law. Yet, by and large, in its historical context, the ingrained ‘tolerance’ in many Muslim societies could be said to be unique and progressive.

Unfortunately, living in a bygone past is not an option. The contemporary reality is that while Islam embedded a progressive tolerance within the faith, this ethic has stagnated. The fear of the non-Muslim and of the wayward Muslim from within has led to a climate of intolerance and even hostility – sometimes deadly – towards religious minorities. There are the extreme cases that emerge in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. However, even in so-called moderate nations like Malaysia, the situation can be bleak; churches were frequent targets of attack in the past two years and courts blocked Christians from using the word ‘Allah’ for God, a common practice for the last 1400 years. Try building a new church in Saudi Arabia or any Gulf country; it is certainly not akin to constructing a new mosque. Try openly proselytizing; in many Muslim countries it is a capital crime to convert out of Islam (Ridda or apostacy).

Beyond the external religions, many Muslim societies are failing in their tolerance of religious minorities within or emanating from Islam. The Bahais are persecuted systematically in Iran. Ahmadis are prohibited from saying salaam alaikum (the traditional Muslim greeting) in Pakistan, as they are viewed as heretics. Worse, they have been specifically targeted by incitement campaigns by both political and religious leaders, which in turn has led to horrific violence against their community. The list of violent attacks, legal impositions, and cases of incitement throughout the Muslim umma towards minorities would be endless to document here.

Fundamentally, the bar for Muslim societies is set far too low. Why should not Muslim-majority countries be judged at the same standard as the United States or other nations in Western Europe? Of course, people like Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right leader, are extreme. Assuredly, there is discrimination against Muslims in parts of the U.S. Nevertheless, it would hardly compare to the violence, subjugation, and marginalization of many religious minorities in Muslim countries. While there are exceptions to this trend, they should not obfuscate the need for honest introspection within the umma. The question is, who will provoke this introspection, Western governments or Muslims themselves.

Taufiq Rahim is a Visiting Fellow at the Dubai School of Government and blogs regularly on TheGeopolitico.com.

Saudi Arabia, Israel and George W. Bush’s America are three contemporary religious societies and their track records in tolerance are pathetic. Today’s Saudi Arabia is a nightmarish manifestation of a literal Islam. Unknown to most, women are the largest minority in Saudi Arabia with 41% of the population, a bit strange considering that women slightly outnumber men everywhere else. As per Islamic law in effect in Saudi Arabia and in other Muslim countries, men inherit twice as much as women. I have merely stated a fact but have probably stepped on a few toes already. Islam is fair to women!, the heads at the end of the toes would argue. What is fairness without equality?, I retort. Furthermore a man can divorce a woman by uttering the simple phrase:You are divorced! A woman on the other hand has to convince a judge that her husband is a menace to her before she is granted her request for a divorce. Don’t get canonical, devout reader, by giving sexist reasons for this and other manifestations of clearly gender related preferentiality. You know that I only skimmed the surface and that men and women are not equal under Islam (at least not in this materialistic world). Individual freedoms, civil liberties and other religious minorities’ rights in Muslim countries vary depending on the prevailing degree of religiosity and the imposed secular laws. Judaism and Christianity were as inequitable to women as Islam until their judicial influence was neutralized by secular democracy in the West. At certain enlightened times in the past Islam was a progressive religion open to reform and criticism and acquiescing of deviation. It has later morphed into a rigid and morbid textual doctrine, dredging deeper into isolation, away from the modern realities of the world. A contemporary Muslim society cannot be tolerant with its own followers so forget about it being tolerant with religious minorities all together.

Israel! This article’s word count shackles me. By my latest tally Israel has ignored 130 UN resolutions against her since 1948. How can anyone expose en passant her true apartheid nature without using at least a few thousand words to describe her officially adopted policy of racism against Muslims and Christians. Israel does not only discriminate against the original Palestinian majority but systematically bulldozes their homes and murders them. Now Israel is calling for the world to officially recognize her as a Jewish state as if it’s an honor to be branded as such. The most absurd claim advanced by sympathizers of Israel is calling her the only democracy in the region (well, that, and labeling any anti-Israeli individual, organization or society as anti-Semitic). Perhaps Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Shas, an Israeli political party and a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition government summed it best during his sermon of October 16th, 2010 when he said: “Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.” Israel is not a democracy but a theocracy run by a disillusioned chosen few and their chauvinistic and nepotist god.

What happened in the United States during the black plague years of George W. Bush is a shameful part of her history. I am not exonerating the world’s undisputed super power from its bloody past, from its crimes against the natives of that great land. So-called Christian ethics were behind the butchering of hundreds of thousands of the original inhabitants of the continent. The United States struggled with the rise and fall of religious fervor and as a result civil liberties deteriorated and flourished with the ascent and ebbing of Christian domination of the decision-making process on all levels. The Bush years produced a Judeo-Christian aberration, a bigoted Zionist-Crusader cabinet of serial killers, criminals and maniacs who wreaked havoc on the entire world. As per the latest released numbers, the death toll in Iraq alone has exceeded 150,000 as a direct result of the American invasion. Discernible Muslim Americans are second class citizens, feared, stigmatized, singled out and discriminated against in the Land of the Free. These victims, inside and abroad, would not have suffered and/or died if a paranoid god didn’t talk to an idiotic supremacist in the white house.

Ironically, the three theocracies mentioned above are buddies. The Bush-stained United States considers Saudi Arabia as one of its preferred moderate allies in the region. A country with one of the worst human rights records, as far as women and religious minorities are concerned, is praised as moderate by the world’s leading democracy. Saudi Arabia is among Israel’s top supporters and the fact that neither admit it openly is irrelevant. Let’s not forget that the Saudis sided with Israel against what they considered a Shiite Hizb Allah in 2006. Israel controls most Christian congressmen in the United States while obstructing Palestinian Christians from celebrating Christmas in their own Church of Nativity. Israel is the first line of defense against any aggression, local or foreign, which might threaten the Saudi Royals.

An empowered religious society, one which is not reined in by explicit secular laws is repressive of all freedoms and liberties of any individual or group with the slightest inclination of dissent or deviation. My answer is an unequivocal No! All contemporary religious societies are not tolerant of religious minorities.

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”

At various times in the last one hundred years, “The East” has conjured up a variety of images for the Western mind. One must be under no illusion that we are referring to the Western mind, for somebody in 13th century Baghdad would not refer to their land by that term, nor would people in China, who refer to their land as Chung Kuo, or the Middle Kingdom. So it is that throughout the twentieth century the West has used “The East” to refer to the Kaiser’s Germans, the Soviet Union, China or Japan, and now, most recently, the Islamic world. So how can we make a word mean so many different things? Well the real question, a Western voice tells us, is which is to be master, that’s all. The truth is that there is only the West, the East is whatever Humpty Dumpty decides it to be.

Still, like Barak Obama, we ignore the flimsiness of such labels at our own peril. The man’s disastrous foray into what should have remained a storm in a teacup will have far-reaching consequences as the mob again questions the loyalties of a President whose middle name is Hussein. For better or for worse, the mob believes that it is at war with a religion and not just individual groups of fanatics. We must work, therefore, with whatever meaning the term East is meant to have, and at this time it is the Islamic world. But there is a deeper paranoia within the Western mob, one that was triggered by the attacks on the World Trade Center. There is, permeating throughout American popular culture, a deep-rooted fear that history has caught up again with the West, in spite of its efforts to create modernity as a barrier to the past and a vehicle for an ever-present now. It is the awakening of this terror that was the truly unforgiveable crime, and the reason why the Bush administration declared war on a feeling instead of a country, a group or a people.

We know now that the end of the Cold War did not bring about the end of history and the last man but rather, some would say, it brought about the end of the Western man’s dominance. In fact it is not the words of Francis Fukuyama that we should be paying attention to but those of Sayid Qutub an Islamic thinker executed by Egypt’s Nasser in the sixties. Qutub prophetically and confidently asserts, at the start of his “Islamic” manifesto, that the age of the dominance of Western man is ending, that Western civilization, with all its material benefits, has not been able to offer the moral leadership necessary for mankind. Enter the vanguard of Islamic revivalism, who will assume this leadership for all mankind. If the last century witnessed the battle for humanity’s economic destiny, the present century will see a decision made for its spiritual one. What the mob opposed to the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque fear most is that Dr Fukuyama’s “Last Man” at the end of history will be a Muslim.

Yet there is also a far more serious problem that most commentators on such issues do not understand. This is the issue of sovereignty, where a nation decides but is not decided upon. The United States, Britain, France and Israel are all sovereign nations whereas countries like Sudan, Haiti, Jordan or Oman are not, to name but a few. The Scottish and English judiciary curtly dismisses American queries about the release of the Libyan Megrahi, whereas Sudan is about to be partitioned and its president has an international arrest warrant placed on his name. A French government is not accountable for its meddling in Saharan Africa, but an Iraqi president is hung by the neck for his activities within Iraq. Remarkably perhaps, Arab liberals do not understand this and seriously entertain notions that, for example, Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom sees King Abdullah of Jordan as a peer; or that the President of the United States and the Emir of Kuwait match each other in stature. The rulers of many of these “Eastern” countries we speak of are naught but roosters assigned to their respective garbage mounds. Therefore it is important that we understand this before we entertain notions of uniform rules or freedoms applying across various countries. But there are free countries in the East and, not surprisingly, the West sometimes places a particular emphasis on the welfare of minorities there, a concern that coincides greatly with the national and economic interests of Western countries. See for example the French interest with uranium from the South East of Sudan –a witness to its own funeral.

The East, as defined by the West, need not have to respond to requests for “allowing” the building of extra churches any more than it needs to be taught how to accept and integrate minorities. This is not because such things are not important, but because history tells us that it is the West which cannot deal with such issues and not the opposite. Nobody pointed this out more elegantly than Syria’s president Assad when he stated, “Listen, Europe has a complex about the Holocaust. We don’t because we didn’t do it”. All too frequently, the West projects its own failures and shortcomings onto the East. This does not mean that the latter have any shortage of problems, but becoming defensive is not acceptable.

Furthermore, we see the Western world laughs when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a statement in the United Nations in which he begins his speech with “In the name of God, the most gracious the most merciful” or when he says that there are no homosexuals in Iran like there are in the West. It simply is not comprehensible to some that Western values and morality are not universal or self-evident. But when it comes to minarets going up in Switzerland then the freedoms initially meant only for Western citizens are quickly brushed aside. Universalism, it seems, is only acceptable for the outside when used as a stick to beat “rogue states”.

Again, Arab liberals do not understand this, and when faced with such facts usually dive into the water to avoid the rain. For example one Saudi writer, Hani Naqshabandi, does not see the mob with pitch-forks and a noose; instead he marvels that the authorities have graciously allowed American Muslims to build a community center so close to “Ground Zero” (the name given by Americans to the site of the former World Trade Center) – contrasting this with what he thinks Arab countries might have done. He appears to think that the American president can be petitioned like the Saudi king at a weekly majlis and that benevolent justice is dished out with the solemn nod of a head.

Sadly such views are a norm and not an exception with Arab and Muslim writers who take a particular relish in pointing out “the problems within” rather than the problems without; or who believe there is “an Arab mind” that is broken and needs to be fixed. This is a silly view, laughable were the reality not so tragically different. In todays “East”, as the formidable Kuwaiti thinker Abdullah al Nufaissi rightly points out, there have in fact never been a greater number of Western troops, ships and weapons roaming so freely throughout Muslim countries as there has been in history. What is broken about a mind which understands such a self-evident reality? Instead, the “East” is expected to explain itself, to answer for the blame like a battered wife. The real question we all face at the start of the twenty-first century is not about whether the East and West should come to some sort of accommodation, but what is to be done with the West, the sick man of the world?

On August 28, a host of right wing Americans, neo-conservative crowds and TeePartyUSA multitudes demonstrated at the Lincoln Memorial in the American capital in favor of “American Dignity Restored” and implicitly against that part of the country that had elected a black President for the first time ever, with a Muslim for a father and a Hussein for the obligatory American middle name, to boot.  The demonstration took place exactly where the American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, had delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech 47 years ago to the day.

Liberal and Civil Rights America was appalled at such tactics, timing and protestations regarding the whole affair as a deliberate provocation of and an intended affront to the best in American values in general and to America’s blacks and it’s other ethnic minorities in particular.

At this point, I thought to myself: Is not the same logic of provocation and affront applicable to the Muslim construction project and Mosque in the Ground Zero zone?  I do not want to answer the question simplistically. Obviously, the intention of the New York project is forgiveness and reconciliation and not just to insist and no matter what on exercising, in a certain way, the constitutional right guaranteeing to all Americans the freedoms of religion, conscience, worship and expression.  At the same time, it is no less clear that the intention behind the TeePartyUSA demonstration in Washington, DC is out and out provocation, at least to all those who hold dear the memory of Martin Luther King’s speech and the epochal shift it triggered in American life.  I say this with all due respect to the inalienable right of all people to assemble, congregate, demonstrate and express themselves and their grievances peacefully.

In my estimation, the Ground Zero Muslim construction project shows, at its best, lack of tact, inconsiderate plans and bad live-and let-live strategies and tactics.  This can only be of great disservice to a religious minority, like the Muslims, in a country such as the USA where the disabling backlash phenomenon is pervasive, powerful and so well known.  At its worst, the project is open to charges of gratuitous provocation, bad faith, and hypocrisy.  So, all in all I am for moving the Center and Mosque to another and more suitable location in New York City to prove good faith and honorable intentions.

In any case the organizers and financial backers of the project have already made so many concessions to the opposition as to render the whole idea pointless.  For example, they agreed to change the name of the Center from the tell tale “Cordova House” to the utterly bland street address of “Park 51”.  They denied that they are building a mosque in the first place.  And they reassured everyone concerned that no casual passer-by would not recognize the Center for what it is from its outside appearance.  In other words, no minarets and no revealing Islamic architectural or decorative features.  Given these demeaning and humiliating concession, it would be more dignified to relocate the Center to a spot where there will be no need to conceal its identity in such a ridiculous manner.

Furthermore, the Muslim and Arab Worlds do not have much to show on matters of the freedoms of religion, conscience, worship and free-expression neither officially nor at the popular level.  The current despicable plan of the small evangelical Florida Church to burn copies of the Koran on the occasion of remembering the 9/11 destruction and victims should not be a warning only but should also critically remind us of the recent Muslim resurrection of the Medieval rituals of book burning (and people burning as well) when they put to the torch, in view of the whole world, copies of Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, most spectacularly in Bradford, England.  Perhaps, at least American Muslims should heed the Arab piece of wisdom saying: “He who lives in a glass house does not throw rocks at other people”.

Sadik J. Al-Azm
Beirut, Lebanon

Sadiq Jalal Al-Azm (Arabic: صادق جلال العظم‎) (born in Damascus, Syria, in 1934) is a Professor Emeritus of Modern European Philosophy at the University of Damascus in Syria. He has been a visiting professor in the department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University until 2007. His area of specialization was the philosophy of Immanuel Kant with a more current emphasis upon the Islamic world and its relationship to the West, and he has contributed to the discourse of “Orientalism”.[citation needed] He is also known as a human rights advocate and a champion of intellectual freedom and free speech.[1]

Al-Azm was schooled in Beirut, Lebanon earning the B.A. in Philosophy from the American University of Beirut (1957). Al-Azm earned the M.A. (1959) and Ph.D. (1961) from Yale University majoring in Modern European Philosophy.

He won the Erasmus Prize, with Fatema Mernissi and Abdulkarim Soroush. In 2004, he also received the Dr. Leopold-Lucas-Preis of the Evangelical-Theological Faculty of the University of Tűbingen. In 2005 he became a Dr. Honoris Causa at Hamburg University.