A dialogue with Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah

The Quranic text institutionalizes a formula for coexistence of the various human committees that is based on security, tolerance and civil peace: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

What are the basis of knowing one another that you inspire from the Holy Quran? And what are the principles of the culture of coexisting with the other in the same society and the ways to conduct dialogue and reaching an understanding with the external other ?

The Ayah you referred to is the basis of the jurisprudence of knowing one another. It stresses several important points:

Firstly: Confirming the existing national, geographic and ethic differences, which cannot be changed, being structural and not marginal characteristics.

Trying to cancel such particularities in human dealings would lead to big problems on the psychological and practical levels . On the other hand giving a lot of emphasis to these particularities will also create additional problems.

Secondly: Islam encourages people to benefit from these particularities in their positive aspects, calling for men to interact emotionally and practically with those who share them these particularities, provided that it does not turn into an aggressive fanaticism, thus deviating from the rules Islam has ordained for human relations. The particularities will thus turn into a barrier, that separates each group from the other… The best expression of this idea is what Imam Ali bin Al-Hussein (a.s. ) said: "What is considered a sin in fanaticism is when one sees the evil people among his community better than the good of the others. It is not fanatic to love your our people, but to help them in doing wrong".

Thirdly: The human diversity might be expressed in the diversity of scientific and practical experience which makes each people in need of the others. And thus they will know one another on the bases of mutual needs.

And this , in its turn, will provide an opportunity for them to meet and become closer, and ultimately discover that there are common grounds they join between them.

Knowing the other represents a means to discover him to learn about what experiences and sciences he knows, as well as his conditions, projects and aspirations, thus paving the way for cooperation among them that extends to the various levels.

This suggests that Islam does not put a barrier that prevents people from cooperating in the areas they agree upon, although they might continue to differ in other areas.

It has considered reaching common terms as a means of securing coexistence Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (4:64). Islam also considered that entering into argument with the people of the Book should be in the way that is better :

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
considering this to be the only means to conduct a dialogue with the other.

This means of conducting dialogue is a universal one that the call of Islam adopted

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

This suggests that the other whom you differ with is not a man you should not try to establish a relationship with. It is part of our cultural and human responsibility to meet together on the ideas that we both agree upon while conducting a dialogue with what we disagree upon, in a experience of ascending process of knowing one another

In this respect, we notice that the methodology the Islamic call concentrates on is winning friends, and adopting a wise means that turn enemies into friends. And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend

Thus, dealing with others in the way that is the best as the means to manage the relation with the other who is different is but a way of knowing him to establish a relationship of intimate relationship with him.

The Messenger's saying: "Seek knowledge even in China” calls on Muslims to benefit from others whom we might differ with in faith, but they might have some knowledge that we might benefit of. In the same context Imam Ali says: "Wisdom is what the believer searches for. Thus seek wisdom even from the hypocrites".

How to manage differences:

How does the Quran view coexistence despite existing difference and disputes?

The Quran has asserted in that Islam is against any aggression on the other , but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.

From this Ayah we conclude that the relationship is in principle one of peace unless the other commits an aggression.

In the light of this, Islam has accepted the other in the regions it was in power,

It stressed on coexistence with the people of the Book, and drew a contractual line for coexistence with the other that respects the general order. It also considered the other who keeps the peace as a human being who has the right to be dealt with on the basis of justice and charity ,regardless of his ideological identity. And this is true whether within the same society or between different societies

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

As for the other who fights Islam or who commit aggression, the Islamic position towards him is different, since he rejects the consistence that is based on the right of the Muslim other to coexist and since he does not mind collaborating with the enemy against his own people.

Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Extending the principle of peaceful coexistence to them would be harmful to the Islamic political and security wellbeing, in addition to its negative effect on the cultural level.

And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly .

The wrongdoer is not a man of dialogue but of aggression. Dealing realistically with this person means to adopt his violent manner to protect the Muslims community.

It is noticeable that the two Ayats did not restrict peaceful existence to certain parties, suggesting that peace towards the other is the Quranic norm, whatever the objective circumstances surrounding the Muslim community, especially that the peaceful existence in not only extended to the people of the Book through Aqd-al -Zima but also to the others through Aqd al-Mua’ahada.

The Medina constitution is the first Islamic charter for existence, that aims at establishing a mechanism of cooperation in a society of Muslims and Jews, as well of being constituted of several tribes, What are the coexistence formulae the Prophet instituted?

The Medina Constitution embodied the general Islamic principle of reaching contractual peaceful existence with non-Muslims, on the basis of a social contract based on the concept of citizenship.

This contract is guaranteed by the Muslims on the basis of Allah's command to Muslims to honor their promises commitments and agreements.

The concept of citizenship is the basis of the general law that governs the entire nation which observes the rights of religious and perhaps non-religious minorities too. This principal or law was observed in a strict manner, to the extent that as long as the Jews kept their peaceful existence, there was no instance of aggression on Jews whether their on their lives or properties. But when the Jews violated the charter and allied with the non believers during the battle of Al-Ahzab, (the parties) the Muslims were no longer bound to their commitment, since the Jews were is a state of war against the Muslims that threatened the Muslims security.

We believe that studying this charter that equated between the Muslims and Jews in their general rights and national duties rests on the mutual agreement between the two parties that recognize the particularities of each group in managing its private affaires in its own circle within the same nation. This has created an outstanding way to build and run a pluralistic country, in which the general dies not cancel the individual, but they complement one another, forming a marvelous humanistic picture of unity in diversity or diversity in unity… in which the legislation provides human rights for the minorities that do not isolate them from the other citizens in the majority and do not hinder them from preserving their religious or particular identities in what does not violate the general law.

The significance of the Medina constitution lies in its sound and correct implementation on the ground… Although the Jews tried to incite tribalism and fanaticism and allied secretly with the hypocrites the Muslims did not resort to any negative action against them.

Muhammad(p.) , knowing all about the Jews’ constant attempts to create certain doubts among Muslims concerning their religion, continued to receive them and listen to their arguments, and their complains, against one another . He even referred them to their own laws in the Torah as he was careful not to impose on them any Islamic ruling they do not recognize.

The Quran even interfered to prove that a Jew that certain Muslim accused him falsely of stealingا, which proves that defending the rights of an innocent Jew, in accordance to the universal principle of Justice that Islam adopts, is a vital Islamic issue, so that no non-Muslim wronged would feel that Islam stands not with the Muslim wrong-doors.

Q: The history of Islam has known many cases of ideological coercion that was legalized by the Jurists of the palace courts, although they contradict with Allah's saying: "No coercion in religion". What is the effect of the stands of the jurists in depriving -Islamic jurisprudence from the Islamic spirit of tolerance?

A: The problem of certain Islamic jurists is that they understand the Islamic concepts in a partial and arbitrary way. In their understanding of an idea they divide it into separated parts, thus distorting the concept this idea convey. Taking the concept of patience for example, they extend it to mean submission or yielding to an oppression, and rejecting to revolt against him even if the objective conditions are ripe. Patience could be useful in the stage of planning and preparing the stage since it creates an atmosphere of calmness that does not reveal the plan to the enemy. Patience is also advised in the aftermath of the success of a revolution to protect its achievements and to carry out its agenda. This suggest that patience does not mean standing still, but it is rather associated with action and movement.

Thus, we could say, that they only see one side of the picture, and in the light of this, we say that those jurists may have studied some of the Quranic verses that call for toughness with the unbelievers, and extend this to mean that this is the general law to deal with them in the daily social life, despite the fact that these Ayats refer to how to deal with them in wartime . They did not take into account all the verses that talk about calling by means of wisdom and good extortion, and the verses that call for using the best way to argue with the People of the Book… as well as the verses that talk about forgiveness and tolerance…

War in Islam is but an abrupt stop in the course of Islam that is necessitated by the need to protect the security and safety of Muslims.

But in peacetime, the issue takes a different direction calling for Islam in a cultural way that opens up on the psychological mental and realistic state of the others . The dialogue should rely on proof and wisdom and strive to be intimate, friendly and convincing in a way that would find its way to the heart and mind of the other without any coercion

Thus, the problem of these jurists could well be that they have a narrow mentality that does not distinguish between how to confront the different other in wartime and in peace. They see some of the rulings of wartime as the general law that governs the Islamic position towards change.

In addition, their problem might have resulted from their submission to oppressive authorities that might be planning to coerce the others, be they of other Islamic sects or others religions.

As a result of this, jurists would try to find various pretexts and justifications to the actions and instructions of the ruling power including those that aim at changing the religion or the political beliefs of others by force. They would issue Fatwas that would justify the oppression of the oppressor, or try to present arguments that say that the ruler has the religious authority to take such stands, and that accordingly people ought to yield to his power.

We believe that these jurists had left some negative effects in the Muslims society, whether by the wrong conceptions they planted in the general Muslim thinking or by the pressures on non-Muslims who live among the Islamic nation.

In this respect, although there were instances of putting people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in jail because they had different opinions than the ruler there was enough evidence to prove the negative impact did not become a general phenomenon in the Muslim community since Jews, Christians and others still live in Islamic comities without being pressurized by the Islamic state or by Muslims to change their religion. The Jews whom the Quran described as the most hostile to the believers, enjoyed living peacefully and prosperously in an Islamic community, and they controlled at certain times the Islamic economy and contributed enormously in the filed of science without any complexes . We did not hear of a Jew being oppressed because of his religion or asked to leave his Islamic country, at a time the Muslims were persecuted in the West.

We believe that the Islamic mentality of the ordinary Muslims was more tolerant with the adherents of other religions, especially with the religious fatwas permitted the Muslims men to marry women of the People of the Book, thus creating a bondage and social integration within the adherents of these religions.

Q: Within the Islamic community a new weapon has been widespread in this era. Fatwas are used as a means of libel and incitement to distort the image of enlightened Muslims scholars and jurists . How can we protect our society from all this? And how can we create an atmosphere of freedom to study the issues of Islamic theology and sociology?

A: One way is to bring down these people in a carefully studied manner from the leading positions of issuing Fatwa they have occupied as a result of the widespread belief that being a Marja’ only requires knowledge of jurisprudence even if they are not will invested in other religious sciences, or Arabic literature and even if they have not read the writings of Muslim scholars.

The nation has to sack these jurists and switch to the conscious scholars of encyclopedic knowledge in Islamic jurisprudence, theology and Quranic studies, as well as well as the knowledge of contemporary ideologies and schools of thought in the Islamic front, who try to found an open mentality that responds to the contemporary needs…

Then there is the problem of the traditions who have imposed on the general mentality the sacredness of the unsacred and the infallibility of those who are fallible.

The only infallibles according to the Shiites are the Messenger(p.), Fatima al-Zahra, and the twelve Imams . Other than that there is nobody who is above criticism: people have the right to criticize any religious social or political leadership, for this is the only road to reform. The issue is one of awareness and backwardness, It is an issue of piety and deviation.

Q: The discourse of some Islamic groups negates the other and some even feel that Allah has given them the right to accuse others of unbelief . How could we stop this phenomenon that spreads the spirit of hatred in our societies?

Negating the other is meaningless since it does not negate his existence, just as negating through does not put an end to it. Although it might decrease its scope or effect in one stage, but it will go back and spread in another. On the other hand, the Question of apostasy is a cultural issue that is based on studying how much an individual’s thought runs against the principles of the Islamic doctrine in an unequivocal way, which means that you have to study the background and nature of his thought which is not easily attainable.

Accusing somebody of apostasy just because you differ with him on certain theoretical issues that the religious scholars disagree on, on the basis that his opinion represents the absolute truth, is an expression of cultural conceit, for the thought of any thinker is a product of the school he intended, the books he read and the experiences he went thRough.

The significance of any scholar especially an Islamic one, lies in his humbleness, in knowing where he stands and how much he knowS.

This means that he has to respect the thought of others, and listen to their ideas, argumentS and proofs, so that he might take into account something that he was not aware of.

Moreover, the scholar's piety and fear of God demand that he should not be concerned with his significance as a thinker, but to reform the deviation of others, if they are deviated and try to convince them of the right Islamic thought if they are misguided, but through the means of wisdom and good exploration

Q: Certain Fatwas prohibit dealing with books known as books of falsehood. These fatwas might have been justified when the production and distribution of books were limited, but are they still valied in our age the information revolution?

A: It has not been proven that there is any text that prohibits the publishing of these books . Those who have prohibited them did so on the basis of logic since they spread corruption. But if in the past, limiting its spread was effective in limiting its negative impact, in our age, the age of the electronic village, any prohibition of any book would contribute in making people want to read it and turn its author into a champion of freedom who is being persecuted. On the other hand, neglecting these books would limit their spread by turning them to ordinary books that do not draw special attention.

We believe that, and this has been proven by experiment, that fighting any publication will enhance its spread and its effect on the people since it will it turn to an oppressed thought that draws sympathy, while ignoring it would decrease its impact on the people's minds.