COMMENT: Letters concerning toleration — I —Ahmad Ali Khalid

Faith is a matter of the heart and a concept of deep and inner conviction. No amount of violence and force can sow the seeds of religiosity and faith in the hearts of human beings. Such a transformation can only come about through compassion and mercy

In the late 17th century, John Locke, one of the founders and theorists of classical liberalism and modern liberal thought, wrote a letter (‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’) about the virtues and difficulties of tolerance. His letter started a debate about the very meaning of faith, its relation to violence and the role of the state in relation to religion. Locke’s body of work, though renowned for its emphasis on reason and rationality, can also be understood as emanating from a revised reinterpretation of Christianity, and setting the parameters for a political theology of liberality. Our circumstances today are similar to those of Locke’s. Hence it is pertinent that we pen our own letters of tolerance.

Toleration in our times and in our lands has become a sign of moral laxity, vice and irresponsibility rather than a virtue. Tolerance is seen for the weak rather than for the strong, and is seen as opening the path to disbelief and corruption rather than the liberty of conscience.

Tolerance is not about making truth relative, abandoning one’s convictions and submitting to indecision and utter scepticism. It is a most rational and godly dimension of inter-human relations. It is our conduct towards others who hold differing opinions when it comes to faith or creed. It is not a discussion about the validity of one’s religious convictions or about salvation, but about harmony and peaceful relations. We must demonstrate both on the planes of revelation and reason that tolerance is both godly and rational, and that intolerance is irrational and satanic. Since when did anger and passion become citadels of strength? The Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself argued against anger and preached that patience is the true abode of the strong.

Is our religion inimical to toleration and does our faith prescribe intolerance? To these key questions we must firmly say no as the answer. Toleration is no vice, but a virtue and is the hallmark of those whose belief is firm and deep. Toleration is the fruit from which the fine arts of persuasion and gracious preaching can flow. Our own scripture points us in this direction: “[Prophet (PBUH)], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided” (16:125). Propagation of faith was never a political activity based on laws and punishments, but one based on discussion and reasoned argumentation.

Coercion itself is an evil, and is the furthest thing from the spirit of religion, and is akin to the distance between angels and demons. Our dealings in matters of faith must be one of kindness and patience. We should speak with the intention of compassion and understanding, rather than self-righteous diatribes. We should express empathy and be open to serious dialogue. We must reserve our judgement since God alone is the best of judges; our aim must be to fulfil this role on the stage of human conversation and interaction. Judgement is not befitting of humble human beings and we must be wary of demanding this seat of judgement for ourselves. Coercion breeds hypocrisy and as such cannot be justified for the greater good. The Quran itself recognises this notion. “There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error” (2:256).

Social intimidation, political isolation and character assassination on the pretext of some idealised pietistic model of religious conduct are some of the other manifestations of intolerance. The fallacy ad hominem comes to mind, where the character of the interlocutor is targeted and the arguments proposed are ignored. This creates an atmosphere of fear, where accountability and scrutiny are dispensed for slavish devotion to political and religious leaders.

Diversity in human beings and opinions is natural and nothing obscene or perverted. Tolerance is concerned not with opinions, but with citizens and inter-human relations, and how to construct a society based on respect and peace. The discussion of who is right and who is wrong pertaining to the nature of belief is beyond the discussion of tolerance. That is a debate to be had elsewhere. The Quran rhetorically asks the Holy Prophet (PBUH), “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet (PBUH)] compel people to believe? No soul can believe except by God’s will” (10:99-100). Religious belief is based upon personal conviction and religious experience, and as such is contingent on liberty. As the crown of liberty shines, so does the crown of faith. They are bound together and are crucial for deep religious convictions and desire for critical discussion.

Furthermore, faith is a matter of the heart and a concept of deep and inner conviction. No amount of violence and force can sow the seeds of religiosity and faith in the hearts of human beings. Such a transformation can only come about through compassion and mercy. It must emanate from a person’s moral autonomy and free will. “Allah does not change a people’s lot unless they change what is in their hearts” (13:11). The Quran has made it clear that human beings have the ability to choose and are endowed with free will. Free will itself is similar to the concept of liberty. So why violate this God-given gift?

The spiritual destiny of any given individual is beyond the control of prophets, states or clerics. The Quran has made clear the purpose of the Messenger: “Obey God, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the sole duty of Our Messenger is to deliver the message clearly” (5:92). The prophets came as warners, with the upmost concern for ethical conduct and meaningful religious and spiritual experience in relation to the Creator. The truth must be determined by each individual for themselves in order for them to truly exercise their God-given free will. “Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’” (18:29). Interference by the state or any other group to impose certain interpretations or convictions on the people goes against the grain of faith and common sense.

(To be continued)

The writer is a student at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com