COMMENT: Letters concerning toleration — II —Ahmad Ali Khalid

Quashing God-given liberty (free will), stifling debate and criticism in an attempt to safeguard power under the pretence of religion can happen all too often when we cannot clearly separate religion and the state institutionally

Those who arrogate the seat of judgement are most irrational and ungodly. God has made it clear that, “His is the judgement and to Him you shall all be brought back” (28:88). If one continues to argue the case that judgement on a person’s religious convictions and the nature of one’s heart and conscience must be carried out in this world, then ask from the Quran, “Is God not the most decisive of judges?” (95:8). How can fallible, argumentative and error-prone human beings hope to pronounce judgement on an issue so profound and so sacred? It does not befit human beings to act as judges of the spiritual and existential destinies of others.
If we grant the state the power to impose a particular faith, what is stopping it from imposing a particular sectarian interpretation in exclusion of other sects? Sectarianism is not the purpose of this discussion, but as it is part of our religious history and discourse, how can we suppress it? This suppression would mean violating the rights of other citizens to practice their faith according to the dictates of their conscience. Which version of faith will the state impose that is congenial to the conscience of every one of its citizens? Furthermore, what right does the state have of interfering in this matter of individual responsibility, which is a crucial teaching of faith? (See 6:94 and 164, 7:39, 17:15, 18:35, 19:95, 35:18).
For a person to be the best Muslim or adherent of any other faith, the state has to be neutral in regards to the intricacies and subtleties of religious doctrine, spiritual experience and scriptural exegesis. This is the best arrangement, so that the sublime nature of religion is protected and the God-given free will of every human being is protected as well. There needs to be an institutional division between religious and temporal authority.
On the issue of the value of human beings in respect to their creed, God in the Quran has made it clear, “We have honoured the children of Adam” (17:70). Since the origin of all human beings is one and the same, then surely the worth and value of all human beings must be one and the same, otherwise why does the Quran say, “It is He who first produced you from a single soul, then gave you a place to stay [in life] and a resting place [after death]” (6:98). Hence, acting via the state against a particular religious group or section of society who hold differing religious views, violates their natural rights and God-given honour. Before we have creeds, we have a sense of dignity and honour that should be cherished.
The diversity of human beings is not satanic and certainly not irrational. It is natural that human beings have different tastes and different beliefs, since this is the logical result of having free will and the ability to choose. In our diversity, there is some greater purpose, which can bring about deeper understanding. “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. There truly are signs in this for those who know” (30:22). Our diversity is meant to initiate dialogue and mutual recognition. “People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognise one another” (49:13).
We will be mistaken to think that the irreducible diversity of man, and the flowering of many dissenting opinions in matters of faith are at the root of much violence and war. Such an assertion is dangerous for it sees diversity not as something natural, but as something abnormal, which lends itself to the notion that the means to bring about peace is to go on the quest for cultural or religious homogeneity, quashing any difference of opinion. The reason for war and suffering, particularly in the case of our nation, is not the diversity of opinions, but the rejection of tolerating difference that has produced oppression and suffering. Difference in opinion and belief is natural and cannot be controlled by external actors, it comes from a person’s inner convictions, but the capacity for tolerance is a choice one must grasp to accommodate diversity. The pursuit of homogeneity is a foreboding objective that goes against God’s will; diversity is divinely ordained.
The purpose of the state and religion, it seems, are inevitably different, but there is a link. That link is mainly a concern for justice, sincere ethical conduct, morality and order throughout society, but that is not to say that our religion is a political ideology and our state should be synonymous with religion. It is neither prescribed in our faith, nor was it the vision of our founding father. One can have religious convictions and participate in public life, but the notion of a ‘state religion’ is contradictory, with no theological or rational justification. The state is concerned ultimately with this life, with the rights and status of its citizens, and the aim of security, health, peace and prosperity. Religion, though not cut off from the world, is ultimately concerned about the salvation of human beings. Mixing the machinations and murky business of statecraft with the intensely spiritual and virtuous experience of religion is detrimental to the latter. The Quran mentions that the Prophet (PBUH) was not sent to sort out the personal affairs of others, but convey a message (10:108, 17:54, 88:21-22).
Quashing God-given liberty (free will), stifling debate and criticism in an attempt to safeguard power under the pretence of religion can happen all too often when we cannot clearly separate religion and the state institutionally. Punishments and laws will never inoculate a sense of the Divine, the mind and heart will not yield to force, but to reason and compassion. The nature of faith is different from the business of the state. This is especially true since the methods of the state are not the same as the methods of faith. The state is dependent on coercive means to bring about justice and order, to secure the rights of its citizens, whilst religion is contingent on liberty. To merge faith and the state would be to corrupt faith and render it inauthentic. True belief, as it is pointed out in the Quran and through the use of reason, has to be based on sincere devotion out of love and understanding.

(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