Between 'Divine Willing' and 'Divine Permitting': A Brief Reflection on Religious Diversity, Divine Mercy and Human Response

When something is considered Divinely Providential such as the Quranic recognition of religious diversity (such as in 5:48), is Divine Providence in regards to religious diversity understood to mean something which God directly Willed or just 'Permitted'?

I think both the 'Divine Willing' and 'Divine Permitting', although not being mutually exclusive, are distinct categories. Providentiality encompasses both God 'directly Willing' something to occur and/or 'Permitting' something to occur. In a sense, God more directly Wills the good to occur while only 'permitting' an 'experience' of evil to occur in one's life or destiny, for example. However, with regard to God's Willing of diverse revelations and messengers  along with the human response to Divine Revelation in a given Traditional world, there is a kind of meeting between God's direct Will 'to be' and God's permission 'to exist'. God directly Wills for a revealed Perspective or Narrative to take a particular form, while God 'permits' humanity (or a particular religious humanity) to excercise their free will and intellect in shaping and molding that revealed narrative in order to promote, maintain, and transmit in an integral fashion, a Divinely revealed teaching on the human plane of religious discourse. In this regard, Frithjof Schuon's perspective on the "human margin", or the "human response" to a Revelation in a given Traditional framework is an apt means of reconcilling how religous diversity is both a "Divine Willing" and a "Divine Permitting". The 'human margin' can be seen as a  kind of "margin" of human speculation "allowed" or "permitted" by God in order to transmit certain timeless and universal teachings of revelation within a given, particular human context which are diverse by nature.  This "margin" which is the meeting of Divine Mercy and human response can be seen intra-religiously and inter-religiously. Intra-religiously: with the flowering of many oft-competing Intellectual, Theological and/or Spiritual Schools from Christianity to Islam to even Hinduism or Buddhism for example, each school or perspective serving the psyhcological, intellectual and spiritual needs of its adherents. Inter-Religiously: with the human and Divine 'barriers of mutual incomprehension' (each developing in their own ways) which dilineate the multiplicity of Revealed Sacred forms. In this sense, the 'human margin' is a 'divine margin' as well:

"For each We have appointed a Law and a Way. Had God Willed, He could have made you one community. But in order to test you with what He has given you [he has made you as you are]. So compete with one another in good works. And Unto God you will all return. He will reveal to you [the truth] of that about which you differed" (5:48)

In this particular Quranic verse, religious diversity is clearly seen in a very positive light, whereas in other verses the Quran does remain a bit ambiguous and at times views diverse religious opinion as negative especially when the Quran criticizes the human behavior to split into factions or sects after the coming of Guidance. Yet factions and sects based on 'human desires' and 'conflicts' is one thing, and the Divine Wisdom and Mercy in diversifying and multiplying revelation, something else. All this dovetails nicely into the inquiry regarding the Muslim or 'Islamic' critiques of Islamic Universalism. From an exclusivist point of view which has its Quranic precedents as well, God only 'permits' the continuity of 'false' or 'deviated' religions while Willing directly the Truth (or more superior Truth) of the Islam of Muhammad (saw) to flourish and live on; much like God permits falsehood and truth while direclty Willing only the truth, etc. And this is one of the more intelligent critiques of the traditionalist perspective out there (in fact offerred by Leggenhausen in his critique of 'Nasr's perennialism').

While recognizing the legitimacy of this claim on the level of exclusivist Truth for some and acknowledging how this is sufficient to resolve any tension regarding the Truth of the Self and providentiality of the continued existence of the Other for exclusivists, the inclusivist however goes a step further in his understanding or awareness of Divine Providentiality. For the inclusivist, universalist, or any kind of religious adherent whose intellectual or spiritual awareness of religion and religious truth expands to include the Other to some degree of universality, what appears to be God's 'neutral' or 'ontological permission' to allow other religions to flourish is now seen to be more a direct and 'positive' Willing than a mere 'Permitting'. In other words, the conception or awareness of the Divine Providentiality regarding the authentic Other expands to include and recognize not just an ontological 'validity' of the other, but rather a 'spiritual', 'holy' and 'sacred' validity for the Other: a validity 'rooted' in the same ineffable Sacred Root which is the 'root' and heart of one's own Religious Self.

In the words of al-Hallaj, a Sufi Martyr, words proclaimed about 1000 years before a Guenon, Schuon, Lings, Nasr or the Traditional School 'providentially' came into existence:

"Earnest for truth, I thought on the religions:
They are, I found, one ROOT with many a branch.
Therefore impose on no man a religion,
Lest it should bar him from the firm-set ROOT.
Let the ROOT claim him, a root wherein all heights
And meanings are made clear, for him to grasp."
[emphasis added]
Allahu Alam

"Transcendent Unity of Religions" as the "Universal Validity of Religions"?: Reflections on Metaphysical Unity, Spiritual Validity, and Theological Validity

Does the "transcendent unity of religions" mean that any or all religions are valid for a Muslim to follow?

I would first state that the question of 'validity' does not enter into a discourse on a "transcendent unity of religions" as a primary concern when recognizing Truth: it appears to be more a theological category of appropriation than a metaphysical or esoteric concern initially. It is the 'validation' of Total Truth as far as ones's knowledge and awareness of God is concerned, that a universalist Muslim is primarily after, and not the acceptance of the validity of all revealed 'systems' or religions per se. When Ibn Arabi states in the Fusus, "Beware of being bound up  by a particular creed and rejecting all others as unbelief...God is greater and wider than to be confined to one particular creed  to the exclusion of others...",  Ibn Arabi says all this AS a Muslim practicing Islam exclusively with faith in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw), with a view to deepening his gnosis (ma'rifah) of God that he has attained 'through' the religion of Islam. In other words, Ibn Arabi's 'validation' of the religious beliefs of the Other is an 'esoteric validation', and not an 'exoteric' one...

Most, if not all universalist Muslims would never dare leave their religion in order to "practice" another religion as the result of a belief in a transcendent or 'inner' unity of religions which makes all religions 'equivalent' to follow. Other religions do not suddenly become 'valid' for a Muslim to follow just because he is able to discern an ever-Present and inner unity of Truth working in religions preceding the Islam of Muhammad (saw). Such unity or 'validity' is "inner" or "essential" and not "outer" or "formal". On the outer  or formal level each relgion is distinct, different, divergent and therefore formally "unequal". Hence such a Muslim would either have faith in the 'Islam' of Muhammad (saw) as the final and "completed" or  even "perfected" formal path to and from God that the present cycle of humanity has to offer, or would accept the Islam of Muhammad (saw) as the most 'opportune' path for them to follow in their particular context. Both kinds of universalist Muslims would however practice the religion of Islam exclusively as the only Path valid for them while recognizing that other Paths do in fact exist and have some form of validity or salvific efficacy in their own revealed contexts for their respective adherents as the Quran can be understood to affirm in 2:62.

In this sense, the "transcendent unity of religions" is not entirely equal to or reducible to a "universal validity of religions" especially if "universal validity" means "equal validity". The former is a metaphysical/esoteric postulate or spiritual intuition confirmed at times by certain experiences in life and/or by inner vision, whereas the latter is an 'error' from the point of view of theological or exoteric exclusivism. Revealed forms of Religion, much like the multiplicity of Divine Names in Islam, share the same transcendent Source yet are not formally equivalent. It is in this sense that there is a transcendent (non-formal/supra-formal) unity yet formal diversity of revealed religions. The Quran recognizes the universality and diversity of revelation but also upoholds the normativity of its own revelation as the final revelation which completes and integrates this universal prophetic cycle of revelation. As such, the Quran's very particularity is inextricably linked to its universality: the universal and all-encompassing scope of its appreciation of those religions and "scriptures which came before it" (5:48).

There is however another aspect to 'validity' that should be addressed here and that is 'validity' on God's scale (mizan) who is the "wisest of Judges" (ahkamil hakimin) and who is aware of each and every one's existential context and predicaments regarding one's connection with their Lord Most High, yet Most Near. And this has more to do with the providential nature of 'validity' or 'spiritual efficaciousness' in "God's Eyes" vis a vis a human being's secret nexus to God (sirr), and how this unfolds on the human plane of experience and realization--if I be permitted to use such a formulation. The mystery of religious conversion and the inspired 'intangibles' which go into a seeker 'converting' from one religion to another--or even staying in one religion and reviving one's 'fatih'-- as a destined means to strengthen and fortify one's connection with God comes to mind here.

In this light we can again see how all religions are not 'universally valid' in the sense of being 'equally valid' for each and every human being or religious adherent. Here the diversity of 'humanities', ethnicities, and human types almost necessitates a diversity of revelation and prophecy and thereby the mutliplicity of religions : recall 5:48 again, "For each We have appointed a Law and a Way...". Even the 'universal' or 'global' religions, such as Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, religions whose messages are to be applicable for all times and places (according to their own revealed narratives) have been formally perserved through real historic, linguisitic, psyhcological and geographical barriers and limits to expansion erected by the Divine Providence Itself which has not allowed all of humanity to properly receive via 'sound' transmission--let alone come to accept--one religion alone. Much can be said about this (see Schuon and Lings' wonderful discussions regarding this matter in "Transcendent Unity of Religions" and "Return to the Spirit" respectively), but the point here is to bring attention to the fact that each human being is called by God through one's God-Willed destiny to reach and be with God--in principle--through a revealed religion. And in this sense, the other religions--no matter how true, real, 'valid' or "formally intact" they are--could not equal the 'spiritual import' of that one, particular revealed religious form for such and such a person.

In other words, and by way of illustration, it could be said that a Saint and follower of Christ who resides on Mount Athos and has realized the very heart of all true religion, has in principle, no real and intrinsic 'need' to 'accept' and 'follow' the teachings of the last and final Prophet in this cycle of humanity, that is Muhammad (saw) to the extent that such a man has realized the 'goal' of all true religion, which is Nearness to God through sanctity...In this sense, it is inconceivable that the formal religion of Islam would be more "spiritually valid" for him than the formal religion of this saint's birth, that is Christianity....

In this light, a universalist perspective can recognize the providential barriers of "mutual incomprehension" (to quote Schuon) set forth by God and men between the religions in order to keep religions and their follower distinct and separate from one another, all of which can be seen as a kind of "hidden mercy". Moreoever, a Muslim need not concede to a 'universal validity of religions' thesis if this is understood to mean a kind of acceptance of a 'universal spiritual applicability' of all religions to each and every human being 'in fact'. In as much as there can not be a 'universal validity' or applicability of 'any' religion for each and every human being on the human plane, the diverse exclusivisms find their right, ryhme and reason to exist and proclaim that only one religion is salvifically valid: ie, their own religion. On this level, religious exclusivism stems from the nature of Truth Itself which is Absolute and Exclusive  which 'binds' a seeker (as in a covenant) in an exclusive manner to one revealed form of guidance (rushd). This understanding of the nature of Truth does not deter one from recognizing however that along with being "Absolute and Exclusive", the Truth (or the Divine Nature) is also and equally "Infinite and Universal"....

However, it could be said that the 'universal validity'  of 'religions' can only be found 'in Divinis', that is "in God" or 'ind Allah' where that which is "universally valid" is simultaneously a "transcendent unity". For, "Verily, (true) Religion with/in God is submission (islam)"--Quran 3:19. The Quranic term 'islam' here can be understood to mean "submission to God" which is the general root and principle of every aunthentic revealed religion--or religion as such--and not only confined to the religion of Islam given to the last Prophet--the two categories of 'islam' here not being mutually exclusive. Only in God's Transcendent Unity, are all revealed religions One and thereby universally valid: "For those who strive in Us, surely we shall guide them to our Paths (subulana)"--Quran, Surah Ankabut (The Spider, verse 69). "Those who strive in Us", that is 'those who partake and strive spiritually within a revealed framework', shall by gudied to one of multiple revealed and inspired spiritual paths to the Heart (this is perhaps the most universalist way to understand this profound Quranic verse from a universalist perspective). In this manner are all revealed traditions 'essentially equivalent' while remaining 'formally diverse', multiple and even formally "unequal" in order to suit our diverse and 'non-equal' needs: hence the usage of God of the plural form of the word for path (subulana from sabil) in Arabic in this Quranic verse.

To conclude then, the universalist Muslim would concede that there is a difference between a metaphysical validity of revealed religions which ultimately finds such "inner unity" of all authentic religions in God's Unity, and a theological validity of a given religion which only conceives of the exclusive validity of one religion. The former is accepted as a revealed Quranic principle, whereas the latter is accepted in fact from the point of view of exclusively praciticing one's own revealed form of religion (al-Din)--which also has its Quranic supports. However insofar as there is essentially only 'one religion' practiced by 'all'--the 'islam' of the Qur'an or 'submission' in divinis which encompasses all modes and forms of authentic revelation--it is that archetype or principle of religion (al-Din) which manifests itself in various revealed forms in space and time. It is this One Religion of 'islam' which can be found in all revealed religions as the essence of all true religion: that 'underlying religion', which is the "religio perennis" of Schuon; the "religion of the heart" of Rumi; "the religion of love" of Ibn Arabi; that 'immutable religion' (al-din al-qayyim) or 'primordial religion' (din al hanif or fitrah) of the Quran, of which, "most men know not" according to the Quran 30:30:

"So set thy purpose for Religion as a hanif (with unswerving devotion); in conformity to the Fitrah-(t)-Allah (the Primordial Nature of God) in which God created Man. There is no altering/exchanging God's creation (for another). That is the Immutable Religion (Dalika Din ul-Qayimma). But most men know not." (Quran: 30:30)

Allahu Alam

The Perennial Philosophy, 'Perennialism", and Islam: Brief Reflections on the Function of "Bulverism" in Religious Discourse

It is somewhat unfortunate but ultimately understandable when one encounters the polemical attitude of Bulverism (basically an 'unreasoned dismissal') displayed toward expressions of Islamic Universality such as the Traditionalist perspective on the perennial philosophy within many currents of the Islamic mainstream. Such theological "knee-jerk" dismissals of the perspective of what is labeled "perennialism" by their Muslim detractors is unfortunate because of the immediate and unreasoned dismissall of  many great, profound and deep insights into things Islamic and Spiritual, all for the sake of "erring on the side of caution". Yet this approach is understandable because all religions are revealed "Exclusively" and "Uniquely" by God precisely with the intention of saving souls and nourishing them spiritually within a homogenous, exclusive world-view regarding a 'Revealed Narrative' of Truth. What is more important in God's Eyes is that we as human beings respond deeply to His Calling and Guidance with all of our heart and being, rather than understanding a subtle--yet profound-- teaching on Revelation, Religion and Truth. Yet such openings to the universal and universalist nature of the Truth is precisely what some--if not many--seekers of today need in order to follow one religous path seriously in order to find and reach God/Truth who is both Beyond all authentic religous paths, and the Source or Origin of them all. As such, the role of "bulverism" in religious discourse seems to serve more a psycho-logical function than a purely 'theo-logical' one in religious adherents accross the board.

Some thoughts which come to mind regarding the underlying reasons for such forms of "bulverism" in Islamic discourse are the following:

Essentially it boils down to the conflation and reduction of 'the traditionalist perspective' to what I have termed 'the universal validity thesis' on certain e-forums which pins traditionalist thought to a theological position which rejects or contradicts Islamic abrogationism (as opposed to the inter-religious and intra-religious role of abrogation (naskh) in Islam which is not as categorical and absolute as certain Muslims and Scholars make it out to be). Such a dialectical move reduces traditionalist thought along with a more universalist awareness of Truth and Tradition to what is pejoratively termed 'perennialism' by such Muslims when contrasted to certain forms of 'normative', 'mainstream', and even 'orthodox' Islam in order to anathematize such universalist ideas. If Tradition needs must be spelled with a capital 'T' , for normative Muslim believers this can only be the case for Traditional Islam and not other religious traditions-- a Traditional Islam which in effect is further confined to either mainstream Sunnism or mainstream Shiism. Yet, "orthodox" Islam while being an "exclusive" worldview,  does not have to be an "exclusivist" worldview. Figures such as Rumi and Ibn Arabi who have been acknowledged as among the most celebrated Saints and Sages of Islam are perfectly "orthodox", and remain so even when they proclaim certain universalist ideas which for them are rooted in the Islamic revelation and Prophetic model. For such Sages, their openings to religious universality only serve to reinforce their Islamic particularity....

To be sure, exclusivist views are providential and thereby Willed by God as a way of understanding Truth and being Saved by it. There is nothing wrong with an exclusivist understanding of religious truth which in fact is the norm and intended by God to be the main source of spiritual nourishment for most religous adherents. From this normative perspective of exclusivism, Islam's 'recognition' of other religions must always be viewed in light of Islam's historical finality which becomes the 'binding' correlate whose theological narrative encompasses and 'complete's' the true but 'partial' perspective that is Islamic universality...

However, in as much as the Quran recognizes explicitly the universality and diversity of revelation, such a traditional narrative can be viewed, expanded upon and appreciated in a fresh 'new' light, especially in a secular yet multi-religous world which thirsts for a wider recognition of The Sacred. This is precisely what the aqli (intellectual) and Sufi traditions of Islam can offer the contemporary traditional Muslim with more esoteric sensibilites who is able to recognize some of the dialectical limitations of our naqli (religiously transmitted) traditions, especially as they concern the Religous Other. This is where authorites such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr a World-Renown Western Academic who is a living exponent of the Hikmat and Sufi/Irfani Traditions of Islam come into play. Like his Sufi predecessors, Nasr is able to apply and expand upon the universalist assertions found in the Philosophical and Sufi traditions in Islam, but is able to accomplish this through appealing to the contemporary global and Western context through a Western medium of philosophical discourse which utlizes the language of the 'perennial philosophy' to appropriate the universality of Islam.....

In closing, let me add that along with the more exclusivist manifestations of normative Islam which necesarily reject such universalist perspectives within Islam (see Ibn Arabi, Rumi and the whole genre of the Persian and Indian Sufi Literature Tradition as examples of universalist perspectives), the heightened knee-jerk reaction to 'perennialism' (read vehemence) by certain Muslims has also to do with a certian amount of 'Sufi politics' in the contemporary scene. Such a phenomenon occurs when certain leaders of particular branches of a given Sufi order wish to assert their authority through polemical attacks on representatives of other branches and their perspectives which are different than their own. It is quite interesting--and sad--to note that the human margin for such behavior can even affect spiritual orders accross the board, whose very rasion d'etre should be an attempt to transcend such human limitations, instead of promoting them......

Who Really Are The Believers?: Perspectives on the "People of Scripture", Iman (Faith) and kufr (disbelief) Part 3

Consequently, the situation of equating or conflating "People of Scripture" with "disbelievers" is not as true and proper as it may seem to you. Yet,  the two categories of ahl al kitaab and mushrikin are very distinct, and we need to discern the difference between what is pure and simple and ignorant idol-worship, and what is a revealed form of worship which may appear to be as diametrically opposed to our own forms of worship and belief systems, but which in all fairness, may stem from an authentic revelation. Again the principle of 'benefit of the doubt' (husni zunn) is important here.

This kind of inclusive approach is more conducive to a Quranic understanding of the supra-confessional attitude towards salvation through God and Faith (Iman) in the One God who Reveals Himself to all People through the diversity of revelations and religions in space and time which the Quran upholds. Take for example the following verse which distinguishes the faith of Muslims from the 'faith' of other People of Scripture, while universalizing the notion and reality of faith and salvation to INCLUDE all groups and peoples who possess three essential qualities: 1.Those who accept the Oneness of the Divine Principle/Reality (Belief in God), 2. Those who recognize human accountability (Belief in The Last Day) and 3. Those who are virtuous (work righteousness):


"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. " (2:62)


I trust that a very postive reading of this verse can in principle include all of humanity which sincerely struggles and strives to follow the form of revealed guidance (rushd) given to them which one sincerely believes the Origin of which to be 'Divine'. Now on the one hand, you can believe that your understanding of orthodox Islam, or Islam in general is the "best religion", the "most preserved religion", the "most complete" religion, and even the final religion intended to "abrogate" all other religions. Yet on the other hand, as a Muslim for you to say that Islam is the only religion which has followers with "Iman" (Faith in God) and is the only exclusively 'valid' religion is problematic from a Quranic perspective. One should again note that the criteria for being a true 'believer' and even truly 'saved' then is left for God to decide on the Last Day, who apart from His Sheer Mercy which alone is sufficient for Salvation, shall use the following essential criteria as outlined above in Quran 2:62. The following Quranic verse in this regard is also significant:


"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a  protector over it. So judge between them by what God has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had God willed, He would have made you one Nation, but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you [all]; so  compete in the good (fastabakul khayraat). To God is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)


Regarding your comment, "On a final note, if a person wishes to use ghair Muslim (non-muslim) than that is for him, he/she cannot impose his/her understanding and prevent others using terms Kaafir or Kuffar (ie, disbelievrs). We do not act to please others or for the sake of not offending (refer to Quran 2:105) but do what Allah SWT has commanded and as long it is within the shariah it is ok.".


I would respond with the following Quranic command: "And call unto your Lord with Wisdom and Fair exhortation, and hold discourse with them in the finest manner" (16:125). Now to call with Wisdom means to know your context. We do not live in medieval or classical Islamic times which bifurcate Iman (Faith) and kufr (disbelief) to regions of 'dar al Islam' (Abode of Peace) and 'dar al harb' (Abode of War) for more or less political purposes. We live in the Modern/Post Modern world which is a secular yet multi-religious world in which diverse Sacred worlds interpenatrate eachother. To not recognize one's 'equal' or one's 'like' in piety and faith in adherents of other faith traditions when confronted with this existential possibility is to be dishonest before God. In other words, if a contemporary Muslim's experience leads them to recognize that the "most noble before you (akramakum) is he who is the most reverant of God between you all (atqaakum)--(49:13)-- and not necessarily one's co-religionist, then one has to expand one's awareness of God-Awareness to include the religious Other in a manner that does justice to both the truth of the Quran, and the veracity of one's experience as Willed by God. Truly, and in light of Quranic Wisdom, the most universal aspects and dimensions of our beautiful religion and OUR Western Heritage should be called upon in the name of Wisdom and the Truth, in order to call all of us (including others and ourselves) to God!

Who Really Are The Believers?: Perspectives on the "People of Scripture", Iman (Faith) and kufr (disbelief) Part 2

You also mentioned: "Also terms such as 'ahlul Kitab' or 'Mushrikun' are not a separate category to Kaafir but a sub-category of it. Your proof was the following Verse "lam ya kunil ladhina kafaru min ahlil kitabi wal mushrikina... (Those who disbelieved (kafaru) amongst the People of the Book and the Polytheists) {98:1]. Imam Ibn Hazm (rh) said, "every kaafir is a mushrik and every mushrik is a kaafir." [al-Fisl]"


Please note that the Arabic here in this verse states clearly 'min ahlil kitaab' which as you mentioned translates as "FROM AMONG the People fo the Book". This means that kufr (disbelief) can be found AMONGST the people of the book, yet arguably so can Iman (Faith, Belief) be found AMONGST the People of Scripture by the very same logic of this Quranic verse! Moreoever, there are verses in the Quran which explicitly state that "among the People of Scripture are those who believe" (ie have imaan!). For example:

"And truly among the People of the Book are those who believe in God and that which has been sent down unto you, and that which has been sent down unto them, humble before God, not selling God’s signs for a paltry price. They shall have their reward with their Lord. Truly God is swift in reckoning." (3:199)

and:

"They are not all alike. Among the People of the Book there is an upright community who recite the revelations of God in the watches of the night, falling prostrate. They believe in God in and the Last Day, and enjoin righ conduct and forbid indecency, and compete with one another in good works. These are of the righteous. And whatever good they do, they will not be denied it; and God knows the pious" (3:113-114).


Now, we can circumvent such verses through hermeneunetical strategies and explain away the literal meaning of this verse by claiming that those of the People of the Book that Allah (God) Intended here were those who ended up converting to the Islam of Muhamamd (pbuh) and therefore are no longer of the category of ahl al kitaab and are now Muslim, or we can just leave such verses to speak for themselves in their literal sense, and in light of the context we find ourselves in view them as valid proof that in principle and in fact there are sincere and pious people of faith in all revealed religions and that it is sufficient to know that Allah knows who they are! And because of this awareness of God's awareness of who true believers are in any religion including Islam, should we not give the "benefit of the doubt" (husni zunn) to each and every human being we meet in our lives--Muslim and non-Muslim-- by default!?


This second approach is much more in tune with facilitating a deeper appreciation of other religions and their followers and their own distinct appreciation of the Sacred in our pluralist context of mutual dialogue. As already mentioned, not every 'ahl al kitaab' is a kaafir (disbeliever) or mushrik (polytheist). If this was the case, God would not have used the term 'ahl al kitaab' in the Quran in the first place! This distinction of terms is significant and obviously necessary. Moreover, there would be no reason whatsoever to protect the places of worship of the 'ahl al kitaab' (and even 'ahl al dhimma') which our Sacred Law obliges us to do, if  such places of worship truly were  places in which pure and explicit forms of shirk (polytheism) occured, and not "...monastaries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the Names of God are oft-invoked", according to the Quran 22:40.


The forms of worship attributed to the 'People of Scripture' should be differentiated from the forms of polytheism which the Quran and the Sunnah EXPLICITLY reject. The "Triumph" of Makkah (Mecca) is a specific example where exclusive commands were given to remove the idols of the polytheists of Makkah from the Kaaba--only in the context of re-claiming the Original House of Worship which belongs to God Alone and no one else,  in light of Islam's own Self-Definition of being a "return" to the primordial religion of Pure Monotheism whose original house of worship was the Kaaba built by Adam (pbuh)--the First Man and First Prophet.  I pray you see the difference here between what exactly the Quran as God's Revealed Word defines as polytheism, and what is defined as revealed rites which differ in forms of worship but whose origin is God through a particular form of Revelation. For the Quran says:


"Unto each community We have given sacred rites (mansakan) which they are to perform; so let them not dispute with thee about the matter, but summon them unto thy Lord"  (22:67-68)

Who Really Are The Believers?: Perspectives on the "People of Scripture", Iman (Faith) and kufr (disbelief) Part 1

To the question, "Why not use the legal term "kafir" (Disbeliever) for all Non-Muslims (ghair Muslims)", I briefly responded once with the intent of expanding a Muslim's awareness of what a "Believer" (Mu'min) really is in the Qur'an, along with its significance in a Western, pluralist context:

I would like to respond by stating your reasoning is well-informed, but with all due respect, you are missing the context (maslaha) here of Muslims respecting and appreciating other religions in an atmosphere of conviviality which is fostered by our Western and Modern Context as Muslims living equally and peacefully with religious freedom in the West. As such, although "kufr" is not a 'derogatory term' on the level of fiqh (jurisprudence), it has negative political, religious and even psychological connotations on the social level in both Muslim and non-Muslim circles. As such, the category 'Ahl al-Kitaab' (People of Revealed Scripture) is better suited for Christians and Jews and for any other people whom one can find evidence and make the case that such people practice a religion which stems from a revelation from God. Also the term "non-Muslims" is very practical and reasonable to use as it is a very neutral term. To be a "non-Muslim" then is not to be "against" Islam or "anti-Islamic", or even "Islamophobic", but to be an entity distinguished from Islam yet respected and honored for precisely "who" they are or "what" they stand for--as one distinguishes a guest from the host, or vice versa. Now, since this kind of categorization is in consanance with the goal for Western Muslims living in peace and harmony with Western non-Muslims,  it should be natural for us as Westerners to distinguish ourselves from the Other through maintaing our religious normativity while making distinctions of others with honor, respect and a sense of the Sacred which can be seen as the Origin of both the Self and the Other--a view which is in consonance with our own Holy Scripture.

To be sure, Muslim Schools and Jurists have differed on the Quranic designation of Ahl al-Kitaab (People of Scripture). However, the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools are more inclusive in this regard and expand this category to include the likes of Zoroastrians (Imam Ali and Imam Shafi'i) and even Hindus (Hanafi School) in certain contexts. In our modern context it would behoove us not to take seriously such precedents in our legal and theological traditions and apply them more positively to members of other faith and wisdom-based communites, and especially so in light of the more or less positive circumstances we find ourselves in as Muslim minorities in secular lands.

You stated, "Please provide daleel (proof) where the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him, 'pbuh') used "Ghair Muslim" (Non-Muslim)? Or an ayah (Quranic Verse) to that effect? "

Here I would note that in our context of inter-religious and inter-civilizational dialogue and co-existence, approaches or even "daleel" derived only from the level of fiqh (the praxis exclusive to Islam, or the legal "do's and don'ts" of Islamic praxis)  will  be of limited help to Muslims who wish to appreciate the Religious Other more positively and inclusivley from a moral, spiritual, intellectual and even pyshological point of view. Again, Muslims should learn from how those Muslims most steeped in our spiritual and intellectual traditions appreciated positively other religions and their followers, all within the context of Islam's normativity.

A closer look at the historical record from the Prophet's time and onwards, along with evaluating the intellectual and spiritual dimensions of the Tradition shall prove fruitful in finding instances and theological approaches to including people of other revealed faith-based traditions in the category of "Believers" in the general Quranic sense: that is, as followers of a particular Prophet and a particular form of Revealed Guidance (rushd) to use Quranic vocabulary. Recognining that we as Muslims are followers of the revealed guidance of the last and final Prophet of God (Muhammad, pbuh) while for example, Christians are followers of the revealed gudiance given to them through Christ (pbuh) is infact very spiritually empowering as it provides a theological framework which is more inclusive of the religious other: a framework which seeks a unity while maintaining distinctions. Regardless of any notion of the 'altering' of revealed texts which may have occrured in religoius groups preceding Islam, it would be fair and just for Muslims and all believers in their revealed traditions to acknowledge that followers do not always live up to their own revealed ideals. This kind of acceptance and awareness can go a long way in being more inclusive of "believers" in other faith-based or wisdom-traditions which are in some manner linked to a Prophet and a Revealed form of Guidance.

In passing let me state that I did not even begin to touch the issue of the spiritual, intellectual or physcological need of preferring the term "ghair Muslim" as a positive term for Muslims to use in our context. To take the point of view of context (maslaha) again here, it would be sufficient to note that the term "Hanafi Muslim" was not needed in our Beloved Prophet's own time, yet this fact does not prevent the term from being a positive term for Muslims to use in order distinguish them from other kinds of equally good Muslims who tend to follow other schools of sacred law in the Islamic context. In short, the point here is that evidence that the Prophet (pbuh) did not use a particular term to designate a particular group of people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim is not proof that such a term is 'bad' or 'wrong'. And if there is a concern about "authoritative precedence" in the Tradition, Muslim perspectives regarding a positive appreciation of the distinct other AS other are there--case in point is the Prophet's (pbuh) admiration and love for Christian monks--but one has to go look for it in the works of Sages and Sufis who by their very nature and starting point, always emphasized that aspect of the Quranic discourse which seeked to transcend oppositions and realize a unity which respects distinctions and does not wish to impose absolute uniformity on Self or Other. Viewing religious diversity as a sign of Divine Wisdom and Providence in a positive sense is a very Quranic perspective and should not be ignored when re-evaluating the meaning of "who is a believer?".

Despite Ourself: A Commentary on Ibn Ata'illah's Hikam #8

Despite Ourself:

"If He opens a door for you, thereby making Himself known, pay no heed if your deeds do not measure up to this. For, in truth, He has not opened it for you but out of a desire to make Himself known to you. Do you not know that He is the one who presented the knowledge of Himself (ta’arruf) to you, whereas you are the one who presented Him with deeds? What a difference between wha...t He brings to you and what you present to him!"

~Ibn Ata'illah al-Iskandariya Hikam #8

Too often do we, as seekers on a Spiritual Path wishing and willing to attain Nearness (qurb) to God, rely upon the 'dead-weight' of our deeds which we believe is the reason why we 'feel' a Nearness to God at this point in our lives, as opposed to another time and place when we were perhpas not as 'righteous', 'good' or even as 'attained' as we perceive ourselves to be now.

Yet it is too often that we fail to realize that despite ourselves, that during a given moment in our lives, God "opened a door" for us and made His grace and Mercy known to us and we responded 'in kind' with 'good deeds' and actions in thankfulness. Thinking that it was our "good deeds" that got us 'here', we are oblivious to the reality that there is an immeasurable gulf between our insignificant efforts and the immensity of God's Eternal 'Calling' and Infinite 'Response'. For it is very 'easy' for God to Be with us because of who He Is, yet it is very 'difficult' for us to be with God, because of who we have become.

Although our effort is on one level indispensible and even essential on our Path to realizing God's Nearness to us, it is ultimately and forever insufficient. One's will (irada)--along with one's intelligence and character--must be utiilized and integrated into a higher unity (tawhid) of Being through God's Revealed Remembrance, but when one's will is too heavily emphasized, it tends to create an egoic tendency of 'selfish reliance'. This kind of 'reliance on deeds' creates a veil between ourself and our Lord--a veil of reliance on our 'good deeds' and a veil of an excessive guilt created as a result of our 'bad deeds' which serves only to weigh down our lofty aspirations towards the Divine.

If we only really knew this, we would never be so attached to the perceived 'fruit of our actions'--the good of them and the bad of them. Nor would we 'rely' on our own actions vis a vis God's Will and "desire to make Himself known" to us at any given state of our spiritual moment--the good and the bad of these 'states'. If we only really knew this, we would recognize the limited nature of our good and bad deeds. We would be 'the son of the moment' (ibn al waqt) and would "pay no heed if our deeds do not measure up" to God's Mercy in the spiritual 'Here' and 'Now'.

For it is despite ourselves and despite our 'good' deeds that God has Loved to make Himself Known to us. And it is despite ourselves and our 'bad deeds that He Loves to Return to us.

If this is the case, and if we truly strive to recognize the insignificance of our limited actions and the immensity of the Divine Calling and Response, then how much easier is it to only focus on Remembering, Loving and Knowing God who is always Present, despite ourself?!