Islam and pluralism

Intolerance has 'contaminated' both Islam and Christianity

It is often argued - by both Islamist fundamentalists and secularists - that Islam and democracy don’t mix. Yet pluralism - that underpins democracy - is a corner stone of Islam.

This commitment to pluralism can be gleaned from the Prophet’s conduct in Medina where he emerged as the city’s leader. Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims were protected (dhimmi) and allowed complete social and political participation in society and the ability to follow their own religious beliefs and customs.

The pains by which the Prophet went to highlight the common ground between Islam and the Abrahamic traditions has been lost by modern fundamentalists and orientalists. There is no divine book, other than the Qur’an, that places so much emphasis on respecting the views and beliefs of others.

"There can be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) declares the Qur’an highlighting the freedom of belief and conscience in Islam . "We believe in what has been revealed to us, just as we believe in what has been revealed to you [Jews and Christians]; our God and your God are the same, and it is to Him we submit" (29:46)

As the Muslim empires expanded after the death of the Prophet, far from forcing people to convert, Muslim scholars extended dhimmi (protected people) status to other non-Muslim religions, such as the Zoroastrians of Iran and Hindu sects of India as they fell within Muslim domains.

The presence of churches, synagogues, temples and idols across the Muslim-controlled world is a tribute to Islam’s respect for pluralism. It is worth noting that Muslim empires spread not because of the 'Islam and the sword' myth, but in the same way as any political empire does.

It is however also true that as Muslim empires became ever more powerful, interpretations of Islamic texts became increasingly arrogant: so instead of seeing the Qur’an as supplementing what had come before, it was presented as superseding previous books.

This was intended to differentiate Islam from previous religions and establish its own independence - similar to Christianity disassociating itself from Jewish practices to carve out is own identity, culminating in the Christian birth of anti-Semitism by demonising Jews as the killers of Jesus.

The impact of history on the interpretation of Islam is so often understated. Take for example the traditional ‘Islamic’ notion of the world being divided into two: land of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the land of disbelief (dar ul-kufr).

These notions are not rooted in the Qur’an but were latter day political interpretations developed during the time of the Crusades to rally Muslim support to eject the invaders. (The Christians meanwhile were busy demonising the Prophet and Islam to rally support on their side).

The fact that this binary view of the world is still held by Muslim fundamentalists shows how they struggle to shake off the narrative of history from the values of Islam. (The fact that some in the ‘Christian’ world still suffer from this myopia shows how the problem of intolerance has contaminated both traditions).

Islam has always been a religion of pluralism and diversity. Just because there is the One God, it does not follow that there is just one interpretation.

Asim Siddiqui is Chairman of the City Circle, which provides a place for British Muslim and non-Muslim communities to engage. More details can be found on He works as a forensic accountant.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.