Contents

Chapter II

Religious Freedom

God Almighty (glory be to Him) has laid down in the Holy Quran a general law which has been observed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and by Muslims in all their lands at all times. This law is the injunction: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Al-Baqarah: 256). Therefore, Islam has always guaranteed religious freedom in its lands for all people, from East and West, regardless of their religious beliefs. No one was ever forced to embrace Islam. On the contrary, people were left to choose freely what religion to adopt. God admonishes His Prophet in Sura 10 for his eagerness to guide all the pagans of Makkah to Islam: “If it had been the Lord’s Will, they would all have believed - all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” (Yunus: 99). God informs His Messenger that, had He so willed, he could have made all people equal in their intellectual faculties and in their correct perception of His guidance, and belief in His unity. However, He has chosen to create them different in their levels of understanding regarding the truth of guidance and belief. The Almighty therefore, rebukes His Prophet for his over-eagerness to guide the people of Makkah to Islam, and his striving to achieve this with all the means available to him, thus causing God (glory be to Him) to equate him with those who would try to force the people of Makkah to become believers in God. This is an implicit praise for the Prophet’s keenness to deliver his message, and an explanation of the heavenly reason why the Makkans failed to respond to him.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) adhered to this divine command, never forcing anyone to embrace Islam. Whoever was guided by his own reason and insight, and found his heart receptive to the new faith, was free to embrace it in full consciousness; and whoever his reason misguided him and failed to see the signs of guidance, turned away. Ibn Abbas reported that the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion,” has been revealed in the case of a Muslim from among the ansar named al-Husayni, who hailed from the clan of Salim ibn Auf in Madina. This man, who had two Christian sons, said to the Prophet (peace be upon him) : “Could I force [these two sons of mine] to become Muslims, for they have insisted on holding on to their Christian beliefs ?” God then revealed this verse, which became a sacred law for the Prophet and the Muslims. It was also related on the authority of Attab ibn Shumayr that he once said to the Prophet (peace be upon him) : “O Messenger of God, I have an ageing father and some brothers. Would you like me to go to them, perhaps they could embrace Islam, and then I could bring them over?” The Prophet then answered: “If they embrace Islam, it is better for them. But if they stayed [with their old religion], then Islam is broad and all inclusive.” This advice meant that the men should be left to choose freely. The historical record does not tell of any person, whether a pagan or a believer in a heavenly religion, who had been forced to become a Muslim. Anyone desiring to become a Muslim was required to declare his conversion in front of a judge and witnesses to prove that he had voluntarily chosen Islam. Ibn al-Attar al-Andalusi relates that, in fourth century Muslim Spain, any Jew or Christian embracing Islam was required to present to a judge a document bearing the testimony of witnesses confirming that he had accepted Islam without coercion, was not fleeing from something nor expecting reward, and that he had chosen Islam after fully understanding its laws and recognising that it had abrogated all earlier religions, being the only religion acceptable to God, and that he had embraced Islam in the presence of judge so and so, in front of the chief of police, the head of the town or the market regulator.

Muslims regard the treaty with the Christian population of Najran in Yemen as a binding legal precedent regulating the treatment of all religions, heavenly or pagan, guaranteeing them freedom of worship, protection for their possessions, the sanctity of their places of worship and the safety of their men of religion. The text of the treaty includes the following provisions:

“For Najran and its environs [is hereby given] the protection of God and the pledge and covenant (dhimma) of the Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of God, for their possessions, their persons and their religion; for those present and those absent, for their kin and for their churches, and what they possess, little or much. No bishop should be removed from his bishopric, nor a monk from his monastery, nor a priest from his priesthood.”

It is in the light of this treaty that the Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab agreed a similar treaty with the people of Jerusalem, which says:

“This is what the servant of God, Omar ibn al-Khattab, has conceded to the people of Ilya [Jerusalem] by way of guarantee and safe conduct: protection for themselves and their possessions; for their churches and crosses; for their sick and healthy, and that their churches may not be inhabited or destroyed, nor could their churches suffer to be diminished in any way, neither in their grounds nor their crosses, and nothing of what they own [is to be touched]. Nor may they be coerced in their religion, nor may any among them be persecuted. This agreement is guaranteed by God’s covenant, the covenant and pledge of His Prophet and that of the caliphs and that of the believers.”

Omar has followed in this treaty the example of the Prophet’s covenant with the people of Najran, adding some details, like stipulating that the churches may not be inhabited or pulled down, nor could any part of them be taken down or their area reduced. Omar and the Muslims adhered to this provision not only with regards to Christian churches and temples, but also for Jewish temples and those of Magians in Persia who worshipped fire, and the Sabians in Northern Iraq who worshipped the planets. The Chief of the Jews in Baghdad used to be called Ra’s al-Jalut while the chief of the Christians there was known as al-Jathliq. Successive caliphs consistently gave them written pledges and guarantees of protection for their religious followers and all their places of worship.

Monasteries in Iraq, Syria and Egypt proliferated and prospered a great deal, prompting many to write about them, especially since these places offered to poets and other lax Muslims who visited them excellent wines. These monasteries dotted the landscape on the outskirts of big towns, and it had been reported that there used to be fifteen monasteries in and around Baghdad alone, the most important among which was the Qina monastery East of Baghdad. This particular one was described by Shay’ishti in his book al-Dayyarat as “a nice, well-frequented monastery in a beautiful location. It has a hundred cells for monks and worshippers, with one cell for each monk. Cells change hands in this monastery for sums ranging from fifty to one thousand dinars. Each cell has a garden with all sorts of fruit trees and date-palm and olive trees. The value of its harvest ranges from fifty to two hundred dinars. The monastery is surrounded by a big wall, and has a water canal running through it. People gather in it on the day of the Festival of the Cross.”

Egypt was full of monasteries, the most important among which was the monastery of Antanios to the east of the town of Itfih in Upper Egypt. It was endowed with vast lands and many possessions -according to the account of Abi Salih al-Armani- and was surrounded by a fortress. Inside, there was a big garden full of fruitful date palms and apple, pear and pomegranate trees. Its farmland was planted with legumes. Three springs, with continuously flowing water, supplied the garden and the monastery. The garden had one and a sixth acre of vineyards, and a thousand date palms. The monastery had a large palace in its midst, and a number of cells overlooking the garden.

I have only mentioned these two monasteries in Iraq and Egypt to demonstrate the kind of good treatment the Muslims of Egypt and Iraq had accorded to Christian monks and the extent of religious freedom they had enjoyed. All this while the orthodox Byzantine Church continued to persecute the Christian Monophysites and forced them to flee Antioch during the reign of Emperor Necephorus I. The patriarchs of that denomination were then accused of being “more heretical and unbelieving than Pharaoh and Nebuchadrezzar.” When the Byzantines retook Malatya in Eastern Syria, they arrested its Monophysite Patriarch and six of its senior bishops and took them to Constantinople where they were imprisoned. They then exiled the Patriarch to Bulgaria where he died. Another bishop also died in exile, while a third was stoned to death in front of the Emperor’s palace. The rest were forced to recant and renounce their Monophysite faith, and were rebaptised into the Orthodox Church to escape death. Nothing similar ever happened in the history of Islam and that of its peoples and rulers. On the contrary, Muslim rulers worked to create harmony between different Christian sects. When the caliph al-Mamoun realised the amount of hostility existing between various Christian sects, he resolved to publish an edict guaranteeing for every Christian sect complete freedom to perform its rites and run its own churches, allowing even the smallest Christian sect, even if it had no more than ten adherents, to choose its own bishop and have the other sects recognise him. However, Christian leaders did not welcome this proposal, for fear that Christian sects might multiply endlessly. So al-Mamoun was persuaded to abandon his plan.

There were a few instances when a fanatical governor took charge in an area and started destroying churches, and other instances where mobs attacked churches. In all these cases, the state would quickly rebuild the damaged churches in compliance with the covenant of Omar with the people of Jerusalem, which assured them that none of their churches would be demolished or suffer reduction in size or area. It is reported that Ali ibn Sulayman, the governor appointed by the Caliph al-Rashid between 169-171H to rule Egypt ordered some newly built churches demolished. A complaint against him was lodged with al-Rashid, who sacked him and appointed a new governor. The latter permitted the Copts to rebuild the churches demolished by his predecessor after consulting the two most senior jurists in Egypt: al-Layth ibn Saad and Abdullahi ibn Luhay’a. They told him that the building of churches was a positive contribution to Egyptian life and to the development of the country, arguing that all Egyptian churches had actually been built during the Islamic era anyway.

An important aspect of the freedom enjoyed by the protected minorities among the Christians and Jews was that they did not have to appear in front of state courts which applied Islamic Shari’a, but were given the right to deal with their own religious courts, whether these be church courts or otherwise. The heads of these religious court were accorded the same status as senior judges in state courts. The sort of rulings and punishment handed by these courts were mainly spiritual in nature, like dismissing priests and bishops from their posts, or banning secular individuals from attending church, imposing a fine, deprivation from religious sacraments or barring burials according to Christian rites. The traveller Petachia who wrote in the sixth hijri century relates that the heads of the Jewish community in Mosul were the ones who punished their followers in special courts headed by the Ra’s al-Jalut mentioned earlier or their senior rabbis in different areas. Muslim Spain was similar in allowing Christians special courts run by church authorities to arbitrate in their disputes.

Publications of the Islamic Educational‭, ‬Scientific and Cultural Organization