In my view a person’s religious ideas are part of his individual personality; if a person feels that his religious ideas are not accepted and not respected as part of his personality, then he will isolate himself and and retreat from society. In my opinion the individual’s upbringing and his inclusion into society are the most important prerequisites for the success of integration. In order to promote this process of social inclusion one must accept the individual religious liberties and respect people’s religious ideas; only under such conditions will human beings themselves develop a readiness to integrate into society.

It is true that integration can only function in a society that is based on the equality of rights of all members and if the individual’s personality is respected, but we must bear in mind, too, that this is not the only criterion for successful integration. Individuals may have differing religious ideas but that need not be a problem if society is pluralistic.

It is moreover important for us not to consider exclusively an individual’s religious belief;  to consider it as first priority will not be helpful in the process of social integration. It is significant to emphasize a person’s human dignity, beyond all religious ideas, independent of his religion, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or any other creed. Security and protection of human dignity are the foundation and basis which can not be shaken by differing religious ideas or creeds. The prophet of Islam (s.a.s.) had founded an

islamic community after emigrating to Medina, following many difficult and hard years in Mekka, and he had drawn up a contract determining the coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims. This contract was destined to prevent conflicts that might lead to misunderstandings and to the dissolution of this community. By means of this contract the prophet intended to guarantee the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims.

This agreement contains the following text: “This is a contract by Muhammad, the prophet, between the believers and the Muslims and those who follow them, who join them and who struggle with them; they constitute one single community…” The first rule of conduct of this contract runs thus that Muslims and non-Muslims together form one unified community. The second rule of conduct states that non-Muslims are allowed to live according to their own customs, habits, and traditions as they lived before: “The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have their religion.” Thirdly the contract lays down that the non-muslim partners of the agreement must not be suppressed, and that the Muslims will not support the enemies of the Jews: “Those Jews who join us are entitled to support and assistance: they will not suffer injustice nor will those who are against them be supported.” Thus the Jews were meant to preserve their religion, just like the Muslims were meant to preserve theirs. Both were considered one unified community. 21

According to our prophet Muhammad mere human nature is the most important aspect for man, not the creed he belongs to. I would like to illustrate this with the aid of an example: Muhammad took part in the funeral of a non-Muslim. Some Muslims asked him about this and objected to it, since the deceased had not been a Muslim. Muhammad responded:” He may have been a non-Muslim, but was he not human being ?”

It has to be clearly stated that it is a tragedy that muslim extremists do not live according to this principle but consider affiliation with a certain religion more important  than the principle

21 The complete wording of the contract can be looked up in: Muhammad Hussain Haikal: Das Leben Muhammads, Siegen 1987, pp. 182-184.

of being human. And because of this attitude they take the liberty to risk the lives of innocent human beings by means of violence and brutality. Extremists can be found in all religions but these extremists are not the representatives of their religions. Among us Muslims there are extremists, too, but what they advocate is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam.

I would like to add another point: The fact that fundamentalists and extremists perceive themselves as the true representatives of Islam is their own business. But it is extremely unfortunate that attitudes propagated by the extremists are presented by many western media as representing Islam and the spirit of Islam. This misunderstanding and this equation are one of the main obstacles on the path to integration. The extremists try to exploit the Muslims’ feelings. They want to make the Muslims believe that the West is directed against Islam and the  Muslims and they propagate their views among Muslims. We must therefore offer resistance and we must fight these antagonists with our opposition and defend ourselves.

Those holding responsible posts and the decision-makers in this society must not allow this form of “cold war” against the  Muslims to continue, so that extremists will not get the chance to exploit the Muslims’ feelings for their evil intentions. The extremists have only one goal: to incite a feeling of resentment among Muslims, so they will isolate themselves and retreat from this society.

Integration is a process based on mutual understanding, moderate views, and reason. Integration is not a static project that needs to be administrated, but a dynamic process which has to be promoted. There is one imperative condition for this process of integration, and that is participation of all members of society. We support the view that participation and commitment of the Muslims in this process of integration is one of the vital prerequisites for its success. Integration is not a static concept, and the Muslims are not pawns that can be moved to and fro on a board. Integration is a living process and its life depends on competent and responsible people in this society who make sure that  relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are intensified and that the pretended gap – which does not really exist –

between Muslims and this society will be eliminated.

Concerning the integration of Muslims in this society from an islamic point of view, I would like to emphasize that this integration will only prosper if the common elements of islamic thinking and this society’s way of thinking are acknowledged, made evident and are articulated; and I support the view that there are numerous mutual elements.  I also want to designate those mutual elements: On one hand Islam advocates moderacy and tolerance, on the other hand democracy, pluralism, and reason are components of western society; I fail to see any differences between these elements. I even want to advance one step further and say that it is just the secularism of German society which is blissful for the Muslims, since it supports us; it has to be taken into account that the major part of islamic commandments are precepts concerning the relationship between the individual and God, and this requires no agency of mediation. This relationship between God and man extends that far that man establishes a direct relationship between him and God even in his silence and in apparent inactivity.

Family constitutes a special case in Islam. It forms an exception, i.e. there are different rules, precepts, and traditions for an islamic family. These peculiarities should be accepted and respected. But apart from this the overwhelming majority of islamic precepts is compatible with democracy. I have often emphasized in my Friday-sermons that these islamic precepts are not opposed to democracy and to the social reality in this country. The fact that whatever  common sense perceives as customs and traditions of a society are respected by Islam as customs, habits, and traditions of this society, and it is a Muslim’s duty in a non-islamic society to conform to the traditions prevailing in this society.

The phenomenon called Islamism or political Islam in the West is something propagated again and again by islamic extremists. This view has nothing in comon with the pure islamic teaching; it is rather contrary to the islamic teaching. Such views, i.e. giving a political character to Islam, are an obstacle to the integration of Muslims in this society.

The role of  politicians in a successful integration and the promotion of this process is important, but not as important as the responsibility of those personalities in the social institutions who are accountable in society and who influence society’s opinion and morality. I support the view that politics have a great impact, too, and we should not neglect this impact.  In our perception both elements, politics and representatives of social institutions, have to make sure that the process is intensified by means of participation.

To promote this process of integration other topics must be included in the discussion: e.g. differences of religions, limits of belief, human identity, ethnic groups, differences between traditions, modernism, pluralism, secularism, etc. . These are important topics that have to be discussed extensively in this context; this would be the task of those ladies and gentlemen who want to achieve something in this country as intellectuals, trend-setters and creative and committed human beings.

Social Limits of Individual Freedom

When considering the islamic view of human nature we must also take into account the limiting factors of freedom from an interior and exterior view, the elements of conscience and society.

On the interior level freedom is not limited, since just man’s needs and wishes let him recognize his freedom; they do not constitute a limitation as such. But can this be transferred to the exterior or social level, too? Even the advocates of absolute freedom admit that individual freedom can not be absolute and unlimited on the social level. Law and freedom of the others define the most important limits of human freedom.  Hence freedom reaches its limits when the freedom of another person and the keeping of the law are endangered. But is it only the legitimate requirements of others that mark that red line? Or can we accuse somebody of disrespect for social values who does not infringe the law or endanger the rights of his neighbours?

Obviously social freedom is not only only limited by law or the requirements of others but there is another important element concerning a society’s identity and existence. Every society consists of individuals, but it draws its identity and existence from its historical frame of reference; it is thus formed by a “spirit” which distinguishes it from other societies. Western and eastern societies are not only distinguished by their individuals but also by the spirit prevailing in these societies. This “spirit” is fed by actions and reactions, by historical developments and changes on a cultural, political, and economical level. Cultural and religious traditions, national customs and habits, geographical and climatic factors etc. are all elements that influence a society’s identity. These elements are not changed easily, since they have developed in a historical process during many years and centuries. Neither can the individuals in this society simply disrespect those elements or change them by consensus. Value judgements, things appreciated or loathed are based on this transmitted social identity.

The venerable Qur’an distinguishes identities and fates of societies and does not just perceive them as an accumulation of individuals. It awards every society autonomy which in some cases may even influence an individual’s will and independence. Just like an individual who disposes of duties and actions, which will bring about merit or punishment, society, too, disposes of a certain radius of action, and every society’s actions will appear appropriate to this society (comp. Sura al-An’am, verse 108).

Moreover every society has its own history and every community will be called to account for its actions (comp. Sura al-Jatiya, verse 28).

So one of freedom’ s most important “red lines” consists of not disturbing a society’s identity and existence; i.e. to refrain from actions that do not really infringe on laws or break rules but that do contradict a society’s values and identity.

Even many liberal philosophers who confirm society’s impact on the individual, like e.g. John Stuart Mill, connect this social impact with individual responsibility concerning society.  And since a society’s formative values may differ, as mentioned before, and may constitute differing “red lines”, this may result in an oriental society with a completely different prevailing spirit from the spirit prevailing in occidental society.

Islam advocates the rational argument that every society is permitted to respect its own values (comp. Sura al-An’am, verse 108). Every society is entitled to adhere faithfully to its values and to decree laws for their protection. Everybody who belongs to a society is obliged to respect and keep its laws; even if someone does not accept those laws he does not have the right to disrespect them. It goes without saying that every human being may criticize existing values and traditions on the basis of freedom of opinion. If he is unable to accept its values he can finally leave his society; but he has no right to violate its formative values as long as he enjoys this society’s protection.

The islamic teachings oblige every Muslim to accept responsibility for the society he lives in. Just as this society protects his rights, the Muslim, too, is obliged to respect the rules of the society he lives in, even if this society is not islamic. No Muslim has the liberty to disregard a society’s rights, laws, and values, only because this society is not an islamic one. But thanks to his individual rights he has the opportunity to avoid all the things that are contrary to his identity.

If Muslims in some western societies today protest against laws that prohibit islamic dress (hijab), then they do not do it because they want to encroach upon western laws and values. We concede these societies the right to preserve and defend their social and historical identities. If secularism and the state’s neutrality concerning religions are part of the West’s main values, then we are obliged as Muslims  to respect these values and not to fight them.

We respect the fundamental division of religion and state in this society, not based on tactical or political considerations, but based on the fundamental rationalityof the islamic teachings which obliges the believer to keep social contracts. Islam teaches us to respect every society’s right to preserve its values; someone who offends  it has not only infringed upon a law which must be sanctioned, but he has also denied a divine commandment. If the dress of muslim women does actually offend the laws and values of some societies, then Muslims must conform to these rules in my opinion.

But I support the view that secularism is not necessarily connected with a negative attitude towards religions but implies a neutral attitude towards the content of religious creeds.

The laws of a civilized country like Germany, which is regarded as the homeland of poets and philosophers, even aim at supporting adherents of all religions equally concerning the practice of their religion. Secularism grants every individual a free hand to choose his religion or his dress. Secularism does not mean at all the negation of religions but it demands of all members of society not to force a certain view upon others. If nobody is allowed to force his religious

views upon other members of society, then reciprocally nobody may  force an unreligious way of living upon believers. The secular state is obliged to help all believers to practice their religions, just as it grants other rights. To try to prevent Muslims and other religious minorities from fulfilling their religious duties constitutes a violation of the  private sphere and in the last analysis the death of democracy.

The same is valid for relations between states: No society may force its own values and historical identity upon another. Just as western societies are entitled to defend their identity and values islamic and eastern societies must be granted this right.

Individual and Society

Man’s relations with his society are defined by three essential elements:

1. Freedom of the individual and freedom of society when choosing actions and ways of conduct.
2. Separation of private and public life.
3. Acceptance of the difference between truth and legitimacy.

The first basic principle, the emphasis on individual and social freedom, explains that any good or bad behaviour can only be judged if it happens voluntarily; i.e. responsibility for individual and social actions is a result of that freedom of decision. A person who is forced to commit a good or bad deed deserves neither reward nor punishment. Islam advocates the rational principle that freedom of will and freedom of decision are the basis of responsibility; consequently despotic behaviour based on force and suppression lacks all moral and ethical values. An action can only be considered ethical if it is performed consciously and voluntarily. Accordingly the value of an ethical or religious deed depends on the fact that the ethical and religious person performs this act consciously and voluntarily. Every individual is entitled to define his private life himself, and nobody is allowed to interfere with this realm. The violation of the private sphere is equivalent to the abolition of the individual right to

freedom. Accordingly all action on the social level must be based on the consent of the majority of the population; nobody is entitled to force his personal convictions upon society, even if they are the most virtuous ethical and religious norms, since any enforcement implies the loss of ethical and religious value.

Just as the individual can define his personal realm, society has the right to choose its way of association. The division of private and public realm comes into force. According to the islamic principles every individual may only decide upon his personal and private life, whilst the majority is entitled to decide upon the form of social association. No minority may force something upon the majority; the minorities resemble individuals, i.e. they may decide only for themselves and their matters. To disregard or violate the majority’s will is inadmissible  and unlawful, even if this minority is convinced of the justness and correctness of its views. Islam teaches us that nobody is entitled to restrict another person’s freedom of will with reference to truth.

Notwithstanding Islam’s claim to truth and Islam’s rationality it teaches us to respect even a society with secular and  non-religious pretensions; religion and religious precepts must not be forced upon such a society.

Now we shall deal with the third of the afore mentioned principles, i.e. the difference between an absolute claim to truth and legislation. From the islamic point of view it has to be respected if an individual or the society’s majority does not want to live according to religious principles, since truth is permanent and can not be changed according to individual or social opinions. Although there often is a discrepancy of truth and the majority’s wishes, to make truth prevail by force would be unjust. Here we have to bear in mind that Islams distinguishes truth and legitimacy. Truth’s claim to validity results from its proven correctness, which is opposed to untruth and falseness (batil). Something that is true corresponds with truth according to logic and reality, like our statement that the earth circulates around the sun. This statement corresponds with truth. An individual’s opinion or society’s opinion do not matter for its content of truth. Galilei e.g. was forced to renounce his theses, but the truth of those theses remained unchanged. It is nonetheless impossible to put through a religion by force, even if it has reached the highest degree of truth. Religious commandments can only become laws if a society’s majority has opted for them democratically; without this democratic consent even the Sharia’s precepts can not be considered laws and can not be realized.

This clearly demonstrates that religion is not opposed to democracy but that it intends concrete realization of democratic values. Islam applies only democratic methods for the construction of society and strictly rejects undemocratic measures; dictatorial coercive measures are “unislamic”. Islam agrees with democracy on other levels, too: Customary law and human reasoning are two main sources for  jurisprudence in social matters. On one hand Islam is founded on principles and precepts derived from the divine revelations and considers adherence to ethical and religious precepts as necessary for social action; on the other hand Islam leaves it up to customary law and human reasoning to determine numerous social regulations. Acording to this intention laws decreed by a society concerning certain necessities become binding, as long as there is no interference with the individual’s private sphere and as long as their personal and religious rights are not violated. Customary laws must not prevent an individual from fulfilling his religious obligations. The value Islam ascribes to customary law and human reasoning makes Islam eternal and permanent and not bound to the narrow limits of time and space. To sum up we can say that Islam respects and demands democracy and the majority’s vote, a topic that will be discussed further on.

Muslims do not intend to establish “a state within the state” in a society with a non-islamic majority and to disregard this state’s laws.

According to many theoreticians of democracy the majority’s rule does not imply a “majority’s dictatorship”, where the rights of minorities are disregarded and trampled in the dirt. One of democracy’s most important principles is the preservation and practice of the rights of the minorities. Those who consider minorities a threat are wrong and stray far from democratic principles. The presence of minorities strengthens and consolidates the democratic basis of society. The history of numerous societies and of German society as well has shown that suppression of minorities and violation of their rights will only lead to dictatorship and fascism. After a certain time such dictatorial regimes will violate the rights of all individuals, those of the minorities and of the majority. The population of Germany and its politicians will not allow such bitter historical experiences to repeat themselves, on account of false propaganda.

Individual and Social Action

From the islamic point of view life’s main elements are consciousness and cognition. In the realm of cognition rational cognition is important and valid, and all realms of human life should show a rational justification. In a nutshell this is the concept of a better life, the “hayat tayyebe”, a pure and rational life described in the Qur’an, too.

It is beyond doubt that the direct relationship with the Creator and His adoration constitute an important part of life. This is life’s religious aspect which is based on a certain rational justification. Religiosity itself claims no cognitive value but defines its value on its rational basis and rational cognition. If we are informed about a physician’s expertness and truthfulness, we shall accept his recommendations, and this acceptance is based on a certain rationality.

The Role of Reason in the Realm of Social Action

If we transcend the realm of religiosity and adoration then we shall find certain criteria and references in different realms of human and social relations that man can understand and distinguish by means of his reasoning and his mind. I.e. reason can distinguish good and bad and decide on choosing knowledge and the better way, either by an autonomous effort or by means of the signs and criteria contained in religion and divine revelations. In those cases when reason is capable of reaching a final decision based on cognition, religion will never contain commandments contrary to it. In fact, religion has left many realms of social life to human reason and confirms and accepts the rational decision. On principle the islamic commandments can be divided into two categories, established commandments and sanctioned commandments.

Established commandments are based on the prophet’s example  and on divine revelation and are legitimized by divine revelation. Numerous religious ceremonies and rituals belong to this category which we have defined before. The religious duties and all parts of the Sharia are established commandments. In contradistinction to these the sanctioned or confirmed commandments are those precepts that are not caused and explained by religion and divine revelation but are rationally justified by a multitude of perceptions, rational teachings and traditions; i.e. people have justified these commandments based on their perceptions and are still doing so. Islam confirms these rational and traditional structures and intentions since they conform with the commandments. Sometimes they are confirmed after some revisions,  a matter that I shall take up later on in my address.

One of Islam’s most important and special characteristics which is especially observed by many people is its social dimension, for some a cause for enthusiasm, for others a cause for criticism. Undoubtedly Islam is a social religion which pays attention to the individuals’s role in society, to his presence, conduct, and his function in society. Islam emphasizes that a religious person should behave well and decently in social life and in company with others.

However we must admit that non-Muslims, the western world, and even some Muslims have not received a clear explanation and interpretation of the islamic social theory.  It is impossible to acchieve this in the frame of a limited opportunity but I shall try to deal with this subject in a concise manner, taking into account the limited time at my disposal.

At first it is necessary to define individual and social action.  As long as the criterion for individual action and the difference of social action is not clear and evident, we cannot understand the meaning of the terms social Islam and islamic society. The best and most exact criterion for the distinct separation of individual and social action is public welfare. Every kind of conduct and action that relates to public welfare is considered social action; every kind of conduct that relates to the individual’s benefit, is seen as individual action. Since it is left up to every individual to define the benefit himself, and since nobody else is entitled to participate in the process, the decision on individual action is the sole right of the individual; any kind of interference with the decision would be a limitation of the individual’s right. Thus there are many examples for individual actions that can not be reduced to what is usually regarded as private life; they may also be actions performed by the individual in a social frame, like participating in elections. But even if this right is made use of in society, the participation in elections can not be called a purely social act. Usually the individual criterion for elections is personal benefit, i.e. the individual considers his own advantages and will vote for those who guarantee his personal advantage. Now we shall have a look at how individuals determine their advantage and how far social, religious, ethnic, and national factors affect their definition of expediency or whether they are meaningless for their decisions at elections. To participate in elections is a public event, it takes places in a community with others but its essence is individual, just like one’s choice of a profession or a marriage-partner or of dress. There is a communal essence in all these matters although man is free to decide himself and naturally he will decide in favor of his personal advantage, which designates them as individual actions.

Hence we can divide individual actions in two parts: firstly actions performed in the frame of the individual’s private life, like e.g. eating, sleeping, making friends, the choice of a marriage-partner, the relationship with that partner, with his children and other relatives etc,;

secondly actions performed in a social frame, like e.g. active and passive right to elections, dress, work, and any kind of commitment related only to the individual. If an individual action takes place in society this does not mean that it is a social action, as we explained before. But perhaps we can say that there is an important difference between these two kinds of individual actions. In both cases the individual’s rights and his freedom are concerned, but in the second case, when actions are performed in society, public welfare is concerned. In such cases the individual should not infringe on public welfare or on other social laws when making his decisions. This means in clear text: Although an individual is not obliged to bear in mind public welfare and the advantage of the others when performing decisions or deeds relating only to himself, he is nonetheless obliged not to exaggerate when acting to his own advantage and he is obliged not to infringe on public welfare and on the legitimate interests of others.

Action on the Social Level

Besides individual action there is social action; its decisive criterion is the public welfare of the whole of society. According to this definition rule and government which concern the fate of society as a whole are social actions;  they can never take into account the pure benefit and advantage of the individual, even if this individual were  a politician and statesman obliged to govern and make political decisions. Civil law and every society’s laws and social conditions belong to the realm of social action, except the realm of jurisprudence that deals with the

interpretation of individual rights. Safeguarding public welfare and the benefit of all individuals are the intention and motivation for declaring matters invalid or lawful. All realms of social life, like e.g. politics and economy, are part of social action.

The Different Forms of Human Conduct

What we said so far has proven that there are three fundamental and different ways of human conduct:

1. Individual conduct in the private realm
2. Individual conduct in social life
3. Social conduct which comprises all realms of socio-political life in society

Now we shall try to determine Islam’s view on each of these three ways of conduct, or asked differently: What does Islam demand and how does it affect these three ways of conduct?

A great part of the religious duties and of Sharia relates to two realms of individual action of the believers and religious people. Some of these duties and precepts concern man’s private life, like e.g. the fast, precepts for eating and drinking, the choice of a marriage partner and so on. Others, like e.g. the ceremonies of pilgrimage, the prohibition of usury and bribes, the dress code for women and men or Friday prayer are ceremonies and individual actions that are performed in a social frame. But as we explained before, these are completely individual matters that depend on the individual’s decision and volition.  Other religious duties can be completely fulfilled in a social frame as well as privately, like e.g. ritual prayers that can be performed in a community or alone at home.

Finally it has to be taken into account that the established commandments of Islam that are called Sharia and religious duties do not comprise all dimensions of the individual lives of the believers and religious people; Islam has emphasized and described a large realm of individual life which concerns the individual’s relations with others in the family and in society; they are based on human and moral values, as the prophet of Islam clearly said:

“ I was sent off to propagate moral beauty and wisdom.”

To refrain from lies, the emphasis on friendliness and friendship with others, solidarity, self-forgetfulness and readiness to solve first the problems of others before  solving one’s  problems, to refrain from suppression  and from disregard of the rights of the others, even if they are our enemies, responsibility concerning contracts and agreements, protection of the rights of animals and not to torment them, safeguarding the environment and the natural resources, appropriate use of universal resources and consideration of the rights and interests of the other individuals in society when exploiting those universal resources, respect for older people, in particular one’s parents, good behaviour and friendliness toward the young ones –  hundreds or thousands of such minor and major ethical lessons that are approved by rational human judgement and that are beyond doubt, all of them are islamic precepts, lessons, and values. Islam summons its adherents and all human beings to follow them, and the sacred islamic sources explain and interpret these commandments and teachings.

But the number of established islamic laws for the realm of social action is small and limited. Islamic precepts are confirmed and endorsed in most realms of social life; Islam considers it as very important that ethical criteria and and social justice are based on rationality. Every custom and every law confirming this is corroborated and endorsed  according to this standard. Observance of social contracts and agreements are further basic principles that are of great importance in the realm of social relations and that are strongly emphasized. From the point of view of the islamic Sharia every individual automatically accepts a contract and an agreement when he enters society and partakes of the possiblity of the legal use of those means which society has intended for him.  This obliges him to take into account the precepts, laws, and conditions of this society. Every kind of refusal would be a sign of disloyalty concerning these laws and agreements which is sanctioned by the existing laws in every society. From the islamic point of view it constitutes a sin

and has consequences for the hereafter. One part of islamic jurisprudence and the islamic Sharia deals with this topic. Hence Islam confirms customs, rational structures, laws and precepts of different societies and social contracts and does not pass over them in silence or indifference. Islam demands of its adherents to respect these conditions and laws just like the laws of the first category and to remain true and loyal to them.

We mentioned before that Islam principally confirms and emphasizes customs and rational methods in  the realm of relations and social decisions. But there are some established laws, like some penal laws, and here the question is: Does Islam oblige its adherents to practice these established laws in society or not?  Are Muslims obliged to practice the islamic Sharia in this society that they live in

Social Responsibility

We already said that the major part of social commandments in Islam are sanctioned commandments, not established ones, and that Islam emphasizes the principles of ethics and justice in this realm. Some penal laws, i.e. the punishments prescribed by Sharia for certain deeds, are part of the established social commandments and teachings in Islam that are based on revelation and that are obligatory for Muslims in their social life. The question is now: Does Islam demand from its adherents to practice these precepts in their social life? I.e.are the Muslims obliged to practice Sharia in the society they live in, just as they are obliged to perform prayers or other religious duties? The clear and distinct answer is: No! The reason is that this group of social commandments of Islam belongs to social actions and  consequently not to the duties and tasks of the Muslim as individual; this is based on the division of actions that we have discussed in the last address. From an

islamic point of view every Muslim is obliged to follow the Sharia in his private life. Therefore Sharia will influence and determine  only what we have called the realm of individual action.

But where Sharia has decreed teachings and precepts regarding social action no muslim individual is obliged to follow those teachings and precepts. Principally these teachings and precepts are described just like other theories or social concepts of law so that society can judge them and decide within the frame of a completely democratic process on the possibility of realizing them in social life. Thus e.g. with regard to islamic legislation and punishment for theft, certain laws and punishments are discussed or certain conditions for the judge’s office are determined that are based on a particular philosophy, on a sense of justice, and on a special legal structure; they are presented in comparison with other philosophical and theoretical systems of jurisdiction for human society. And if one society decides on the entirety or a part of those propositions or theories¸based on its consciousness, and accepts them and agrees to them in a completely democratic process, they will become part of the system of jurisdiction. Naturally this will only be possible in an islamic society where the majority of its members are Muslims. But a non-muslim society, too, should not disregard the possibility to make use of some of those theories and teachings within the frame of its own legislation, just as e.g. the jurisdiction of some European countries has influenced the legislation of numerous islamic countries.

Hence special social laws like e.g. punitive law are never commands and regulations that oblige the muslim individual to practice them. On the contrary, from an islamic point of view every attempt and commitment of an individual to practise these theories and teachings in a society is doubtlessly in contradiction to Sharia and its commandments, even if it happens in a society with a muslim majority. Consequently a person who acts in this way is considered a wrongdoer who has committed a sin and who is responsible for his guilt in front of God.

Every theory, even if it has attained the highest degree of  validity and truth, like the divinely inspired teachings of the prophets, that from the point of view of their adherents possess perfect truth and validity,   can principally only become a part of the life of human beings and be considered the basic principle of social order and civil law, if society has embraced and accepted it in the form of a social contract. Nobody is entitled to force something on others, arguing that it was the Sharia and religion. No religious and pious man stands above the divinely inspired prophets. No Muslim, no matter which degree of belief he may have attained, stands above the prophet of Islam; no Christian or Jew, no matter how religious he may be, stands above Jesus or Moses. These great prophets were not granted the right by God to force the revelation and the summons to belief on individuals and on society; if all of these excellent human beings were present today they would offer us their social teachings. Even if all religious persons and all their adherents accepted their view and believed in it, no human being – no matter how pious – had the right to practice his view in society and to force it on others, as long as this theory has not been accepted and decreed as law in a democratic and traditional process.

The law is the prevailing attitude in society, it is obligatory and has to be taken into account by everybody. A religious person is never obliged to exchange Sharia for the existing laws, since Sharia itself does not allow him to do so. It is possible that members of a society who are Muslims and believe in the truth of the prophet of Islam may not want to follow the Sharia in some realm of their social relations and their civil law, for whatever reasons. This is a matter between them and God. But God has never given permission to anybody to force these people to accept the Sharia, to embrace and practice it. Such  conduct is undoubtedly unislamic and inhuman and is considered a great sin.

Although Islam emphasizes the importance of ethics and justice in social relations and the significance of the family we can nonetheless not consent to what today is called fundamentalism or islamism. But we have to remember that nowadays many unclear terms are used, without a clear and unequivocal definition and concept. If fundamentalism

means the bond with religious identity and the basic principles of islamic thinking,

then every Muslim is undoubtedly a fundamentalist. Strictly speaking every Christian and every Jew or every other person who believes in a certain ideology or philosophy is a fundamentalist, and in this sense the secularists who emphasize the basic principles of secularism must be considered fundamentalists in the first place.

But it seems that nowadays the term fundamentalism is not being applied in this sense but is seen as an inacceptable, mistaken, irrational, and dogmatic form of clinging to tradition and religious ceremonies. Clearly said: Any person who tries to force his belief and his convictions on his neighbours and on society, no matter what that may be, even if this belief is the message of the revelation and the divine message, and who tries to disturb the democratic structure and social order, i.e. who tries to force his opininion and his belief on society applying undemocratic methods and force, such a person is a fundamentalist. According to this definition fundamentalism is an irrational and inhuman phenomenon and is in no way reconcilable with Islam or any other divinely inspired religion, even if such fundamentalists call themselves Muslims and their aim the propagation of Islam.

Deeper Thoughts on Fundamentalism and Islam

It clearly follows from different of my Friday-sermons that nothing can be given preference compared to rationality. The divinely inspired religions were proffered to reason; as long as the principles of these religions are not intelligible to reason they can not be considered as proven and true. Bearing in mind this point we can give a closer definition of fundamentalism: A fundamentalist is someone who puts his ideology and his opinion above reason. The result of prefering ideology and belief to ratio and reasoning is a man who substitutes his reason by belief and traditions, instead of applying reason as criterion for his judgements.

In the beginning of this process this substitution may take place superficially but  the substitution of reason by tradition and ideology causes a phenomenon and a damage

that I would call “ideological falsification” and  “traditional falsification”. These two terms do not signify actions based on tradition and ideology; they signify that man is so  caught up in the confinement of his belief and his traditions that he will accept no criticism of his opinion but consider his opinion the criterion for the correctness and truth of something else and that he will consequently deduce a legitimation for himself to force his belief and his traditions on others and coerce them to imitate his actions. Hence the claim to absolute and unconditional truth can be called the most important result of “ideological falsification”. The claim to absoute truth is also one of fascism’s and dictatorship’s main elements. Nowadays communism and nazism are clear signs of such ideological  falsification. The justification of violence and of the crimes committed  by nazist and communist leaders results from the idea of the  excellency and superiority of their convictions and beliefs; any rational criticism was rejected. Usually such people perceive themselves as being on a worldly mission and they think it is their duty to make all the other people conform to them. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are good examples for this pathological ideological falsification.

Islam rejects all variations of fundamentalism that we have described here. One of the basic islamic duties is the rejection of such fundamentalism, i.e. to think in an absolutistic manner. Prefering  belief and traditions to ratio and reasoning is explicitly rejected on behalf of Islam, and Islam keeps its distance from it, even if this belief and these traditions concern Islam. Hence Islamism in the sense that someone prefers his islamic belief to reason and and considers it absolute so that reason and mind are not taken into account but ignored and that he attempts to force his belief on others, is condemned by Islam. This kind of Islamism does not differ from communism and nazism since ignoring ratio and claiming absolute truth are common to them. If somebody ignores rational reasoning and thinks in an absolutistic manner he will be enthusiastic about his thoughts and his conviction and will allow himself any kind of violence and crime.

These remarks demonstrate that dogmatism and blind enthusiasm are not restricted to a certain view and belief and that every view can fall a prey to dogmatism and fundamentalism. Put differently: Fundamentalism can appear in different shapes, even in an intellectual form. But the content of theories and ideologies is not as important in fundamentalism as the mixture of dogmatism and fanatism which can result in violence. I would like to pursue this subject later on.

Here it becomes necessary to mention that violence and dogmatism are foreign to the divinely inspired religions. Nobody can claim to be religious and be a violent person at the same time. Those who are responsible for the events of July 7^th in London,  of March 11^th in Madrid, and September 11^th in New York do not have the slightest idea of the spirituality of religion or the islamic teaching and they do not understand the fundamental meaning of humanism. How could we accept that someone practices terror and violence in the name of religion? We can never accept such a thing since the divinely inspired religion, and in particular Islam, propagates peace and a friendly message; to serve humanity is the greatest kind of worship. From the islamic point of view there is no greater obligation than the protection of human life; commitment to the protection of one person’s life equals the protection of the whole society’s life.

This is a clear statement: if someone kills an innocent person it is as if he had killed all members of a society; it does not matter which belief or views this person held. Even if this person were our enemy or held views contrary to ours, the protection of his life is nonetheless obligatory. To harm this person would equal harming all human beings. As I explained in a statement on the Thursday of the terror attacks in London, those who execute such terror attacks are murderers and criminals that can not be called human beings on principle. Their aim is the destruction of the harmonious coexistence of adherents of different religions and of existing integration in society, and we are sure they will never reach this terrible and inhuman aim.

Unbelief from the Qur’an’s Point of View

As we mentioned before, the understanding of the Qur’an’s essential messages requires professional insight and deep knowledge of the Qur’an’s language as well as an examination of the entirety of the verses. Here I have to mention an important fact: In many instances the Qur’an’s true message has remained hidden due to false understanding and wrong interpretation, so that what is known as the Qur’an’s voice is far from the Qur’ans essential message or sometimes even contrary to it – a danger mentioned in the Qur’an itself  22. According to taste perceptions, traditions, and personal or tribal popular preferences were attributed to the Qur’an and presented as its message and voice. There can be no doubt that we have to assume that numerous well known translations and commentaries on some important and decisive verses of the Qur’an were exposed to this damage. Allowing for the methodology mentioned before (for an understanding and interpretation of the Qur’an) , a thorough scrutiny of the Qur’an’s translation and exegesis is required; in particular of those verses explaining social connections and relations. Bearing in mind this intention and attitude we shall examine some qur’anic terms and expressions in the following Friday sermons and illustrate their true meaning in the Qur’an.  However it has to be explained in advance that we shall not be able to present a comprehensive and deep professional discussion and are forced to reach back to some principles and basic rules for these discussions that have been proven in the context of specific topics.

The Term Unbelief and Unbelievers in the Qur’an

Unbelief and unbelievers are two important terms that are often used in the Qur’an, together with numerous terms derived from them. This exercises an important and decisive function for many theological teachings and messages but also for religious and social teachings and messages in the Qur’an.

22 Sura Al-‘Imran, verse 7.

Any kind of exegesis and interpretation of these two terms can have a thorough and structural influence on these teachings and messages (i.e. depending on the meaning and interpretation of unbelief and unbelievers the qur’anic message and its teachings on the realms mentioned before will undergo fundamental and basic change).

According to the view of many Muslims and non-Muslims,too, a perception and a belief outside of Islam and the qur’anic teaching is equal to unbelief; accordingly non-Muslims who do not believe in Islam and in the Qur’an are called unbelievers. But we have to check whether such a definition and interpretation of unbelief corresponds to the qur’anic teaching? Does Qur’an really call those with different views and adherents of other religions unbelievers? Naturally the only legitimate source that can answer this question is Qur’an itself.

Principally it is true that the terms used in the Qur’an are not always and in all cases used in their usual and literal meaning. Qur’an has founded the discourse of a new culture and a new way of thinking based on the divine message and theology, and it has naturally changed the literal meaning of terms according to this discourse and used them in different meanings. It is important to study and examine the new terms that have been applied in the culture and literature of the Qur’an.

Concerning the tems unbelief and unbelievers and their meaning in the Qur’an we can make a first point: The two terms unbelief and belief illustrate a basic contradiction. The contradiction and the contrast extend that far that the person “who believes in God” is called an “unbeliever with regard to the devil”. 23  Consequently we have the result that unbelief is rejected and leaves no trace when belief is proven; conversely belief disappears when unbelief is proven. During the Friday-sermons to come we shall illustrate in detail the different grades and degrees of belief. Naturally unbelief, too, which is the contrary of

belief, has different grades and degrees. Accordingly belief and unbelief have a relative meaning in this case which can be understood in different ways; we shall consider this in detail at a later point. But apart from the relative meaning of belief and unbelief both have an absolute meaning, too, and we are now discussing the absolute meaning of unbelief.

But one important matter for a fundamental examination of the qur’anic verse from the beginning to the end is that the new and different use of unbelief in the Qur’an does not imply a purely theological meaning. This terms has two fundamental meanings in the Qur’an and only one of them is of a theological nature; the other meaning is completely non-theological.

Firm and Theological Unbelief in Qur’an

The subject of firm and theological unbelief is divided in three and three groups are called firm unbelievers:

1. Those who do not believe in God and the creator of the universe and who deny Him.: “How can you deny God and not believe in him although you have not profitted from life and God has granted life to you…” (Sura al-Baqara, verse 28).
2. Those who do not believe in the divinely inspired prophets: “ those do not believe in God and His messengers.” (Sura an Nisa’, verse 150). It is important to note here that God has called the denial of all of His prophets Kufr (unbelief) and not just the denial of one certain prophet. We shall deal with this subject in detail later on.
3. The last group that are called firm unbelievers in Qur’an are those who deny the hereafter and resurrection. “Those who are unelievers say: There is no resurrection imminent for us.” … (Sura Saba’, verse 3).

Apart from these three groups no other group is reproached with firm (theological)  unbelief in any part of the Qur’an.

The Sociological Meaning of  Unbelief

Next to the theological meaning of Kufr (unbelief) mentioned afore this term has a  sociological or social meaning in Qur’an which does not contain any theological element. I.e. if a group is called unbelievers (in the sociological sense) then this never points to belief or

unbelief with regard to theological subjects like God, prophets, or hereafter but it relates to this group’s conduct or deeds. Qur’an often mentions those who can not stand the believers and are hostile toward them and who therefore fight them with all their might, all means and in any way possible to dissuade them from their belief. They take every chance, be it insulting the believers or forcing them to leave their towns and houses or killing their wives and children and finally the believers themselves. This hostile and inimical controversy can be connected with different other intentions like e.g. political, economical or social ones. I.e. this group fought the believers since they felt that their political, economical or social status was threatened by the new religion and the views the prophet propagated. The one and only reason for their hostility towards the believers was that they felt their personal benefit was endangered by the believers  different ideas. Those who fought the believers were not pious themselves and did not have a conflict of opinions with the believers for religious reasons. Their conduct was influenced by materialistic aims and they did not believe in any particular religion.

But the Qur’an also mentions that there were indeed adherents of some religions who cooperated with such groups since they assumed due to their ignorance they might strengthen their own religion by suppressing the enemy, i.e. the new Muslims, und by hostile and violent action against them.

The enemies of the believers may have had differing intentions (i.e. those who were hostile against the Muslims and the believers were not connected by the same intention) but all of them had nonetheless the same aim, the annihilation of the believers who had different views than they and the radical extermination of the new religion. Consequently their hostile intention was not a religious intention but their aim was the annihilation of the adherents of the new religion. Each of them had a different intention and reason for himself. In the qur’anic terminology these enemies are called unbelievers and their actions unbelief.

But this term does not denote that they had not accepted Islam or that they adhered to a different religion. As we mentioned before, this kind of designation does not convey anything about the convictions and the creed of this hostile group but only their inimical nature and their conduct are critical. Their actions were called unbelief and they themselves unbelievers since they were hostile towards the adherents of the new religion (i.e. the Muslims), since they suppressed and  killed them, only because they held different views and had acceppted the message of Islam. Unbelief and unbelievers in this meaning is a particular qur’anic term which is, however, not completely dissociated from the words’ literal meaning.The Qur’an clearly states that the unbelievers’ most prominent quality is their use of violence against the dissenting believers in order to dissuade them  from their belief forcibly. More clearly put: Any kind of hostility and the use of force to dissuade the believers from their belief is called “unbelief” in the Qur’an’s special terminology. Hence the decisive element in this expression the hostile action and not a theoretical enmity based on a creed. Consequently no theological element based on creed was involved on one hand; on the other hand hostile actions exhibit  different degrees of strength and weakness. In this sense even some ways of conduct and deeds of Muslims can be a sign of unbelief; in the Qur’an God exhorts the Muslims about some ways of conduct, clearly telling them that this conduct confronted them with unbelief. 24

For that reason sociological unbelief is compatible even with belief and theoretical conviction. And for that reason a Muslim just as well as a non-Muslim, an adherent of another divinely inspired religion or someone who does not believe in God or a certain religion can be exposed to such unbelief. 25  In this signification unbelief is emphasized as a sociological and practical term, not as a theological term.

24 Sura al-Baqara, verse 217

25 Sura al-Hashr, verse 2; Sura al-Bayyina, verses 1 and 6.

As a result we can say emphatically and clearly that the terms unbelief and unbelievers are not used anywhere in Qur’an for non-Muslims only because they are not Muslims and have not accepted Islam; none of the two forms mentioned, i.e. neither theological nor sociological unbelief, relate to non-Muslims. From the qur’anic point of view even the idolators who do not believe in Tawhid, i.e. the one and and only creator of being, are not unbelievers according to the meanings of unbelief that we explained before. When non-Muslims (i.e. the adherents of other religions) are called unbelievers this is never rooted in the Qur’an and the teaching of the prophet of Islam but has historical reasons. To a certain degree the literal meaning of unbelief has promoted the spreading of this expression; I shall discuss this later on.

This examination demonstrates that we require a deep and intimate knowledge of the teachings of the Qur’an. We have to return to the Qur’an for a correct and pure knowledge of the qur’anic message (free of any divergence and unadulterated by mistaken and personal interpretation) in order to receive the answers to our questions from Qur’an itself. Whenever we are confronted with obscurities we should turn to the clear Sunna which explains the Qur’an. We should have cognizance of the Qur’an by means of the Qur’an, not by historical and popular views, non-qur’anic attitudes or personal interpretations.

Different Aspects of Unbelief

Apart from the abstract theological meaning and the concrete sociological meaning refering to the Qur’an the term unbelief has a special significance in arabic literature and Qur’an has made use of this literal significance.

Usually unbelief can have three basic meanings in Arabic:

1. to reject and to deny
2. to keep one’s distance from something and to remain aloof
3. to hide and ignore something

All three of these literal meanings are found in the Qur’an; those e.g. who believe in God and do not believe in the devil are called unbelievers:”Everybody who does not believe in the rebellious devil and believes in God, he has certainly held on to a safe lifeline.” (Sura al-Baqara, verse 256). In this verse God has said that the believers do not believe in the devil. Unbelief here means denial, i.e. the belief in God implies the denial and rejection of all devilish phenomena.

In a different example unbelief has been used in the sense of keeping one’s distance and showing no interest in someone: “And then on the day of resurrection some of you will keep a distance from the others (since their inner ugliness has become apparent).” (Sura al-‘Ankabut, verse 25).

In numerous other verses we find the third literal meaning, i.e. to hide and to ignore; thus to ignore and to disregard God’s mercy is called unbelief:”Have they believed something that is wrong and untrue and ignored God’s mercy?” (Sura an-Nahl, verse 72).

The peasant hides the seed in the earth and thus creates the conditions for growth. The literal meaning of this action is unbelief and the peasant is consequently called an unbeliever. Therefore peasants and their activity are called unbelievers in the Qur’an:”The rainfall is plentiful and afterwards the plants will sprout from the ground, to the delight of the sowers (al-kufar).” (Sura al-Hadid, verse 20).

When applying and examining the term unbelief one has to be very careful and distinguish the theological, sociological, and literal meanings. Many misunderstandings and wrong interpretations have been caused by mixing and exchanging these three meanings. In the Qur’an as well as in the prophet’s teachings and those of the religious teachers Muslims are often reproached with unbelief.  26  Even more important is the occurrence of this term in the

26  Ingratitude opposite God is repeatedly called unbelief in the Qur’an although the addressees of these verses are obviously the believers (comp. Sura 2, verse 152; Sura 14, verse 7). The words of god’s prophet (Salomo) are quoted thus:This ability which I have is by God’s mercy and he puts me to a test whether I am thankful or become unbelieving (i.e. ignore God’s mercy). (Sura 27, verse 40).

qur’anic text in context with God.  27

Undoubtedly unbelief is not a theological or sociological term in this case. If we pay some attention to the verses that contain this term we shall conclude that it is used in one of three meanings mentioned before. When God e.g. forgives his servants their sins after they repented sincerely and the darkness and the gloom of sin is covered by the light and the brightness

In the Qur’an the rejection of the Hajj–ceremony, one of the islamic duties concerning the Muslims, is called unbelief: It is man’s duty towards Allah to perform the pilgrimage to the house, if he is capable to make his way to him. But he who is an unbeliever – truly Allah is not in need of the worlds. (3:97) When refering to despised and bad deeds, too, the term unbelief is used. Hence when the prophet Salomo is defended and it is proven that he has not committed any sins it says: Salomon has not become an unbeliever but those who committed bad deeds have become unbelievers. (2:102) Clearly the term unbelief has not been used in a theological sense in any of these cases but only in the general meaning of sin. Hence this topic addresses the believers and consequently unbelief is compatible with theological belief in this context, since it is possible that the believers, too, might commit sins. Numerous traditions by the prophet of Islam and other religious personalities describe cases where disregard of religious precepts and of the Sharia are called unbelief, e.g. to commit major sins, to neglect prayer, not to perform the pilgrimage, to drink wine or to have relations with someone that are not permitted by religion. The term unbelief is applied to all these instances.

1. 27Qur’an lets the believers speak: they implore God to forgive their sins and hide and ignore their unbelief (i.e. their bad deeds) and to accept them. And he gives them good tidings: I have hidden their bad deeds. (3:195). Comp. also: 47:2, 5:12 and 5:65, 4:31, 29:7, 39:35, 48:5, 64:9, 65:5, 66:8.

created by repentance, then this is literally called unbelief with regard to God;  28  or when believers are pious but nonetheless commit sins, abstain from good deeds and ignore God’s commandments, then their conduct is called unbelief.  29

We have already seen that  keeping one’s distance and staying away from the devil and not to believe in him are considered a necessity for belief in the Qur’an. Allowing for this fact it is only natural that the adherents of other divinely inspired religions who have not accepted the message and the prophecy of the prophet of Islam are considered unbelievers with regard to him, i.e. they reject him.  30 But this unbelief is not of a theological or sociological nature but unbelief in the literal sense of the word.

1. 28It should be observed that not all sins are called unbelief, only some sins and bad deeds; this emphasizes the importance of those sins and is intended to admonish Muslims to refrain from those sins. In this context comp. footnote 1.

1. 29Sura 2, verse 256.

1. 30The prophet is told in the Qur’an (13:43): The unbelievers claim that you are not the messenger of God.There are two explanations for this verse. 1. Those who deny that Muhammad was sent off by God are unbelievers, i.e. unbelief has been used here in its literal meaning of denial. For this reason we quote it here as an example. 2. According to a different meaning which seems to be more precise the rejection of the prophet of Islam is not called unbelief, so that we can say that this unbelief equals rejection. The exact meaning of this verse is rather:”Those who are unbelievers say: you are not God’s messenger.” Hence this verse never signifies:”Those who say you are not God’s messenger are unbelievers.” The difference between these two sentences is completely clear. Refering to theological unbelief the Qur’an distinctly states that unbelief is the appropriate term for those who question the creator of the universe, His prophets, and the day of resurrection. But in this case there is no distinct statement, and according to our explanation it is an example for the use of unbeliefin its literal meaning, i.e. to reject.

The term unbelief has a comprehensive significance and few things are are incompatible with it since all three literal meanings mentioned before can be used in a positive, negative, and neutral sense. If someone e.g. denies that it rains, then he reports the truth and his denial is neither positive nor negative. But if he denies another person’s right then the denial is negative; if he denies something negative then this denial is positive. We see accordingly that the literal meaning of unbelief is scarcely limited and comprehends a large spectre.

But if we pay attention to the use of this special term in the qur’anic context we shall notice that it is very limited and that the appliance and use of this term has limits since the terminological (i.e. theological-sociological) meaning of kufr is completely different from its literal meaning; the two meanings are not interchangeable or can not be substituted by each other.

Here it is necessary to make a complementary remark. Some qur’anic verses reveal that God has provided for diffeent degrees  of belief as a theological term , according to strength or weakness, e.g. when the believers are addressed:”You who believe (justly and deeply), you who believe in God and His prophet and in the book He has sent down to His prophet, a book that has been sent down before (to other prophets like Moses and Jesus). Everybody who does not  believe in God and His angels (who realize his will) and in the scriptures that He sent down and in Judgement Day (the day of resurrection)  and who denies this, he will remain far away from the path of bliss.” (Sura an-Nisa, verse 136) In this verse the believers are clearly and distinctly summoned to belief. There is no doubt that the second kind of belief is deeper and closer to perfection  than the first kind, i.e. from a qur’anic point of view it is possible to be pious but not to have attained the deeper and more perfect degrees of belief. Hence it has been mentioned before that there is a contradiction between belief and unbelief, i.e. that they

are not compatible. This signifies that the missing belief of every degree simultaneously proves this degree’s unbelief.  31                  

There can be no doubt that a believer with a lower degree of belief compared to a higher degree of belief can sometimes be reproached with unbelief; this kind of unbelief is compatible with belief. This results e.g. from the verse mentioned before, where God has summoned the believers to a higher degree of belief and where it later says that he who does not pay heed to this summons is an unbeliever and has strayed from the path of bliss. Consequently it is evident that this kind of unbelief in relation to the statement at the beginning of this verse is a degree of unbelief which is not contrary to the principle of belief.

1. 31For a better understanding of this matter we can make use of the term “gradation“ in islamic philosophy. If a phenomenon is uniform concerning its substance and essence but manifests itself in different forms, then the difference between the examples and manifestations is called gradual difference or distinguishing gradation,like e.g. the sun’s light that is a uniform and identical reality. But dependent on the power or dimness of this light it will appear differently although in reality it is the same concerning the principle of being light. But the manifest degrees of light are different. Belief, too, can be seen as one truth; accordingly everybody who knows this truth is a believer. All believers have this truth in common but the firmness or weakness of their belief differ. Obviously this firmness or weakness does not cause changes in the principle of belief but its degrees are differing. Sometimes this gradual difference is denoted with the term unbelief but this must never be understood as theological unbelief. In one case in the Qur’an a difference is made between Islam and belief. Those who hold a theological belief but do not behave piously are told that they are not believers before belief is deeply rooted in their nature; but they can say that they have accepted Islam. “And they believe in God and His prophet.” (Sura 49, verse 14). Different degrees of belief are illustrated here and belief which is not practiced in actions is not called belief.

In contradistinction to other verses that contain warnings of a bitter fate and divine punishment on Judgement Day for unbelief, this verse is a moderate statement of the distance and alienation from the path of bliss as the result of graded unbelief.  32  Qur’an cites only a few examples and cases for the different degrees of unbelief. But the teachings of the prophet of Islam and of the religious scholars contain numerous examples for the degrees of belief and unbelief that are strongly emphasized. In a tradition of the prophet of Islam e.g. he is quoted as saying that belief contained ten degrees and that the believers would be classified and arranged based on those degrees.  33

This demonstrates an important difference between “theological belief and unbelief” and “graded belief and unbelief”. From a qur’anic point of view theological belief and unbelief are a true and absolute term but graded unbelief is a relative term. Hence the use of this term requires no symbol or justification. From the qur’anic point of view everybody who rejects these three principles, i.e. belief in the creator of the universe, in prophecy, and in resurrection, is called a true unbeliever.

But graded or conceptual unbelief which is compatible with absolute and true belief is a relative and symbolic unbelief, and the use of the term requires a certain symmetry and justification. A Muslim who believes in Qur’an and the prophet of Islam may nonetheless be reproached with graded unbelief. Qur’an clearly confirms that the adherents of other religions believe in God, in Judgement Day, and in one of the divinely inspired prophets; since they reject the prophet of Islam they can however be reproached with relative or graded unbelief.

1. 32With reference to the outer meaning of this verse it can be explained that those whose belief does not show the necessary depth are on the path of perfection and guidance, since they are believers; but since their belief is not deep enough they are in danger of straying from this path, and God has made mention of this danger for the believers.

1. 33According to a tradition by the prophet of Islam Salman had attained the ninth degree of belief and Abu Darr was on a lower level of belief.

The use of this term and the proof of relative and graded unbelief require an explanation, justification, and symmetry in every case; therefore it can be considered a symbolic term   34 . For this reason it is of great importance to bear in mind this subject when examining the terms belief and unbelief. Attention and precision will prevent an adulteration of different and often completely distinct meanings of these two terms belief and unbelief.

This illustrates how necessary an exact and accurate examination is to attain correct understanding and knowledge of the Qur’an’s message and how some people thoughtlessly reproach Islam with certain things, without considering situations, conditions, and presuppositions.