Sarahsi’s commentary on this incident is quite thoughtful: “The judge must pay extreme attention to this matter because of the following saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: ‘The noble one should not be hopeful for your favor, nor should the weaker despair of your unfair treatment.’ If the noble one is positioned in the front, he or she may raise hopes for the judge’s favoring them, which will dishearten the weaker who will be concerned of a possible injustice incurred on them.” (Sarahsi 1983, 61)

Let us consider this incident. An ordinary citizen, who happens to be a Christian, complains and files a case against the Muslim President of the country without any concern of the consequences. The Chief Justice of the fantastic Abbasid Empire is Imam Abu Yusuf, the great jurist of the Hanafi school of thought, second only to Imam Azam. He hears both parties without being able to bring them to the same level of seating, for he is too shy to ask the Caliph to rise up from where he is and stand next to the plaintiff. This would normally be perceived as a minor, even insignificant lapse; but the judge never forgets this for his entire life, and considers it his most grievous error. In fact, it so grieves him, it is the one lapse he asks God to forgive him for. On the other hand, Sarahsi’s comment is also worth analysis, as he does not deem this incident an insignificant one, but takes a very meticulous approach when he says, “The judge must pay extreme attention to this matter.” We should also keep in mind that this incident is not narrated in a fictional work of stories or legends, but in one of the fundamental sources of Hanafi jurisprudence, and this makes the incident even more significant and makes it sufficient to reflect, singlehandedly, Islam’s very accommodating and tolerant policy towards non-Muslims.

Forbearance, or tolerance, is kindheartedness without expecting anything in return, and it is more comprehensive than a mere word or slogan in Islamic terminology. It is an injunction in the religion, as it is firmly established by Divine revelation and explained by the Prophet. This duty upon believers has taken a material form in the Age of Happiness, during the reign of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and throughout fourteen centuries of Islamic civilization. It is a product of the eternal and universal faith of Islam.

The Qur’an raised the columns of forbearance upon the Islamic foundations of life, universe, and mankind. Oneness is an attribute to God, and God alone; whereas all of creation is a manifestation of multiplicity, diversity, and differences. The basis of Islamic tolerance is that justice is obligatory. The Qur’anic description of God is “the Lord of the worlds,” the Lord of all mankind (Fatiha 1:1). As a result of this rationale, Islam embraces all the heritages of prophethood sent to all nations.

The Qur’an confirms the truthful acts of those who followed past prophets, corrects their faults or introduces new commandments (Maidah 5:48; Al Imran 3:3-4; A’raf 7:157-158).

Tolerant and just conduct towards non-Muslims was not only observed in the early days of Islam, but also in the following centuries. The Ottomans, from their onset in the late thirteenth century, particularly stand out for their political character. They prioritized avoiding internal conflicts with other principalities in Asia minor, and focused more on expanding westward to annex Byzantine towns. Their engagements with the non-Muslim people of these towns were never solely based on warfare and military power; instead, they cultivated relations based on fair treatment and tolerance. This diplomacy of fairness and forbearance paved the way for Orhan Bey (d. 1362) to have the gates of Bursa opened to him in peace in 1326 (Neşri 1983, 67; Akgündüz 1999, 430; Ihsanoğlu 1999, 422).

There is an overwhelming consensus among historians that the Ottomans were able to expand their territories in Asia Minor and the Balkans not only through military means but also through many social and ethical factors. Otherwise it is impossible to hold so many different ethnicities, with different faiths and languages, united (Eryılmaz 1990, 24). Sultan Mehmed II’s declaration on non-Muslims following the conquest of Istanbul is exemplary in terms of religious liberties, as he recognized the people’s freedom to worship in their own tradition; to conduct ceremonies as they did before; to travel freely; that their properties, shops, groves, farms, families, servants, and slaves were inviolable; that there was going to be no forced conversion to Islam; that their boys would not be conscripted; that they could choose their own community leaders; and that they would not be forced to work without compensation (Akgündüz 1999, 430; Ihsanoğlu 1999, 422-3).

The Ottoman policy on non-Muslims was mostly inspired from a judgment derived from a saying of the Prophet: “They (non-Muslims) have the same rights as we Muslims do; they are liable to the same duties as we Muslims are” (lahum ma lana wa alayhim ma alayna).

These rights and liberties the Ottomans recognized for the non-Muslim community become even more meaningful when compared with the situation in Europe during the same period of history. Bernard Lewis was visiting Turkey in the 1990s. In an interview for TRT (Turkish national network), the reporter asked him to comment on why, in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, there is almost no record of Turkish travelers in Europe, whereas there were quite a number of European travelers who travelled across the Ottoman territories. I am summarizing Lewis’ answer as follows: “In those centuries there was no obstacle for Europeans to travel in the Ottoman land, for the Ottoman government was a state of rule and law. Europeans could visit the country on a visa (musta’man), travel, and follow up on their business freely. The travelers were of different religions, but they could freely gather with their co-believers or the locals who spoke their own language and hold services in their places of worship. They did not feel homesick or alienated. On the other hand, however, a Muslim could no way dare to visit a European country in those centuries without forsaking his life. Fanaticism was at its peak in Europe.”

The Ottomans had almost no competition in championing the freedom of religious belief and practice as a cornerstone of social order. The Ottomans also had non-Muslim groups represented in the parliament as ministers and at other senior levels; there were sometimes almost as many as fifty non-Muslim members of parliament, especially in the nineteenth century.

A more recent event was when Assyrian Christians, in the city of Mardin, had to confront the Ottoman state in 1915. Following the internal conflicts between Muslims and Armenians during World War I, in which the Tashnak and Hinchak groups of Armenians massacred Turkish villages, the Union and Progress government of the Ottoman state passed a decision to send all Armenian citizens – with the exception of those residing in Istanbul – into exile. Despite the fact that Assyrian Christians were not involved in any of those incidents, state officers in Mardin wanted to send them into exile too, simply because they were also Christians. In the chaotic environment of war, murder and violence followed this decision, and Assyrians from Midyat armed themselves and gathered in the village of Aynverd (Gulgozu). They did not obey calls to concede their weapons, for they did not trust the state’s army. Shaikh Fethullah Hamidi, of the Mardin region, announced a religious ruling that it would not be lawful according to Islam to harm Assyrians, and that their lives, properties, and honor were inviolable. He further communicated with state officers and, after three months of persistent efforts, secured a warrant of safety for the Assyrians. Assyrians never forgot his selfless stance and hard work, and as a sign of appreciation, they hang his picture next to their patriarch in the Mardin Deyruzzaferan Patriarchate.

Inspired by these ideas, Fethullah Gülen, one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in 2013,” and the Hizmet Movement, which has developed around this thought and guidance, are trying to reflect the same spirit of dialogue among different nations, religions, and cultures around the world. Born out of Turkey, this movement is now active in around 140 countries. Their outreach extends to all walks of life, regardless of differences, and their achievements raise our hopes that the world can once more experience a time of tolerance and coexistence, at least to the same degree, if not higher, as in the historical examples described in this article.

Dr. Yildirim is a professor of Qur’anic exegesis in the School of Divinity, Fatih University, Istanbul.

References

• Akgündüz, Ahmet, Said Öztürk. 1999. Bilinmeyen Osmanlı, Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları.
• Eryılmaz, Bilal. 1990. Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Tebaanın Yönetimi, Istanbul: Risale Yayınları.
• Gibbons, Herbert Adams. 1998. Osmanlı imparatorluğunun Kuruluşu, Translated by R. Hulusi (Özdem), Istanbul: 21.Yüzyıl Yay.
• Hamidi, Muhammed Sadık. 2002. Mardini Es-Seyyid Eş-Şeyh Hamid Evlad ve Torunları, Istanbul,.
• Ihsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin. 1999. Osmanlı Devleti Tarihi I-II, Istanbul: Zaman Gazetesi Yayınları.
• Serahsî, Şemsu’l-eimme. 1983. el-Mebsut, Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınevi.

Thus, while walking toward the future as a whole community, tolerance is our safest refuge and our fortress against the handicaps that arise from schism, factions, and the difficulties inherent in reaching mutual agreement; troubles that lie waiting at every corner.

We should have such tolerance that we are able to close our eyes to the faults of others, to have respect for different ideas, and to forgive everything that is forgivable. In fact, even when faced with violations of our inalienable rights, we should remain respectful to human values and try to establish justice. Even before the coarsest thoughts and the crudest ideas, ideas that we find impossible to share, with the caution of a Prophet and without losing our temper, we should respond with mildness. This mildness is presented in the Qur’an as “gentle words”; it will touch the hearts of others. This mildness is the result of a tender heart, a gentle approach, and mild behavior. We should have so much tolerance that we can benefit from opposing ideas in that they force us to keep our heart, spirit, and conscience active and aware, even if these ideas do not directly or indirectly teach us anything.

Tolerance, a term which we sometimes use in place of the words respect, mercy, generosity, or forbearance, is the most essential element of moral systems; it is a very important source of spiritual discipline and a celestial virtue of perfected people.

Under the lens of tolerance the merits of believers attain new depths and extend to infinity; mistakes and faults become insignificant and whither away until they are so small that they can be placed into a thimble. In fact, the treatment of He Who is beyond time and space always passes through the prism of tolerance, and we wait for it to embrace us and all of creation. Because of the broadness of this embrace, when a corrupt woman who had given water to a thirsty dog touched the knocker of the “Door of Mercy,” she found herself in a corridor extending to chastity and Heaven. Similarly, due to the deep love he felt for God and His Messenger, a drunk suddenly shook himself free and attained companionship of the Prophet. In another example, with the smallest of Divine favors, a bloody murderer was saved from his monstrous psychosis and headed toward the highest rank; a rank that far surpassed his natural ability and, one that in the end he actually reached.

We all want everyone to see us through this lens and we expect the breezes of forgiveness and pardon to constantly blow in our surroundings. All of us want to refer our past and present to the climate of tolerance and forbearance that melts, transforms, cleans, and purifies and then to walk toward the future securely, without feeling any anxiety. We do not want our past to be criticized or our future to be darkened because of our present. All of us expect love and respect for a whole lifetime, hope for tolerance and forgiveness, and want to be embraced with feelings of liberality and affection. We expect tolerance and forgiveness from our parents in response to mischievousness at home, from our teachers in response to our misbehavior at school, from those innocent victims toward whom we have acted unjustly and oppressed, from the judge and prosecutor in court, from our army commanders, from police officers and from the Judge of Judges in the Highest Tribunal.

However, deserving what we expect is very important. Anyone who does not forgive has no right to expect forgiveness. Everyone will receive disrespect to the degree that he has been disrespectful. Anyone who does not love is not worthy of being loved. Those who do not embrace all of humankind with tolerance and forgiveness have lost their worthiness to receive forgiveness and pardon. An unfortunate one who curses others does not have the right to expect respect from others. Those who curse will be cursed and those who beat will be beaten. If true Muslims observed such Qur’anic principles as the following and were to go on their way and tolerate curses deep in their breasts, then others would appear in order to implement the justice of Destiny on those who cursed us.

When they meet hollow words or unseemly behavior, they pass them by with dignity.(Furqan 25:72)

If you behave tolerantly, overlook, and forgive (their faults) . . . (Taghabun 64:14)

In countries rife with corruption, intolerance, and mercilessness, such things as freedom of thought, polite criticism, and the exchange of ideas according to norms of equity and fairminded debate are absent; it would be meaningless to talk of the results of logic and inspiration. In my opinion, this must be the real reason that for years no progress has been made, in spite of plenty of empty boasting.

For years, there have been numerous examples of immorality-my values do not allow me to speak about them openly-although their perpetrators have received their share of tolerance. Despite this, attempts continue to be made to label innocent people as “backward fanatics who support theocratic regimes.” “Fundamentalism” is another fashionable term with which to smear them. Moreover, Islam has been accused of not keeping up with the times. We frequently observe with sorrow today that those who did nothing more than express their religious feelings have been branded as reactionaries, fanatics, and fundamentalists. Unfortunately some people do not distinguish between being truly religious and blind fanaticism.

It is not possible to talk about common ideas or a collective consciousness in communities where individuals do not look upon one another with tolerance or in countries where the spirit of forbearance has not become fully entrenched. In such countries, ideas will devour one another in the web of conflict. The work of thinkers will be futile, and in such countries it will not be possible to establish sound thought or freedom of belief or thought. These things will not be allowed to flourish. In fact, it cannot be said that in such a country the state has been based on a true system of justice; even if this appears to be the case, it is nothing more than a sham. Actually, in a place where there is no tolerance, it is not possible to talk about a healthy media, scholarly thought, or pertinent cultural activities either. What we see when we look at the things that carry such names are only some fruitless, one-sided efforts made according to certain thoughts and a certain philosophy; expecting something fresh, beneficial and promising for the future from these is futile.