As a rabbi and professor of rabbinic literature, I am naturally drawn to interpreting texts. The best moments are when these texts come alive and inform my life (inshallah). I have long been intrigued by an ancient text attributed to a pre-rabbinic figure from the first century BCE (Before the Common Era – rabbis did not emerge until after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE). The text reads:

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, judge every person favorably” (Mishnah Pirke Avot 1:6).

This triplet of good advice requires some explanation. Find (or “make,” which is closer to the Hebrew original) a teacher for yourself might also be translated that you should make someone your “master.” In the Hebrew text the word for teacher is Rav which can mean master, as well as being the root of the word rabbi. In other words, choose a rabbi to study with and to follow.

Next, we are taught to acquire a colleague. Most likely this means someone to study with, but it also can mean someone who you can share a meal with (that is to say, you trust that his food is kosher or halal). In general, it is a blessing to have good colleagues.

The final piece of advice, while commendable, seems on the surface to be disconnected: Judge everyone favorably. Might it refer to choosing a teacher or your study-buddy?

I will come back to what I think this text means, but first, I want to consider a text from the Torah, which commands: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18). This text, too, seems straightforward, until we wonder how do we “love” on command? Some commentators assume this means that you would care about your neighbor’s finances as you would your own. A small minority of others, I am embarrassed to say, have construed this to mean that you need only love your neighbor who is like yourself. This implies that the commandment is limited to only loving other Jews!

Indeed, there is a rabbinic text from the second century that might be construed precisely this way – it is alarming:

In the Mishnah (Yoma 8:7) we read about a case where a wall falls upon someone on Shabbat. Now uncovering a pile of rubble is a forbidden labor on the Sabbath. But the Mishnah of the second century CE seems to make an exception: If there is doubt whether he was there or not there, if there is doubt whether he was alive or dead, if there were doubt whether he was a Jew or a non-Jew – then one removes the rubble.

The text is clear that to save a Jewish life, one may violate Shabbat, as saving a life takes precedence over all other commandments. But we must ask: whose life? Does this only apply, God forbid, to saving a Jew? This one of those famous “difficult texts” that we stumble over in interfaith dialogue. When we compare “our best” to “their worst” during dialogues, such difficult texts are stumbling blocks. We all have such texts. And until we learn to dialogue by proudly sharing our best with their best, we will stumble.

My teacher 45 years ago was a man in his eighties, Rabbi Saul Lieberman. He was widely regarded as the foremost authority on the Talmud in his generation. He once told me the story about taking a Shabbat stroll with a colleague from Columbia University, Prof. Morton Smith. Now it happens that Morton, although many years my elder, was my teacher but also my colleague and my friend. He had been ordained an Episcopal priest early in his career, and he loved to tweak the supercilious pieties of religion. Morton was also an expert in rabbinic literature. As the story goes, Morton Smith and Rabbi Lieberman walked past a building site on Broadway when Morton asked my rabbi, “Prof. Lieberman, if that wall fell on me now during the Sabbath, would you save me?”

On the face of it, this was a serious challenge to what might have been understood as the law of the Mishnah. A strict reading might have required Prof. Smith’s body to remain under the rubble until Shabbat ended. But Prof. Lieberman replied in an instant, “Why Morton, of course I would save you! And then, I would go home, consult my tomes of Jewish law, and find the correct reason for having done so.”

Actually, it would not have been very hard to find a legal authority. As we mentioned above, saving a life certainly would take priority over Sabbath law. That’s what the Mishnah is trying to teach us. But would it apply to saving a non-Jew? Both Lieberman and Smith knew perfectly well that the Torah explicitly teaches, You shall not oppress the stranger. You must know the heart of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Exodus 23:9). And if that wasn’t clear enough, the Torah commands, You shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deut 10:19).

Indeed, the Mishnah and other rabbinic literature bend over backward to assure that Jews have good relations with their non-Jewish neighbors (the word used is Shalom) and require that Jews greet non-Jews, care for their poor, mourn and bury their dead, offer condolences, care for their animals, midwife their births, heal their sick, much as would be done for other Jews.

What I learn from the story of my teacher Rabbi Lieberman and my colleague and teacher Prof. Smith is that teachers and colleagues who are NOT Jewish require us to confront, and solve, our tradition’s difficult texts. Interaction with the other, collegiality, even friendship, to say the least of discipleship, require us to love one another as we would ourselves.

My teacher of New Testament, Father Raymond Brown, offered an example from the Catholic tradition. Prof. Brown took scrupulous care in carefully teaching Gospel texts, lest other priests or their parishioners might learn anti-Semitism from those ancient texts. Christianity had a long and sorry history of enmity towards the Jews. Anti-Semitism had been the norm for almost 2,000 years. But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Christian teaching radically changed. As Pope Francis said in March, 2019, “I stress that for a Christian any form of anti-Semitism is a rejection of one’s own origins, a complete contradiction.”

We take care to find the right teachers. I am blessed to have such teachers and to have made good colleagues in the Muslim world, as well. This is not surprising as the Holy Qur’an teaches,

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you (Qur’an 49:13, after Yusuf Ali).

In the Hadith of al-Nawawi (Forty Hadith, no. 15): we learn that on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak good things or keep silent. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be generous to his neighbor. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be courteous and generous to his [travelling] visitor.” This is reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

In other words, this Hadith seems to teach a tradition similar to that of the Torah and the rabbis. Further, al Nawawi teaches (ibid. no. 13): on the authority of Abi Hamza Anas bin Malik, the servant of the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: “None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. ” This is also reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

These Hadith traditions emphasize that what is true for Jews is true for Muslims. We must learn to love one another and want what is best for our brothers and sisters of the other religion, much as we would want for ourselves.

Now we know that despite these teachings, there are Jews who hate Muslims and Muslims who revile Jews. Thank God / Al hamdulillah, that we have teachers who clearly teach against this tendency. Our master, Hocaefendi Fethullah Gülen stated:

“A crucial step in healing the sick mindset that leads individuals to kill people out of hatred or other reasons is for every individual to acknowledge the dignity of every human being, to respect them as a work of art that was created by God and to inculcate this perspective in the minds of our youth.”

If we all come from our common ancestors Adam and Eve, Hocaefendi Gülen seems to say to us, then every person shares the same human dignity. No one can say, “My ancestry is better than yours.”

A couple of months ago, I had the wonderful privilege of meeting with Hocaefendi Gülen at his home in rural Pennsylvania. We drove there from New York City, but were warned that Hocaefendi was tired and might not spend more than a few minutes greeting us. As it turned out, we were honored to share an hour of discussion with our teacher. By the end of the meeting, I had found for myself another “rabbi.” I was thrilled to meet this revered leader, a man near in age to my rabbis of old. But I was utterly astounded by the act of humility with which he welcomed me. Hocaefendi Gülen rose from his chair and said, “Rabbi, please sit here in my place.” Had I traveled hours only to experience his hospitality and humility, it would have been a lesson well learned.

But I was privileged to engage further in a wide-ranging conversation on how we might confront anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As with all good teachers, the conversation and Hocaefendi’s questions have continued to turn over in my mind since that extraordinary meeting.

What can we do to better relations between Muslims and Jews? Here are some suggestions I have learned in my nearly three decades of Jewish-Muslim dialogue.

First, as the Holy Qur’an teaches, we should meet and “know one another.” A good example of how this is accomplished is through the organization the Sisterhood of Salaam / Shalom (https://sosspeace.org/ ). Or we can arrange visits between Mosque and Synagogue. (see http://mideastweb.org/muslim-sermon_cg.htm ). We can celebrate our festivals together (see http://nyc.muslimjewishsolidarity.org/). Here, the Hizmet movement has excelled in arranging interfaith Iftar dinners during the Holy month of Ramadan (e.g https://hizmetnews.com/24889/interfaith-ramadan-iftar-dinner-held-in-montville/#.Xg9tJLpOmEc ).
 
We can also study to learn about one another. I recommend a book jointly published by the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Islamic Society of North America: Sharing the Well: A Resource Guide to Jewish-Muslim Relations (www.jtsa.edu/sharingthewell ). And, of course, we must protect one another and fight Islamophobia and anti-Semitism by standing together SHOULDER TO SHOULDER (https://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/ ).  Both the Jewish and Muslim traditions demand that we work for social justice and righteousness (e.g. feeding the hungry: https://www.denverpost.com/2012/11/18/muslims-jews-gather-at-denver-mosque-to-help-feed-the-hungry/ ).

Now that I have shared what I learned from loving my neighbor, the non-Jewish other, the Christian or the Muslim, I have a new understanding of the text I quoted at the outset of this article.

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, so that you will learn from them to judge every person favorably” (Pirke Avot 1:6).

Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky
Director, Milstein Center for Interreligious Dialogue Jewish Theological Seminary, New York

December 2, 2015. A mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, following a devastating attack in Paris, France. Anti-Muslim rhetoric mushrooms, but how can I, one person, respond?

December 6, 2015. A hastily arranged interfaith service at Temple Beth Or, Washington Township, New Jersey, is attended by an overflow crowd of almost 400 people. The clergy, representing 18 congregations of the three Abrahamic faiths, walk to their seats as the Woodie Guthrie song, “This Land Is Your Land” is sung. The service gets underway with a call to prayer by a member of the Elzahara Islamic Center of Midland Park, New Jersey, and continues with additional prayers from each of the clergy. One priest from a Catholic Church in Ridgewood, New Jersey, ascends to the podium and asks everyone to take 15 minutes, introduce themselves to someone they don’t know, and “Pass the Peace.” This 15-minute interval turns into a seminal moment for me as “the other” that surrounds me becomes “the individual” – the mother, the student, the neighbor, each concerned about the same issues as I am.

This evening had a profound impact on me, and I still think of it often. It spurred me to approach my Jewish synagogue community and invite them to engage in an outreach program with representatives of the Muslim community. I had no illusions that this would solve the world’s problems, but I hoped it might be a spark to lift a veil in my tiny little corner of New Jersey. And thus began an ongoing journey to take the hand of our Muslim neighbors and turn the unknown and the different into the familiar and the friendly.

Over the ensuing years we have gathered together for various programs. We started with a Friendship Circle to introduce ourselves to one another, watched a documentary movie, BESA – The Promise, and subsequently The Turkish Passport, and discussed what we saw and heard. We invited our Muslim friends to participate in some of our synagogue services, some interfaith and some not. During one Sunday morning Minyan service, two central Jewish life cycle events took place – a baby naming for a newborn girl, and a 13-year-old leading the service one week before his Bar Mitzvah. Questions were casually asked and answered over our bagel breakfast (accompanied by both rugalach and baklava!). This turned into a tour of our sanctuary, led by our Rabbi and accompanied by a number of congregants. The Rabbi took the Torah scroll from the ark so it could be seen up close by everyone. She opened it and chanted that week’s Torah portion, which just happened to be about Hagar and Ishmael! The Rabbi along with our members explained the meaning of the various symbols around the sanctuary – how our prayer books are in both Hebrew and English, what the threads and knots (tzizit) of our prayer shawls represent, why only some of our memorial board lights were lit, etc. The otherness melted away as we engaged one another in vibrant conversation and dialogue.

One of the most moving interactions we experienced was when one of our members, a child survivor of Auschwitz and a longtime Hebrew school teacher, told her emotional story to a Muslim teen group, which left everyone with tears in their eyes. This included a question and answer session that touched everyone who participated. Our membership was invited to an Iftar dinner that year, during which we came to understand the purpose and meaning of the daytime fasting. We were recently invited to visit a local mosque, which was the first time any of us had stepped inside one. We had so many questions, and they were answered beautifully and passionately. We all sat, shoeless, in a circle, and those of us who are Jewish nodded our heads as the number of parallels between our faith practices became apparent. During Ramadan this year, our synagogue hosted an Iftar dinner. Kosher food was graciously brought into our kitchen, and three very dedicated Muslim volunteers spent several hours preparing traditional recipes for our dinner as we chatted and enjoyed each other’s company.

One by one by one, foundational connections have been made between our Jewish congregants and our Muslims friends. We have learned so much about one another: we have talked about our families, showed each other pictures of our children’s weddings, shared our families’ immigration experiences, exchanged phone numbers, and promised to see each other again soon.

The world is a complicated place, and there are no easy answers to the issues that confront us. But we each have the power to step outside our comfort zone, and just decide to take that first leap of faith. The opportunities to engage with one another in a meaningful way are all around us, and the rewards far outweigh the effort. Not only do we reap the benefits ourselves, but we have the potential opportunity to “pay it forward” by sharing our stories of these meaningful and memorable interactions, and maybe, just maybe, inspiring someone else to do the same!

As Jews, one of our overriding objectives is to participate in what is called “Tikkun Olam – Repairing the World.” This implies that while the world is inherently good, there is always room for us to improve it, and I would like to believe that I have contributed, in whatever small way, towards that end. In a world that undoubtedly is in need of a great deal of repair, please join in by taking that first small step alongside me and let us walk together.

Christian and Jewish scripture

Islamic theology is strictly monotheistic. Consequently, the Qur’an denies such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus, which can seem to suggest that God works in a partnership (Jacques 2004, 16). Yet Jesus is always honored in the Qur’an. He is referred to as a “sign” of mercy and an “example.” Nowhere is he or any other Prophet criticized (Jacques 2004, 16). Moses is also revered in the Qur’an, where he is referred to more than one hundred times (Khan 2001, 35.

The Qur’an does not claim to supersede the scriptures that came before it, but is understood to complete the revelations of the Prophets (Jacques 2004, 298). It is a culmination of the history of divine revelation, which includes stories from the Old and New Testaments such as the stories of Abraham, Moses, Noah, and Jesus. Sura 61:6 is an example of how the Qur’an affirms the validity of Jewish and Christian scriptures: “And when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘Children of Israel, I am indeed God’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah that has gone before me…’” (Murata and Chittick 1994, 165).

Qur’anic doctrine about the “People of the Book”

In the Qur’an, Jews, and Christians are referred to as Ahl al-kitab, meaning “the People of the Book.” The Qur’an makes distinctions between the People of the Book. Many verses acknowledge that there are both wrongdoers and righteous ones among them (Sarýtoprak 2000, 323).

Where the Qur’an criticizes the People of the Book, it generally makes clear that it is referring only to those who do not adhere to the message of the Prophets (tawhid) (Murata and Chittick, 1994, 170):

Those who persistently disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the polytheists would not abandon until there had come to them the Clear Evidence … Surely those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and from among the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell a seed of which unbelief bears, abiding therein. (98:1, 6)

Some verses that criticize the People of the Book without making a distinction are open to various interpretations. For example, Sura 5:55 states: “Oh believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they’re friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them as friends is one of them.” Said Nursi suggests that the verse may refer to particular groups of Jews and Christians who committed treachery during the days of the Medina Charter. Nursi points out that at the time of the Prophet, people hated and loved each other solely on the basis of religion, so close relationships with non-Muslims were considered hypocritical (Sarýtoprak 327). As the basis for friendships has changed, hypocrisy in this respect is no longer an issue.

Another reason why such verses should be interpreted broadly rather than literally is because some of the words used in their original Arabic forms are ambiguous. In this verse, the word for friend (wali) can mean guardian. The sentence might mean that Muslims cannot make Jews or Christians their guardians. In some verses, the People of the Book are referred to as kafir, meaning either “one who denies the existence of God” or “one who denies the prophethood of Muhammad.” Non-Muslims are not necessarily kafirs in the first sense of the word (Sarýtoprak, 328).

The Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book. For example, Sura 60:8 declares:

God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.

In addition to advocating tolerance, the Qur’an praises the People of the Book. In Sura 21:7, they are referred to as “People of Knowledge” (ahl al-dhikr) (Sarýtoprak, 328) and verses 3:113-15 declare:

Yet, they are not all alike: among the People of the Book, there is an upright community, reciting God’s Revelations in the watches of the night and prostrating (themselves in worship). They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin and promote what is right and good, and forbid and try to prevent evil, and hasten to do good deeds, as if competing with one another. Those are of the righteous ones. Whatever good they do, they will never be denied the reward of it; and God has full knowledge of the God-revering, pious.

This sura provides an example of how the Qur’an recognizes that the People of the Book worship the same God as Muslims. This recognition of a common ground is repeated in other verses, such as 3:64, which commands:

Say (to them, O Messenger): “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God.”

Another implication in Sura 3:115 is that the People of the Book will be rewarded. A general theme in the Qur’an is that those People of the Book who accept tawhid will have salvation (Murata and Chittick, 168). For example, Sura 2:62 states:

Those who believe (Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabaeans, whosoever believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds, they shall have their reward from their Lord, shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they come to grief.

Tolerance in Practice

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) protected and defended the People of the Book. In the hadith by Al-Munawi, he is quoted as saying: “Who wrongs a Jew or Christian will have myself as his prosecutor on the day of Judgement.” In Al-Bayhaqi’s hadith he is quoted: “Whosoever persecuted a dhimmi [non-Muslim who paid a protection tax] or usurped his rights, or took work from him beyond his capacity, or took something from him without his permission, I shall be a complainant against him on the Day of Resurrection.” Al-Bukhari tells of how Muhammad would not exclude Jewish people when he visited the sick. On one occasion, when a Jewish funeral procession passed by him, he stood up out of respect, and when asked why, replied: “Is it not a human soul?”

The Prophet’s respect for the People of the Book was an example to others during his time. One of his companions, Hizam b. Hakim, reproached the Governor of Syria when he saw a group of group of Christians standing out in the hot sun as punishment for not paying their taxes.

Said Nursi also advocated tolerance, affirming that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal before Qur’anic law, and that people should be praised and loved based on their individual attributes (Sarýtoprak 326–327).

Dhimmi law and jizya

Soon after the Hijra (the migration of the Prophet to Medina), the Prophet signed a pact with the local tribes of Medina. Famously known as the Medina Charter, the Prophet aimed at generating a peaceful, pluralist society in this town, which was torn apart with decades-long civil strife and bloodshed. However, when this pact was violated by some Jewish tribes who supported the Meccans against Muslims, Jews were eventually driven out. Yet cooperation was renewed when the Prophet concluded a treaty with the Jews of Khaibar (Jacques 14–16).

Under an Islamic government, dhimmi law was developed in relations with the People of the Book which required them to pay a poll tax, or jizya, which is sanctioned in the Qur’an (9:29).

In exchange, Muslims were responsible for the protection of the People of the Book in their society. During the reign of the second Caliph, the Governor of Homs (in modern-day Syria) returned the poll tax to his Christian subjects because he realized he could not protect them against the Byzantine army (Jacques 14–16).

The policies surrounding jizya were relatively fair. Under a Muslim government, non-Muslims were not required to pay zakat (prescribed charity), which was a legal and religious requirement for Muslims. Furthermore, the poor, the blind, the elderly, the rescue workers at the houses of worship, women and children were all exempt from jizya. If it was not paid, the maximum punishment was imprisonment, and if a person died without having paid it, it could not become a debt transferred to his estate or heirs (Jacques 14–16).

Interaction between Muslims and the People of the Book

Muslims, Jews, and Christians socialized among one another regularly and rather freely in the Islamic Middle Ages, creating bonds (Cohen 2000, 39, 42). For example, they met in public baths, and business partnerships between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred despite disapproval of some authorities. Some Muslims even took part in Christian and Jewish religious celebrations. Jews and Christians had many ample opportunities in daily life “to cross barriers in the hierarchy of Islamic society” (Cohen 2000, 39). Dhimmis enjoyed acceptance in intellectual circles (majalis) and studied with Muslims at universities, particularly during the “renaissance of Islam” in cosmopolitan tenth-century Baghdad. Cohen states that “Jewish physicians were found in Arab society in numbers disproportionate to the Jewish presence in the population at large … They also formed part of the interdenominational circle of physicians working in state hospitals and adorning Muslim courts” (Cohen 2000, 42).

In the early Abbasid period, Muslims and Christian theologians frequently corresponded by sending letters to each other, or in debates. Although the dialogue was concerned with both parties trying to prove the superiority of their religion over the other, it was nevertheless constructive and meaningful (Sirry 2005, 365–73).

Life in Spain (al Andalus) between 711 and 1492 is a prime example of harmonious coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Jews and Christians enjoyed participation in Arab cultural activities, such as poetry competitions and intellectual circles (Menocal 2002, 173–80).

In 1856, full egalitarian rights were given to all citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Citizens of any religion could be accepted into government service and enroll in military and state schools (Sarýtoprak, 322).

Restrictions in Muslim-Dhimmi Relations

In the fourteenth century, jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote an influential book compiling general Islamic laws for dhimmis: Ahkam ahl al-dhimma (The Laws pertaining to the Protected People) (Cohen 53). Among these, he states that Muslims may convey condolences to non-Muslims or congratulate them on marriage, birth or good health with the exception of occasions, which contradict Islamic tenets (Jacques 39).

In some domains, such as marriage and dining, Muslim interaction with the People of the book is given Qur’anic sanction.

This day (all) pure, wholesome things have been made lawful for you. And the food of those who were given the Book before is lawful for you, just as your food is lawful for them. And (lawful for you in marriage) are chaste women from among the believers, and from among those who were given the Book before, provided that you give them their bridal-due, taking them in honest wedlock, and not in debauchery, nor as secret love-companions. Whoever rejects faith, all his works are in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (5:5)

Sunni law permitted the eating of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. Muslims could eat food provided by Jews as the Prophet Muhammad himself had done (Cohen 41). It was more problematic to eat in Christian homes, as pork might be served. However, Shia Islam rejected food prepared by dhimmis as unclean.

Sura 5:5 allows Muslim men to marry dhimmi women, not the other way around. This is to protect the woman’s rights, because the man might forcefully impose his religion on his Muslim wife (Cohen 41). If the wife of a Jewish or Christian couple converts to Islam, the marriage becomes invalid and from then on she may only marry Muslim men (Spectorsky 2000, 274). A Muslim husband is required to permit his non-Muslim wife to observe her religious rituals in the household and to read her own scriptures, and not encourage her to break rituals such as fasting and (for Jews) keeping the Sabbath (Cohen 41).

Conclusion

In studying the Qur’an, it is evident that Islam is inherently tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. It requires Muslims to respect the validity of the Scriptures of the People of the Book, and their right to be treated with kindness. The practice of the Prophet is consistent with this view as is the example of many influential Muslims throughout history, such as Said Nursi and Rumi. In today’s world of pluralism and multiculturalism, understanding is essential for adherents of different religions to coexist in peace and harmony. Muslims, Jews, and Christians must understand the tolerant message of Islam and the great Muslim role models. Exclusive focus on seemingly negative Qur’anic verses such as 5:55, without understanding the context, can lead to fear and hatred. They must embrace their similarities to see that they are brethren, and embrace their differences as a chance for learning. Amidst the twentieth and twenty-first century conflicts between the Islamic World and the West, one might see peaceful coexistence between religious groups as idealistic. But one needs only to look at the experience of Jews and Christians under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages to see that religious pluralism is possible.

References

• Cohen, A. 1984. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, M.R. 1994. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• ——. 2000. “Sociability and the Concept of Galut in Jewish-Muslim Relations in the Middle Ages” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.
• Huda, Q. 2003. “Knowledge of Allah and the Islamic View of Other Religions,” Theological Studies 64: 278–305.
• Jacques, W. 2004. “Christians, Muslims, Jews and Their Religions.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 15: 13–33.
• Khan, I.A. 2001. “The Qur’anic View of Moses as a Messenger of God from the Children of Israel to Pharaoh.” In Jewish-Muslim Encounters: History, Philosophy and Culture, Edited by C. Selengut. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
• Lewis, B. 1984. The Jews and Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Menocal, M.R. 2002. “Culture in the Time of Tolerance: Al-Andalus as a Model for Our Own Time.” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture 8/9: 173–180.
• Murata, S., and W.C. Chittick. 1994. The Vision of Islam. New York: Paragon House.
• Sarýtoprak, Z. 2000. “Said Nursi’s Teachings on the People of the Book: A Case Study of Islamic Social Policy in the Early Twentieth Century.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11: 321–32.
• Sirry, M.A. 2005. “Early Muslim-Christian Dialogue: A Closer Look at Major Themes of the Theological Encounter.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations Vol. 16: 361–76.
• Spectorsky, S. 2000. “Problems of Intermarriage in Early fiqh Texts.” In Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.

The rule of Muslims represents a particular period in Spanish history. It was at this time that a substantial part of Spain, known back then as Al-Andalus, came under the control of various Islamic groups. The entire period of Islamic rule lasted from the first conquest in 711 to 1492 when the Christian King Ferdinand reconquered Granada (La Reconquista), thereby extinguishing the rule of Muslims (Crow 1985, p.78).

The Umayyad prince, Abd-ar-Rahman I, established himself as Emir of Cordoba in 756, after the Abbasids supplanted Umayyad rule in Syria (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Umayyad dynasty first ruled as emirs (756–929), then as caliphs (929–1031), but eventually fell to the invading Berber tribes of North Africa, the Almoravids (1090–1147) and then the Almohads (1147–1248) (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Muslims of Spain ushered in a period of great creativity and scholarship, in which significant advances in poetry, art, music, calligraphy, botany, historiography, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were made (Fletcher 2000, p. 65).

Maria Rosa Menocal argues that Al-Andalus was a peaceful society in which Jewish people were free to practice their religion without being subject to the threat of forced conversion or persecution. She further claims that the rulers of Al-Andalus not only gave the Jews the right to maintain their religious identity, they also offered them the opportunity to fully involve themselves in what was then a predominantly Muslim society. Al-Andalus is, therefore, a truly unique example of religious toleration and cultural interaction, one which stands above all others in Medieval Europe.

Menocal claims that the Jews of Spain, that is the Sephardic Jews, enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy as they were considered to be people of a particular status. They were members of the Dhimmi, or “pact,” whereby the Muslim rulers agree to protect and care for non-Muslims insofar as they accede to the laws and regulations of the state (Menocal 2002, p.29). Jews, like Christians, are particularly important to this contract as they are “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitâb), the book being the Torah or the Bible, both of which are considered to have been revealed by God in Islam (Lassner 1999, p.106). As monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam, Judaism and Christianity share common ground.That Spanish Jews were treated with respect by their Islamic rulers is evidenced by the way in which they were permitted to be directly involved in the political process. Menocal refers to several Jewish people who rose to claim positions in the Umayyad dynasty, one such person being Hasdai Ibn Shaprut.

Shaprut served as vizier to Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III (911–961), while also acting as the “prince” or nasi of his own religious community (Menocal 2002, p.79). Shaprut, through his skill and intellect, was able to secure a position of considerable influence and prestige, while retaining his role as a representative of the Jewish community. He served the Umayyad rulers in a variety of ways, including several stints as a foreign ambassador and general secretary (Glick 1979, p.172). Menocal claims that this was not an unusual occurrence or isolated event as Al-Andalus was in fact a “world brightly lit for Jews,” in which they were free to participate in the politics of the state (Menocal 2002, p. 84).

Samuel Ibn Naghrela (Samuel the Nagid, or “prince”) also showed how a Jewish person was able to enjoy a position of power under Islamic rule. Born in 993, he pursued success in a number of fields including as a high-ranking official, poet, statesman and warrior. At thirty-four he was chosen as the first Nagid, or head of the Jewish community, and was later appointed as a vizier and prime minister of Granada (Menocal 2002, p. 104). Jewish people also served as viziers in Zaragoza, Seville, and Almeria during the Muslim rule (Perez 1993, p.10). They were also very active in the economy of Al-Andalus as they had “virtually unlimited opportunities in the booming commercial environment” (Menocal 2002, p. 85). Jewish people were allowed to pursue their vocational interests, and, in time, they came to dominate the financial and mercantile activity of the region (Glick 1979, p. 176).

Menocal attributes the success of the Jewish people in Islamic Spain to their willingness to assimilate, or be “Arabized.” Arabization is the process whereby the Jewish people of Spain sought to understand and to engage with Arabic culture-its language, art, tradition, and values- while still retaining their own sense of identity as a separate community. It is said that the potential for this style of acculturation was great because much of Islamic Spain was highly secular (Glick 1979, p.175). Therefore, the religious affiliation of the individual in Islamic Spain had far less importance, and thus far fewer consequences, than it did elsewhere.

The Jews of Spain excelled in many areas of their society, owing to the tolerance which they had been accorded by their Islamic rulers. They ensured a climate in which Muslims and Jews could live in a state of peaceful cooperation. This happened not by the imposition of one culture on that of another, but a cultural exchange wherein Jews were “able to openly observe and eventually enrich their Judaic and Hebrew heritage and at the same time fully participate in the general cultural and intellectual scene” (Menocal 2002, p. 87). Therefore it can be said that Spain, under the rule of Muslims, was quite tolerant of its Jewish population. The Jews, according to Menocal, did not have “to abandon their orthodoxy to be fully a part of the body politic and culture” (Menocal 2002, p. 86).

Maria Rosa Menocal offers a particular interpretation of this period, one that is certainly not shared by all. Bernard Lewis agrees that the Islamic rulers in Spain treated their Jewish counterparts with some degree of respect (Lewis 1984, p. 9). Lewis refers to the Qur’anic verse (11:62), “Those who believe [the Muslims], and those who profess Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabian, those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord,” as the injunction by which Muslims must treat Jews with tolerance (Lewis 1984, p. 13). But Lewis also sees the seeds of hostility and intolerance in the way Muslims treated Jews.

In reality, however, Jews, like Christians, were still defined by their supposed inferiority to that of the Muslim. They were possessors of a religion that was based on authentic revelation, but that incomplete or distorted. They had failed to realize God’s truth in its most perfect form, as it is in Islam.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his perspective to “religious inferiority.” He argues that Muslims restricted Jews’ movement into the wider community. According to him the poll tax, or jizya, a fixed tax that was to be paid by all non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers in return for certain immunities like not going to war, was a “symbolic expression of their (Jews) subordination” to the Muslims (Lewis 1984, p. 14). Restrictions, Lewis argues, were certainly not limited to fiscal servitude, but also applied to the way in which Jewish people conducted themselves in public and private life. A Jewish man could not enter into a marriage with a Muslim woman as that would make a Muslim subordinate to the will of a Dhimmi, though a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman (Lewis 1984, p. 27).

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject “were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character” (Lewis 1984, p. 26). That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Norman Roth claims, much like Menocal, that the Jewish population was quite prominent in Spain during the Muslim rule. According to Roth, rarely did “Jews reach such prominent positions of power as they did in Al-Andalus” (Roth 1994, p. 79). This was due, in part, to the fact that they were perceived by the Muslims and Christians of Spain as being “neutral,” that is, without allegiance to either side (Roth 1994, p.79).

While Al-Andalus was a society in which Jews enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, particularly after the advent of the Almohads, Roth claims, some restrictions in clothing were strictly enforced (Roth 1994, p. 167). For instance, the Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184–99) made it compulsory for Jews to dress in certain colors (Roth 1994, p. 167), perhaps to distinguish non-Muslim citizens from the Muslims. According to Joseph Perez, the Almohads also instituted religious persecution and forced Jews to convert (Perez 1993, p. 12). In this way, Perez draws a parallel with this period and the one that was to follow, in which Jews were expelled from the newly reclaimed Christian Kingdom of Spain.

The rule of the Moors is a unique period of Spanish history, one that has received much attention from scholars and theologians alike. It was, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, a time in which Jews and Muslims lived a relatively peaceful existence. While the evidence suggests that Jews and Muslims did integrate to an extent, there are also some scholars who suggest that Jews were subject to persecution. Therefore, this period of history offers a lot to be learned for our modern times.

References

• Crow J, 1985, Spain: The Root and the Flower: an interpretation of Spain and the Spanish people, University of California Press, Berkley.
• Fletcher R, 2000, “Islamic Spain,” in Carr R, Spain: A History, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Glick T, 1979, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
• Lassner J, 1999, “Abraham Geiger: A Nineteenth-Century Jewish Reformer on the Origins of Islam,” in Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
• Lewis B, 1984, The Jews of Islam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
• Menocal MR, 2002, Ornament of the World, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
• Perez, J, 1993, History of a Tragedy, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
• Ray, J, 2006, The Sephardic Frontier: the Reconquista and the Jewish community in Medieval Iberia, Cornell University Press, New York.
• Roth N, 1994, Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims In Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict, Leiden, New York.

Roughly speaking, the bulk of Central Eurasia consists of Central Asia and the Caucasus but also stretches to such regions as Turkey, the Turkic/Muslim regions of southern Russia, northern Afghanistan, southern Siberia, Tibet and Mongolia.[1] Largely due to Turkic influence, shaped historically by a tolerant understanding of co-existence as enjoined in Islam, this region has won prestige internationally for its peaceful efforts in this diverse geographical area.

Such leading U.S. universities as Harvard University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of California in Los Angeles, and the University of Indiana in Bloomington offer graduate courses on Central Eurasian studies and languages. The notion of a “clash of civilizations” promoted by Huntington[2] in the era of globalization has never been accepted by many people throughout Central Eurasia in their rich historical experiences of living in “mosaic societies.”

Pluralistic Islam at the heart of Eurasia

Unfortunately, for last couple of decades the experience of the diverse pluralistic Islam of Central Eurasia has been obscured by the political trends of Islam in the Middle East. The latter, rather than the former, has become the focus of most academic scholars of social sciences and humanities and media. Historically, while Turkey formed the western boundary of the Muslim world, Central Eurasia has largely represented the northern and north-eastern boundaries of the classical Islamic world. Islam in Central Eurasia emerged mainly through remarkable Sufi masters like Ahmet Yassavi, Korkyt Ata, Mevlana Rumi, and Baba Tukes. The merchant caravanserais of the Silk Road that traversed vast areas between the Middle East and China came into existence through peaceful means, and new Muslims in this area were very tolerant toward the many religions and cultures of their neighbors. Although the revelation of the Qur’an started in Arabia, most of its scholarly interpretations and the hadith compilations were compiled in Central Asia.[3] The greatest contributions to almost all areas of religious and positive sciences, engineering, art and culture were witnessed in this part of the world between the ninth and fourteenth centuries ce. The works of such outstanding intellectual figures as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al-Farabi (Alfarabius), Al-Khwarizmi still benefit

people all over the world. The largest library in the world in the thirteenth century ce was in Otrar (a city in present-day southern Kazakhstan), which was later totally demolished by Genghis Khan during Mongol invasion.

In the period between the seventh and thirteenth centuriesce, the Muslim world was ruled predominantly by Arab caliphs of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. However, starting from the twelfth century up until the beginning of the twentieth century, Muslims of Central Eurasia of predominantly Turkic origin became the foremost rulers of the Muslim nations. Among them were the famous states administered by the Seljuks in Central Asia, the Golden Horde in Russia, the Baburides on the Indian subcontinent, the Mamluks in Egypt, and the Ottomans in Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

The Golden Horde’s legacy of tolerance toward Christian, Jewish and Buddhist communities laid the foundation for the flourishing of Moscow and the Russian

Empire, which became heir to the Golden Horde’s legacy.[4] Saray, which was the capital of the Golden Horde from thirteen to fifteen centuries, and which was located very close to the border of modern-day southern Russia and western Kazakhstan, became a center of intercontinental diplomacy as envoys and ambassadors representing princes and popes sought audiences with the Muslim khans of the Golden Horde.[5]

Dialogue between world religions in Central Eurasia in the modern secular context

After more than two hundred years of Czarist rule, the ex-Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan, being one of the most diverse countries in the world, the home of 120 ethnic groups and many world religious communities for the last seventeen years became the active initiator of peace, dialogue, integration and reconciliation initiatives across not just the Eurasian states of the former Soviet Union, but also the larger international community. After independence, to ease tension among superpowers Kazakhstan’s government decided unilaterally to dismantle the huge nuclear arsenal left as the Soviet legacy of the cold war. Following the breakup of the USSR, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbaev’s proposal to form a “Eurasian Union” was praised by many leaders across Russia and the ex-Soviet republics. The late pope John Paul II met Nazarbaev in Astana on September 11, 2001.

Muslim–Jewish dialogue in Central Eurasia

In 2002 Kazakhstan served as the facilitator of Islamic– Jewish dialogue in Eurasia, an event which took place in the new capital, Astana. At the conference, thirty rabbis from various countries noted that the only way forward in the relationship between Muslims and Jews is through constructive dialogue. They also expressed their wish to see Kazakhstan as a center of Muslim–Jewish dialogue.[6] The fact that the headquarters of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress (EAJC) was placed in Almaty, the largest city in Muslim Kazakhstan, at a time when there is growing instability in the Middle East, is a sign of the huge potential of the mutual trust between Muslim and Jewish communities in Eurasia.[7] Alexander Mashkevich, the head of the EAJC, considers Kazakhstan a unique example of cooperation and peaceful coexistence between various peoples and religions. He also noted that the largest synagogue in Central Asia, which was opened in Astana, best characterizes Muslim Kazakhstan as the land of inter-ethnic peace and inter-confessional harmony.The latest phase of this dialogue at the First International Conference of Peace and Accord was held in Almaty the previous year. Presidents of the leading Jewish organizations of the United States, leaders and plenipotentiaries of the states of Central Asia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, and members of the leadership and the Council of Rabbis and Central Asian Muslim leaders condemned terrorism and declared that there are no antagonistic contradictions between Judaism and Islam.

Dialogue between world and traditional religions at the heart of Eurasia

At a time when some dark forces are trying to bring about a clash of world religions and civilizations, Central Eurasia offered an unprecedented challenge to these dangerous trends by initiating a series of high profile civic activities bringing together members of the clergy of world and traditional religions in the heartof Eurasia in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana in 2003 and 2006.[8] A unique role model for intercultural communication and dialogue, Kazakhstan, with a number of other countries of Central Eurasia, showed the whole world that traditional values can be reconciled with liberal norms in the formation of a successful, peace-loving, civil, mosaic society. Leading Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, active promoter of interfaith and intercultural dialogue, valued this significant interfaith event in Eurasia highly and said, “The only way for humankind to solve its problems is by way of dialogue: meeting, learning and talking to each other…With all my heart I state that all these initiatives done out of pure intentions will serve to establish peace and stability in the region, to improve relationships among nations and also to build lasting peace on the whole planet.”[9]

Dialogue Eurasia: “DA”

A number of Turkish people are working to pave the way for dialogue in the Eurasia region.[10], [11] Diyalog Avrasya (Dialogue Eurasia), a publication of the Dialogue Eurasia Platform, has been the voice of common sense in seventeen countries, from Moldavia to Mongolia, since its founding in 2000. A bilingual quarterly published in Turkish and Russian, DA adopts an approach to conflict with reconciliation, using the slogan, “Dialogue starts with ‘DA’” (“Da” in Russian means “yes” in English). DA representatives recently gathered in Istanbul and discussed the latest developments in the Eurasia region. DA stressed that its ideology is knowledge and love, and that convergence, compromise and understanding constitute the backbone of their policy. Renowned Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aytmatov, who passed away recently, also served on the journal’s advisory board; he described DA as “the business card of Eurasia.” Garnering great interest in the countries where it is published, DA also brings together Eurasia’s famous writers, intellectuals and civil society volunteers. In addition, opinions and essays of leading politicians frequently appear in the journal.

Interestingly, present and past dialogue efforts in Central Eurasia go hand in hand with positive trends in education, which for the last decade or so, has experienced quite a renaissance.[12] Hopefully, dialogue efforts combined with excellence in education will yield great fruits in the future in this important region of the world, which will benefit the whole of humanity again as during the region’s golden ages between the ninth and fourteenth centuries. There is hope that the dynamism of inter-cultural diversity which has prevailed for centuries on the Eurasian continent with its multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-religious characteristics will gain momentum in future again.

Dr. Zhandos Utegulov is researcher at University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Notes

1. http://cesww.fas.harvard.edu/

2. Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49.

3. Ali Unal, Alphonse Williams eds. Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen, 2000, The Fountain Publications.

4. http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/states3.html

5. Janet Martin. Medieval Russia, 980-1584, CUP, 2008.

6. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/19476/edition_id/395/format/html/displaystory.html

7. http://www.eajc.org/publish_gen_e.php?rowid=40

8. http://www.religionscongress.org

9. Interview with Fethullah Gulen in Kazahstanskaya Pravda, Sept 15, 2006.

10. http://www.zaman.com/?bl=culture&alt=&trh=20061206&hn=38940

11. http://www.interfaithathens.org/article/art/10081.asp

12. Ismail Demirkan, Aksar Beketov. “Islam, Science, and Free and Open Inquiry,” Physics Today, January 2008, p. 11.

In the winter of 2007, I met Dr. Ayse Coskun at a Turkish Women’s Coffee Night at the Raindrop Foundation in Houston, Texas. I had been attending the Coffee Nights for a few months and mentioned to Dr Coskun that, while I enjoyed the social events, I found myself wanting to go deeper. I did not want to take classes exactly; instead, I wanted to do interfaith dialogue in an informal rather than an academic setting. Almost immediately Dr. Coskun suggested that we meet for lunch. We lunched together several times: an American Christian and a Turkish Muslim at an Asian-fusion restaurant with statues of Buddha as decoration! I was charmed by Dr. Coskun’s openness, humor, and obvious intellect. Ayse made me feel comfortable, and she seemed to enjoy me as much as I did her. God’s blessing was with us as we laughed and planned.

Ayse and I decided to contact women from diverse faith traditions to see if they might like to share our interest in learning about one another’s religious perspectives. We agreed that our group should be small (8-12 women) and consist, at least at first, of only people from Abrahamic traditions (to simplify matters). We also decided that our “experiment” would have a time limit (8 months, meeting 2 hours each month) so that those we invited would not have to make an indefinite commitment. To my shame, Ayse had to do all the inviting, because I knew only Presbyterians! Ayse invited another Muslim woman (new to Houston, but familiar with interfaith dialogue). She also invited a young Roman Catholic woman and a Conservative Jewish chaplain, who in turn invited another Jewish woman. Rounding out the group was a member of the Unity Church of Christianity and two others who had explored a variety of other traditions. Later a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) seminary professor and another Roman Catholic joined us.

At our first meeting I experienced no awkwardness or hesitation. Each woman listened to the others with delight and respect. Our meeting did tend to be a bit chaotic, not because we were disorderly but because we were extremely curious. It was like wandering through a magical forest with a group of precocious children; everyone had unusual questions and surprising insights. (Fortunately Dr. Coskun would, after one of our diversions, gently but firmly coax us back to the topic at hand.)

Gradually we created an agenda, but even that was adjusted (or ignored) as situations drew us in different directions. For example, at first we began and closed our meetings with prayers offered by individuals who represented various traditions; we heard prayers in Hebrew, in Arabic, and from St. Francis and St. Augustine. In time however, while we still closed with prayer by an individual, we began to open our meetings with a unison prayer written by our Jewish chaplain (see sidebar), because it seemed to speak directly to what we were about.

Our agenda also began to include a time for sharing personal concerns, because we realized that we wanted to know one another as persons, not simply as “token” Jews, Presbyterians, etc. Therefore, when Dr. Coskun told us during a recent Personal Concerns Time (PCT) that she had to return to Turkey to help care for her ailing mother, we were able to respond immediately. We asked her to teach us a Turkish prayer for healing and promised to pray daily for her mother. It was during our PCT that the Jewish Chaplain told of bombing threats to her synagogue and a Catholic told of several instances of vandalism at her church. One of our group then volunteered to draft a letter as a basis for correspondence that might be sent to all places of worship that receive threats or damage. Often our Personal Concerns Time lasts only briefly; sometimes, as in the above cases, it leads to prayer and action.

The major portion of our meetings has consisted of sharing parts of our scriptures, giving overviews of our various faith traditions, or considering a specific issue from the point of view of our culture and faith. We have also laughed together, eaten together, and spent time exploring the kosher kitchens and touching the beautiful Torah scrolls at a synagogue. Most importantly, we have talked about topics that probably would not have been included in an academic setting. For example, the subject of our last meeting was “Mothers.” We first wrote down adjectives describing our own mothers and found that, despite our different cultures, many of our mothers could be described similarly: selfless, loving, forgiving, religious, and stoic amidst difficulty.

As we turned to what our various faith traditions had to say about mothers, most of us quoted from our scriptures. The Muslims pointed to the section of the Qur’an that dealt with justice, citing many passages about the high respect given to mothers in Islam, respect even above that given to fathers. Mothers (as well as fathers) are to be obeyed in all matters except when obedience would go against service to Allah or might bring harm to someone else. According to Muslim law, children are not to argue with or even say “oof” to a mother. Mothers (and sisters as well) are to be cared for financially by the eldest son. There are also rules governing the benevolent treatment of widows, orphans and stepmothers.

The Roman Catholics pointed to the importance of the Virgin Mary. Mary is considered to be not only the mother of Jesus but also the Queen of Heaven and, given Jesus’ instructions from the cross, the mother of all Christians: “Woman, behold your son; . . . Son, behold your mother” (John 19). While Catholics do not worship Mary, women, in particular, pray to her because Mary experienced the problems and pain of being a girl, a young mother, and a grieving mother, all the while being faithful to what God required of her.

Jewish contributions to the discussion included the law to “Honor your father and mother.” Depending upon how one interprets that law, it can be considered more strict or less strict than the Muslim “Obey your father and mother.” Jews stress the importance of “honoring” parents, even if the parents are abusive and cannot be “loved.” Many stories in Hebrew scripture extol good mothers (Moses’ mother who risked her life that her son might live (Exodus 2), and the mother in I Kings 3, who chose to give her child to another rather than have him cut in two. Many of the Jewish laws regarding the Sabbath apply only to men, because women are the keepers of the family and must be free to do unexpected chores if needed. Unfortunately, in recent years, Jewish comedians have made their mothers the object of jokes; damaging stereotypes have arisen from this practice.

While the Protestants hold Jesus’ mother in high esteem, they do not have the same special feelings about Mary as do Catholics. In general, the Protestants had less to add about mothers, except the household code in Ephesians 5, which is St. Paul’s list of reciprocal responsibilities for family members. The Protestants pointed out, however, that portions of the household code (“Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord”) have been emphasized while other portions (“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”) have been less emphasized, with the result that women (even wives and mothers) have often been devalued in Christian culture.

The above discussion was particularly pertinent to us women, but given that we added intimate stories about our own mothers and laughed (with a degree of sadness and shame) at the jokes about Jewish mothers, the session would probably have informed/entertained men as well. Our conversation went so long that we had to delete the Business portion of our meeting. And we all agreed that the talk of “Mothers” needed to be expanded to include religious perspectives on women in general. We are also eager to tackle topics such as “Weddings and Funerals,” “Art, Music, and Poetry,” and “Angels and Jinns.”

Early in our time together we decided to call ourselves WIN (Women’s Interfaith Network). As well as describing what we hope to be, the acronym is appropriate because we feel like we are “winners” already, having enjoyed one another these past months. We will probably never completely understand one another’s faith or customs, but we have come to appreciate and trust one another. Perhaps appreciation and trust is even more important than understanding because, while the latter connotes mainly an intellectual connection, the former implies that one sees the reflection of God in the other. For myself, I now even see the others differently in a physical sense: the younger women seem more beautiful, even radiant; and the older women seem both softer and stronger. All have become persons I admire, and I thank God for the blessing of their good and energetic presences in the world.

Before the end of our committed time, several have expressed an interest in continuing and expanding the group. In fact, even before our experiment was half over, several wanted to add friends-an indication of how valuable and enriching we think WIN has been. We have begun work on Mission and Vision Statements and are brain-storming about how best to proceed. As WIN members have offered their ideas, I have begun to see how our special relationship might benefit the community around us. I have also begun to understand in a tangible way that, while I often pray for peace in the larger world, God’s will towards that goal includes small efforts of people like those in WIN, joining to live out peace on a local level.

Truly, both as a group and as individual women, WIN has been God’s special blessing to me.

“Borei Ha’ Olam, Creator of the stars, sun and moon,

“We are mindful of Your world and our responsibilities to it. Bless all who gather here today that we might become leaders of change and visionaries of human rights and freedom. Sustain us with courage and endurance that we may sustain one another. Renew our hopes and heal our wounds.

“Compassionate and merciful God, may the joy and celebration of this occasion remain as a source of inspiration and dedication to pursue higher ideals for many years to come. We seek Your guidance so that we might have the courage to advance the cause of internalizing oneness and thereby spread God’s shelter of peace and dignity for all humankind.

“Let us find unity in the commonality of our searching and in the sameness of our quest for peace and equality for all. Amen.”

A prayer written by Jewish Chaplain Bobbie Osadchey and prayed in unison at the open of each WIN meeting.

God does not forbid you as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your religion, nor drive you away from your homeland, that you should be kind to them, and act towards them with full equity. Surely God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you from taking as confidants and guardians those who make war against you on account of your religion and drive you away from your homeland, or support others to drive you away. Whoever takes them for confidants and guardians, such are the wrongdoers. (Mumtahana 60:8-9)

Non-Muslims who are at peace with Muslims and do not fight them for reasons of faith and do not drive them from their homes, then God has not forbidden Muslims from treating them kindly and justly, for God loves those who are just. The Arabic word qist means justice, that is, to give to each according to his right. As for kindness (al birr), this exceeds justice, for it is the act of doing good (ihsan), meaning that you give somebody their right or more than their right. Kindness (al birr) is to take what is your right and to forgo something that it is your right to take.

Indeed, God chose to use the same word to express the greatest right after the rights of God in Islam, namely the rights of parents: the kindness due to parents (birrul walidain). God Almighty has commanded us to be kind to our parents. Likewise God has not prevented us from being kind to non-Muslims. A part of kindness is to be able to co-exist, and a part of co-existence is to offer greetings to others on their holidays, as they greet you on yours. Hence, this stems from kindness and co-existence, two things which God has not prevented us from doing, especially in the case of Christians with whom we associate. If that person is a neighbor, then there are rights due to neighbors, even if your neighbor wrongs you or is a disbeliever.

Once, in one of the festivals, Abdullah bin Omar said to his servant: “Don’t forget our Jewish neighbor when you slaughter a sheep, or a similar action.” Each time he entered or left the house he would repeat the saying, “Don’t forget our Jewish neighbor.” The servant replied: “Truly you have exceeded in your exhortations concerning this Jew.” To which he replied: “Indeed, I heard the Prophet-may God bless him and grant him peace-say: “The Angel Gabriel kept exhorting me with regard to (the rights of) neighbors until I thought that he would give them the right to inherit.” Thus, it is clear that neighbors have rights over us.

Respond a greeting with a better greeting

A fellow student has rights over you. If you are at school or in university, maybe there is a classmate who sits next to you, or for those students who are studying in European countries or other non-Muslim countries, you study with students, professors, or supervisors from other religious backgrounds; should a Muslim treat such people coldly, with a lack of sensitivity, ignoring the religious holiday of their fellow students, not offering any holiday greeting to the person who is celebrating in the customary manner?

I believe that Islam does not prevent or forbid this courtesy, particularly when others offer us this same courtesy on our holidays. Indeed God Almighty says:

If you are greeted with a greeting, respond with a better greeting or return it (with the same one). (Nisa 4:86)

Once, a Zoroastrian man passed by Ibn ‘Abbas and said to him: “Peace be upon you!” to which he replied with the words: “And upon you be peace and the mercy of God!” Some of his comrades questioned him saying: “You say to him (and the mercy of God?” He replied: “Does he not live through the mercy of God?”

Greeting Christians at Christmas Time

There is no harm in Muslims expressing congratulations to their Christian neighbor, colleague, or relation, especially when we know that Islam elevated the relationship with the People of the Book to the extent that it permitted inter-marriage. This is the peak of tolerance to which no other religion has reached. Christianity does not permit a Christian man to marry other than a Christian woman and Judaism does not permit a Jewish man to marry other than a Jewish woman.

. . . And (lawful to you) are, in wedlock, chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before… (Maida 5:5)

This means that the mother of a Muslim can be a non-Muslim. Supposing a person is Muslim and his mother is Christian, is it permissible for him not to wish his mother happiness on this occasion? This relationship of marriage would imply that the grandfather of the children of such a marriage would be Christian and likewise the children’s grandmother, their maternal aunts and uncles and cousins would all be Christian. In this situation, we find that there are mutual ties of kinship that carry rights, for blood relatives have prior rights over each other in the Book of God, so how then is it not permitted for a Muslim to show kindness to their relations by wishing them a happy and blessed holiday?!

I am aware that Ibn Taimiyya took a hard line concerning these occasions and he stated that a Muslim should not greet non-Muslims on the occasion of their religious holidays on the grounds that this implies acceptance of their religion, beliefs, and rites. However, I do not consider his opinion on this matter to be sound. Just because a Muslim wishes a Christian a happy Christmas or Easter, this does not mean that they are accepting their creed or declaring it to be sound; that is another matter altogether. Greeting someone on a holiday does not necessitate accepting their creed. This is why this form of relating to one another is permitted as long as there are relationships that require such co-existence. This is how such matters should be handled.

Muslims believe in Jesus, peace be upon him, and the Gospel; they also believe in the Torah and all the prophets, just as God Almighty has said:

We make no distinction between any of His Messengers (in believing in them). (Baqara 2:285)

We make no distinction between any of them (in believing), and we are those who have been submitted to Him wholly. (Baqara 2:136)

Indeed, the faith of a Muslim believer is unacceptable unless they believe in all the Books of God and all of His prophets; that is to say, unless they believe in every book He revealed and in every prophet He sent. Thus, Islam considers any person who does not fulfill this tenet to be a disbeliever.

(For there are) those (deserving punishment,) who disbelieve in God (by not recognizing Him at all or as He should be) and His Messengers (by denying Messengership or some of the Messengers), and who seek to make a distinction between God and His Messengers (by claiming belief in God but denying the Messengership or some of the Messengers), and say, “We believe in some and deny others,” seeking to take a way in between. Such are those who are the unbelievers in truth, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a shameful, humiliating punishment. (Nisa 4:150-1)

Therefore, Muslims have to believe in all the prophets, and whoever rejects one of the prophets or messengers has rejected all of prophets. We can see this in chapter Shu‘ara of the Qur’an where it is stated that: “The people of Noah rejected the messengers” “The (people of) ‘Ad rejected the messengers” “The (people of) Thamud rejected the messengers.” Here the plural is used, although in actual fact they only rejected one messenger. However, the rejection of one messenger implies the rejection of all the messengers.

Tolerance has been established with non-Muslims

The difference between people regarding their religions is in accordance with God’s will and His will is connected to His wisdom.

If your Lord had so willed (without granting humanity free will,) He would have made all humankind one single community (with the same faith, worldview, and way of thinking and life). But (based on their free choice,) they never cease following paths divergent from the Straight Way, save those on whom your Lord has special mercy (and guides to the Straight Way because of certain merits they have) This is the line followed by humankind that God has created with special disposition. (Hud 11:118-119)

The verse clearly suggests that God granted humanity a mind and a will that meant that He left them with the freedom to choose the religion they wish. Furthermore, if He had wanted to unite them in one religion He would have made them like the angels who are created for faith and obedience. However, he created them with minds and differing wills and as a result there are different religions. This is all according to the will of God.

The second point with regard to Islamic tolerance and the reason behind this tolerance is that the reckoning for disbelief and error will not be administered in this life. Rather, the appointed time for this is in the Hereafter, just as God has said:

If they argue with you, say only: “God knows well what you are doing, (To me is accounted my deeds, and to you, your deeds. You are quit of all that I do, and I am quit of all that you do.)” (Hajj 22:68)

God is our Lord and your Lord. To us are accounted our deeds, and to you, your deeds. Let there be no contention between you and us: God will bring us all together and settle the matter between you and us. To Him is the homecoming.” (Shura 42:15)

Thus, in the Hereafter God brings to account the misguided for their error and the righteous for their guidance.

The third point is that Islam respects the humanity of each person, disregarding religion. For this reason Bukhari narrated from Jabir that when a funeral procession carrying the bier of the deceased passed by the Prophet-may God bless him and grant him peace-he stood for it (out of respect). They said to him, “O Messenger of God, it is a Jewish funeral,” to which he replied: “Is it not a soul.” This implies that every human soul has sanctity, even if the deceased in question be a non-Muslim. What an admirable gesture and a beautiful explanation!

Islam brought justice for all people, not only for Muslims. God Almighty says:

…never let your detestation for a people move you to commit the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is nearer and more suited to piety.. (Maida 5:8)

A Muslim should deal with all of humanity by understanding these meanings and these principles, treating both those who disagree and those who agree with them cordially. This is why Muslims should continue to maintain a dialogue with the People of the Book. God says:

Do not argue with those who were given the Book save in the best way possible, unless it be those of them who are given to wrongdoing and therefore not accessible to friendly argument. Say to them: “We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and your God and our God is one and the same. We are Muslims wholly submitted to Him. (Ankabut 29:46)

The Qur’an commands us to mention that which unites us and things which we share in common. We should focus on points of agreement and not points of difference. We say: we and you stand on one and the same Earth. We all believe in God, we believe in the Hereafter, we believe in worshipping and serving God, and we believe in moral values.

Non-Muslims living under Muslim protection

Islam taught the practice of tolerance toward the People of the Book in general and toward the people of dhimma (non-Muslims living under Muslim protection) in particular. The “people of dhimma” refers to those who live in Muslim lands. In Islamic jurisprudence such people are called “people of the house of Islam” (ahl al-dar al-Islam), while nowadays we would use the term “citizens”; that is, non-Muslim citizens. They share the same rights and duties as Muslims except those that pertain to religious differences. Just as we have no right to impose our religious duties upon them, we do not tolerate them to confront us in the expression of our religious duties. This is what Islam asks of us. I told some of them, especially Christian Arabs: “You are not Muslim by creed and religion, but you are Muslim in your culture and civilization. Indeed, the Coptic leader, Mukrim ‘Abid in his time as one of the heads of the Coptic Church in Egypt said: “I am a Christian by religion, but a Muslim by country.” What he meant was that he lives in a land belonging to Daril Islam. So, he regards himself as Muslim in his homeland and country. In these terms he is Muslim; that is culturally he is a Muslim. This is what I wish Muslims to know concerning a matter that has been the cause of much confusion, causing some to take up a position on the extreme right and others on the extreme left. But goodness, all goodness is in the middle way.

We have made you a community of the middle-way, so that you may be witnesses (to the truth) for the people and on behalf of them concerning the ways they follow, and that the (most noble) Messenger may be a witness for you and on your behalf. (Baqara 2:143)

The Jewish residents have always felt at home in Istanbul, never ceasing to express their thanks to Turkey for their salvation by the Ottoman fleet from massacre in Spain in 1492, and their subsequent welcome in Istanbul. Christians, likewise, never felt as if they were in a foreign land; they had their own churches, schools, and enjoyed civil rights, things that were not granted in other cities of the world. Istanbul has always been an exceptional place, a model city of peace, portraying exemplary behavior throughout the past for the generations which would help to build the world in the future.

So much evil in the past year has forced us to concentrate more on the fundamentals in this issue…. to examine the fundamental reasons for evil thoughts and actions, for theories and movements which lead people off the track. We cast a quick overall look at Islam, which the mass media, now more than at any other time, has wrongfully and intentionally juxtaposed with ‘terror’. This is going on, despite the fundamental truth that ‘a Muslim is a person from whom other people are secure and by whom they will not be disturbed or harmed by his or her actions and words.’ In the same vein, we can in no way blame God for creating evil. He gave us free will to discern right from wrong. If there is no evil, then there are no morally right choices; in order for humans to have free will, there must be a ‘wrong choice’, there must be evil for there to be good.

This brings us round to the discussion of Satanism…

June 22, 1998 was an ordinary day … but not for all. Asli and Alp, two high school friends met up in a prosperous district of the city where they lived. The note they left behind before jumping off the 14th floor and hitting the ground said ‘this world makes no sense for us.’

Asli and Alp were members of a Satanist group. Satanism is the name for the so-called worship of Satan and it presents a grim example of movements that have emerged as a result of the weakened moral codes of society. No conscientious person can remain indifferent to the fact that young people are being misled by such movements. Unfortunately, Satanism is a warning that compels us to think about the mistakes we have made in bringing up the younger generation. If we fail to take early precautions, it may be too late for many young people. The article, ‘Satanism and Our Youth’s Quest for Identity’ seeks to thoroughly analyze the matter, offering definitions and a background, and concludes by offering some useful solutions.

Unfortunately, 2003 has been a year that has seen much sadness, but also a little hope for the future. Our wishes for the coming year is that our hearts will replenish faith for the world, leading to a world of balance, one that is filled with empathy, and one where remembrance of God is the guide.

International Women’s Day is March 8th. In recognition of this event, we present the following article on women’s rights according to the Abrahamic traditions.

Since modern Western thought and paradigms are based on the Western cultural heritage, what is meant by religion has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. Western thinkers, Orientalists, and “Westernized” intellectuals in the Muslim world, all out of their ignorance of Islam, have tended to criticize Islam from the perspective of criticisms directed toward the Judeo-Christian tradition. What follows is of great importance, especially in correcting and clarifying this important matter from the viewpoint of women’s status in Islam.

Introduction

Do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions? Do Judaism and Christianity really offer women better treatment than Islam? What is the truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one’s utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say the truth, even if those who are very close to them do not like it: Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned (6:152) and: O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor (4:135).

Throughout this research, I have striven to approach the Qur’anic ideal of speaking justly. I would like to emphasize that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the Divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great Prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to humanity.

Eve’s fault?

The Judeo-Christian conception of Adam and Eve’s creation is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. However, the serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, Adam put all the blame on Eve: The woman you put here with me_she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it. Consequently, God said to Eve: I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing. With pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. He told Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree …. Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

The Qur’an relates the creation account in several places. The Qur’an, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve (7:19:23) and nowhere gives even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or that she ate before he did. In other words, Eve is not a temptress, a seducer, or a deceiver. Moreover, she is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Qur’an, punishes no one for another’s faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked for and received God’s forgiveness.

Eve’s legacy

The Biblical image of Eve as a temptress has had an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate the extent of the negative impact that this has had on all of Eve’s female descendants, we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians writers.

Let’s start with the Old Testament. Looking at excerpts from what is called the “Wisdom Literature,” we find: I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare…. while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). In another part of the Jewish literature found in the Catholic Bible, we read: No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman….. Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die (Ecclesiasticus 25:19, 24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses placed upon women because of the Fall: “To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”1 Until today, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite: “Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.” Women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for “making me according to Thy will.”(2)

The Biblical Eve has played a far larger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith, because the Christian conception of the reason for Jesus Christ’s mission on Earth stems from Eve’s disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her in sin. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which then became cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all of their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their “original sin,” God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband’s sin, the sin into which all people are born (Original Sin), and the Son of God’s death. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity.(3)

St. Tertullian was even blunter than St. Paul. While talking to his “best beloved sisters” in the faith, he said: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”(4)

St. Augustine (d. 430) was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors when he wrote to a friend: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…. I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) still considered women defective: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” The renowned reformer Martin Luther (d. d. 1546) saw no benefit in women other than giving birth to as many children as possible regardless of any side effects: “If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

When we turn our attention to the Qur’an, we soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judeo-Christian one. For instance: For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise_for them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward (33:35); The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise (9:71); And their Lord answered them: “Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another” (3:195); Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed_whether man or woman_and is a believer. Such will enter the Garden of bliss (40:40); and: Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions (16:97).

It is clear that the Qur’an views the women in the same way as it does men: Both genders are God’s creatures whose sublime goal on Earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds and avoid evil, and then be judged accordingly. The Qur’an never mentions that woman is the devil’s gateway or a deceiver by nature, or that man is God’s image, for it proclaims that all men and all women are His creatures. According to the Qur’an, a woman’s role is not limited only to childbirth, for she is required to do as many good deeds as a man is required to do. The Qur’an even gives examples of ideal and upright women of the past, such as the Virgin Mary and Pharaoh’s wife, and instructs all believers, women as well as men, to follow their example: God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, Pharaoh’s wife. Behold, she said: “O my Lord, build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden. Save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her body of Our spirit, and she testified to the truth of her Lord’s words and Revelations and was one of the devout (66:11-13).

Shameful daughters

The Bible states: The period of the mother’s ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly: The birth of a daughter is a loss (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). In contrast, boys receive special praise: A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy (Ecclesiasticus 30:3).

Rabbis made it an obligation upon all Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children: “It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female,” “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful … at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful,” and: “When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world… When a girl comes, nothing comes.”5A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father: Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame (Ecclesiasticus 42:11), and: Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

This same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame led pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Qur’an condemned this heinous practice: When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! What an evil they decide on? (16:58-59). This sinister crime would never have ended in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Qur’an used to condemn it (16:59, 43:17, and 81:8-9). Moreover, the Qur’an makes no distinction between boys and girls, for it considers the birth of a girl, as well as the birth of a boy, to be a gift and a blessing from God. It even mentions the gift of a daughter’s birth first: To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and Earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills, and bestows male children to whomever He wills (42:49).

In order to wipe out all traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters a great reward if they would bring them up kindly: “He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and directs benevolent treatment toward them, they will be a protection for him against Hell-Fire” (Bukhari and Muslim), and: “Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers” (Muslim).

Female education

The difference between the Biblical and the Qur’anic conceptions of women extends far beyond the newly born female. Let’s compare their attitudes toward a woman trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah (the law). However, according to the Talmud, “women are exempt from the study of the Torah.” Some rabbis firmly declared: “Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women” and: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity”(6)

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is as follows: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

One short story narrated in the Qur’an concisely sums up Islam’s view: Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband, Aws, exclaimed in a moment of anger: “You are to me as the back of my mother.” Pagan Arabs considered this to be a statement of divorce that freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not allow the wife to leave the husband’s home or marry another man. Hearing these words, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet to plead her case. The Prophet thought that she should be patient, since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with him in the hope of saving her suspended marriage. Shortly thereafter, Revelation descended and her plea was accepted. The Divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. Surat al-Mujadilah (The Women Who Argues), the Qur’an’s fifty-eighth chapter, was named after this incident: God has heard the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to God. He hears the arguments between both of you, for He hears and sees all things (58:1).

A woman in the Qur’anic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet. No one has the right to tell her to be silent, and she is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

Unclean and impure women

The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman to be unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity “infects” others, for anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening (Leviticus 15:19-23).

Due to her contaminating nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes banished so that there would be no possibility of having any contact with her. She was sent to a special house, the house of uncleanness, until her period ended.7 Furthermore, the husband of a menstruating woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her, even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite a priestly blessing in the synagogue.(8)

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any contagious uncleanness. She lives her normal life with only one restriction: The couple cannot have sexual relations during her menstrual period. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman also is exempted from some rituals, such as the daily prayers and fasting.

Bearing witness

The Qur’an and the Bible also disagree on the issue of women bearing witness. The Qur’an instructs those believers who are engaged in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses (2:282). However, in other situations the Qur’an accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact, sometimes a woman’s testimony can invalidate that of a man. For example, if a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he must solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty. In either case, however, the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

In early Jewish society, women were not allowed to bear witness at all,(9) for the rabbis considered this to be one of the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the section on “Eve’s legacy”).(10) In modern Israel, women are not allowed to give evidence in rabbinical courts.(11) The rabbis justify this by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Abraham’s wife Sara lied. According to the rabbis, this incident is evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. The Qur’an also narrates this account, but without any hint of Sara lying (11:69-74 and 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until the late nineteenth century.(12)

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, the Bible says that her testimony cannot be considered at all. Rather, the accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, she faces a complex and humiliating ritual that was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Numbers 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she is sentenced to death. If she is found innocent, her husband is considered innocent of any wrongdoing.

If a man marries a woman and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents have to prove her virginity to the town elders. If they cannot prove their daughter’s innocence, she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep. If the parents cannot prove her innocence, the husband is to be fined only 100 silver shekels and cannot divorce her as long as he lives (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Vows

According to the Bible, a man must fulfill any vow he makes to God and must not break his word. However, a woman’s vow is not necessarily binding, for it has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If the father or husband do not endorse his daughter’s or wife’s vows, all of her pledges become null and void: But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand…. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself (Numbers 30:2-15).

A woman’s word is not binding per se because she is owned by her father before marriage and by her husband after marriage. Her father’s control over her was so absolute that he could, if he wished, sell her. Rabbinic literature indicates that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” (13) This literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of the father’s control to the husband: “Betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession_the inviolable property_of the husband…” Obviously, if women are considered somebody else’s property, they cannot make any pledges of which her owner does not approve.

History shows that this Biblical instruction concerning women’s vows had negative repercussions on Judeo-Christian women until the early twentieth century. A wife in the Western world had no legal status, none of her acts had any legal value, and her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal that she had made. Women in the West, the largest heir of the Judeo-Christian legacy, were considered unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. (14)

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding upon him or her, and no one can repudiate another person’s pledge. If a man or a woman fail to keep their solemn oath, each of them has to make the proper expiation, as outlined in the Qur’an: He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths. For expiation, feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families, or clothe them, or free a slave. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths (5:89).

Male and female Companions of the Prophet would come to him independently and present their oath of allegiance to him personally. O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful (60:12). No man could swear the oath on his wife’s or daughter’s behalf, and no man could repudiate an oath made by any of his female relatives.

A wife’s property

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. Nevertheless, clear differences do exist with respect to the limits of male leadership. The Judeo-Christian tradition virtually extends the husband’s leadership into ownership of his wife. The Talmud describes a wife’s financial situation as follows: How can a woman have anything? Whatever is hers belongs to her husband. What is his is his and what is hers is also his…. Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband… (San. 71a, Git. 62a).

In a Jewish family, the daughter’s property was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as her dowry when she got married. This practice made a daughter an unwelcome burden to her father, for he had to raise her for years and then provide a large dowry so that she could get married. Thus, a Jewish girl was a liability instead of an asset. (15)

The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband acted as its practical owner, but could not sell it. The bride lost all control it at the moment of her marriage. While the groom had to give her a marriage gift as well, he was its practical owner as long as they were married. (16) Moreover, she was expected to work and give all of her earnings to her husband in return for his maintenance of her, which was his duty. She could regain her property only in the cases of divorce or her husband’s death. If she died first, he inherited her property. If he died first, she could regain her premarital property but could not inherit any of her deceased husband’s property.

Until recently, Christianity has followed the same tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the post-Constantine (d. 337) Christian Roman Empire required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Under canon and civil law, a married woman in Christian Europe and America lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under British law were compiled and published in 1632. These “rights” included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” (17) In addition to losing her property upon her marriage, the wife also lost her legal personality as well. None of her acts had any legal value, for her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her. The person with whom she had made a contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue, be sued in her own name, or sue her husband.(18) A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. She simply belonged to her husband and therefore lost her property, legal personality, and family name.(19)

From the beginning of its revelation, Islam granted married women the independent personality denied to them in the Judeo-Christian West until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation to present a gift to the groom, and so a Muslim daughter is not considered a liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts to attract a potential husband; rather, the groom must present a marriage gift to the bride. This gift is considered her property, for the groom or her family have no share in or control over it, and she retains it even if she is later divorced. The husband has no share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.(20)     

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage based upon the attribution of Jesus’ words: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is unrealistic, for it assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their marriage is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will do them no good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her: If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of displeasing, indecency, and dislikes. The Talmud records their different opinions: The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel says he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba (21) says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she (Gittin 90a-b).

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives that obliged their husbands to divorce them: If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband (Git. 89a). The Talmud also has made it mandatory to divorce a wife who has born no children after 10 years: Our rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her (Yeb. 64a).

A Jewish wife cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law, but she can claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Such reasons include a husband who has a physical defect or a skin disease, or who cannot fulfill his conjugal responsibilities. The court might support her request for a divorce, but only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The court can scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver this bill of divorce, but he can refuse to do so and keep her tied to him indefinitely.

Even worse, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and thus leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can remarry or live with a single woman out of wedlock, and Jewish law will recognize the children as legitimate. On the other hand, the deserted wife cannot remarry because she is still legally married and will be considered an adulteress if she does so. If she has any children from another man, her children will be considered illegitimate for 10 generations. Such a woman is an agunah (chained woman).(22) In the United States today, there are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Jewish women in this condition. In Israel, number might be as high as 16,000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.(23)

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism, for it views marriage as a sanctified bond that can be broken only for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies to save their marriages, for divorce is the last resort. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce but discourages it by all means. Let’s focus on the recognition side first. Islam recognizes the right of both partners to end their marriage. Islam gives the husband the right to divorce (talaq) and, unlike Judaism, allows the wife to dissolve the marriage through khula’.(24) If the husband dissolves the marriage, the Qur’an explicitly prohibits his from taking back their marriage gifts, regardless of their value: But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back. Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong (4:20).

If the wife ends the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband, for in this case doing so would be a fair compensation for a husband who wants to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an instructs men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives, unless she chooses to end the marriage: It is not lawful for you (men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God, so do not transgress them (2:229).

Once, a woman came to the Prophet and asked him to dissolve her marriage. She told him that she had no complaints against her husband’s character or manners, but that she honestly disliked him so much that she could no longer live with him. Prophet asked her: “Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?” She said: “Yes.” The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the marriage’s dissolution (Bukhari). In some cases, a wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to get a divorce for such compelling reasons as her husband’s cruelty or inability to fulfill his conjugal duties, desertion without a reason, and so on. In these cases, the court dissolves the marriage.(25) In short, Islam offers women some unequalled rights: the rights to end the marriage and to sue for divorce. Thus, a recalcitrant husband can never chain his wife to him.

Let’s now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet told the believers that: “Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (Abu Dawud). A man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike: Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good (4:19). Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction: “A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits, he will be pleased with another” (Muslim). He also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives: “The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives” (Tirmidhi).(26)

However Islam, being a practical religion, recognizes that there are circumstances in which a marriage is on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, advice to be kind or self-restrained is no longer viable. Given this, then, how can such marriages be saved? The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer.

If the wife’s bad conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives the husband four types of advice: As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them (lightly without slapping their faces). But if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance, for God is Most High, Great. If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation (4:34-35).

The first three are to be tried first. If they fail in this effort, the help of the families concerned should be sought. In the case of beating the rebellious wife, we should recognize the fact that this is no more than a temporary measure that is to be resorted to only as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wife’s wrongdoing. If this measure is successful, the husband must not continue to annoy his wife. If this measure fails, the husband must resort to the final measure: family-assisted reconciliation.

Prophet Muhammad instructed husbands to use these measures only in extreme cases, such as a wife’s open lewdness. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and, if his wife desists, he must not irritate her: “In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance” (Tirmidhi).     Furthermore, the Prophet condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, he stated that: “Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you” (Abu Dawud) and: “The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family” (Tirmidhi). He even advised Fatimah bint Qais not to marry a known wife-beater: “I went to the Prophet and said: ‘Abul Jahm and Mu’awiyah have proposed to marry me.’ The Prophet (by way of advice) said: ‘Mu’awiyah is very poor, and Abul Jahm beats women” (Muslim).

The Talmud sanctions wife-beating as a method of discipline.(27) A husband can beat his wife even for reasons that are not considered extreme, such as is she refuses to do the housework. In addition, his punishment does not have to be light, for he can whip or starve her if he so wishes.(28)

In the case of a wife who is seeking divorce, the Qur’an offers the following advice: If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best (4:128). In this case, she is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). The Qur’an does not advise her to deny sex to her husband or to beat him. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband, for such a reaction would only harm the wife and damage the marriage even further. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures on the wife’s behalf. In other words, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife’s bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating.(29)

To sum up, Islam offers married couples much viable advice to save their marriages during times of trouble and tension. If one partner jeopardizes the marriage, the Qur’an advises the other partner to do whatever possible to save this sacred bond. If all measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

Mothers

The Old Testament commands the kind and considerate treatment of parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and: A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, such as in: A wise man heeds his father’s instruction (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation for her great suffering during childbearing and suckling, and they inherit nothing from their children. (30)

Some New Testament verses can easily be misinterpreted if read literally with respect to the mother’s status (Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31-35). Jesus was trying to teach his audience the following important lesson: Religious ties are just as important of family ties, and real virtue lies with belief in and servanthood to God.

Islam gives motherhood unparalleled honor, respect, and esteem. The Qur’an places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty: Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, do not say to them a word of contempt or repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord, bestow on them Your Mercy, for they cherished me in childhood (17:23-24).

The Qur’an also puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing: We have enjoined upon man to be good to his parents. In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents (31:14). The Prophet eloquently described the very special place of mothers: “A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few Islamic precepts that Muslims still faithfully observe is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children, and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers, usually amaze Westerners.(31)

Female inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Qur’an and the Bible is their attitude toward female inheritance of a deceased relative’s property. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” (32)

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir_even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother cannot inherit anything, while the father can. Widows and daughters, in the case of surviving male children, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. Christianity followed suit for a long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in their father’s patrimony. Moreover, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived until the late nineteenth century.(33)

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur’an abolished all of these unjust customs and gave all female relatives specific inheritance shares: From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large_a determinate share (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters received inheritance rights 1,300 years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. Inheritance is a vast subject (4:7, 11-12, 176). The general rule is that the woman’s share is half the man’s, except in cases where the mother receives a share equal to that of the father. If taken in isolation from other related legislation, this general rule may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must consider that in Islam the financial obligations of men far exceed those of women (see the “Wife’s property” section). For example, a groom must provide his bride with a marriage gift, which remains her exclusive property even if she is later divorced. The bride does not have to present any such marriage gift.

Moreover, the husband must maintain his wife and children. The wife is under no obligation to help him do so. Her property and earnings belong to her only, except for what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam strongly advocates family life. It strongly encourages young people to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue (exceptional cases always exist). In a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and living a single life is a rare exception. Thus almost all marriage-aged Muslim women and men are married. In light of these facts, one must appreciate that men generally have greater financial burdens than women and that the Qur’an’s inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance. As a consequence, the society is not burdened with gender or class warfare. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of women, one British Muslim woman concluded that Islam treats women not only fairly but generously.(34)

The plight of widows

Given that the Old Testament recognizes no inheritance rights for widows, these women were among the most vulnerable members of their societies. The male relatives, who inherited all of a woman’s deceased husband’s estate, were to use that estate to take care of the widow. However, widows had no way to ensure this provision was carried out, and so lived on the mercy of others. They were among the lowest classes in some ancient societies, and widowhood was considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4). But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her deceased husband’s brother, even if he is already married, to produce offspring for him so that his name will not die out: Then Judah said to Onan: “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8).

The widow’s consent is not required, for she is treated as part of her deceased husband’s property and her main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This Biblical law is still practiced in some places today.(35) For example, a childless widow is bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and then can marry any man of her choice.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. A widow was considered a part of her husband’s property to be inherited by his male heirs. In addition, usually she was given in marriage to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Qur’an scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom: Do not marry women whom your fathers married, except for what is passed, for it was shameful, odious, and abominable custom (4:22).

Widows and divorced women were so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute: The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people (Leviticus 21:13-15).

According to the Qur’an, however, widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. Also, the Qur’an attaches no stigma to divorce or widowhood: When you divorce women and they fulfill their terms [three menstruation periods], either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms. Do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage. If anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat God’s signs as a jest” (2:231); If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner (2:234); and: Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves (2:240).    

Polygamy

Polygamy, a very ancient practice, is found in many human societies. The Bible does not condemn it; rather, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to its legality. King Solomon and King David are said to have had many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3 and 2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does contain some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is that a man cannot take a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.36 European Jews continued to practice it until the sixteenth century, while Oriental Jews regularly practiced it until they arrived in Israel, where it is forbidden under civil law. However, it is permissible under religious law, which overrides civil law in such cases.(37)

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful Polygamy Reconsidered:<em> “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” (38) Moreover, Jesus did not speak against polygamy although it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife, while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine: “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” (39)

The Qur’an also allows polygamy, but with certain restrictions: If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four. But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one (4:3).

The Qur’an limits the number of wives to four under the strict condition that each wife be treated equally and justly. Thus it is not exhorting the believers to practice polygamy or representing it as an ideal, but only tolerates or allows it. For example, there might be times and places during which compelling social and moral reasons make polygamy more acceptable. As the above verse indicates, this issue cannot be understood apart from the Muslim community’s obligations toward orphans and widows. Islam, which is a universal religion suitable for all places and all times, cannot ignore such compelling obligations.

In most human societies, women outnumber men. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men. In Guinea, there are 122 women for every 100 men. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 men for every 100 women. (40) What can a society with such unbalanced sex ratios do? There are various solutions: celibacy, female infanticide (which still happens in some societies), or to tolerance of sexual permissiveness (e.g., prostitution, extramarital sex, and homosexuality).

For other societies, like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamy as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. People in the West often do not understand that women in other cultures do not necessarily consider polygamy to be a sign of women’s degradation. For example, many young African brides, whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has proven himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. (41) A survey of over 6,000 women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in Nigeria’s second largest city showed that 60% of them would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23% expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. In a survey conducted in Kenya, 76% of the women viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy and that it could be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other. (42)

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. An Anglican bishop in Kenya declared that: “Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.” (43) After a careful study of African polygamy, the Anglican Reverend David Gitari concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned. (44) I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, have no objection to polygamy.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic during times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. After the Second World War, there were 7.3 milliion more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group. (45) Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household during a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces in return for cigarettes, chocolate, and bread, and children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought.(46) Today in places where ethnic cleansing has been conducted, like in Bosnia, there is 1 man for every 10 women; in Kosovo, there is 1 man for every 5 women. We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native American Indians’ approach, or a virtual prostitute due to her and her children’s starvation?

Interestingly, participants in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 discussed the problem of Germany’s highly unbalanced sex ratio. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The gathering’s initial reaction was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations. (47)

Today, the world possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact: “It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival…. Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favor of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.”(48)

Even in our own time, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of modern society’s social ills. The communal obligations that the Qur’an mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, in the United States today there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every 20 young black males may die before reaching their twenty-first birthday. For those between 20 and 35, homicide is the leading cause of death. (49) In addition, many young black men are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. (50) As a result, 25% of black 40-year-old women have never married. (51) Moreover, many young black women become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers.

The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in “man-sharing,” (52) which means that they are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are “sharing” their husbands. Some obser-vers of this crisis in the black community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black men until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. (53) The problem of man-sharing in the black community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993.(54) Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as a potential remedy. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses.

In his Plural Marriage for Our Time, Philip Kilbride, a Catholic American anthropologist, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. (55)                                                           

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked students whether they agreed that the law should allow men to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of marriageable men in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. (56) In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon (57) women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children, since the wives help each other care for the children. (58)

In Islam, polygamy is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Moreover, a wife has the right to stipulate that her husband cannot take a second wife.(59) On the other hand, the Bible sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. For example, a childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married (see the “Plight of widows” section) regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist, has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.” (60)

Many Muslim and non-Muslim countries have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the first wife’s free consent, is a violation of the law. But cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? This is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern “civilized” world.

The veil

Finally, let’s shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude: the veil or the head-covering. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer, a professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University and author of The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering that sometimes left only one eye free. (61) He quotes some famous ancient rabbis who said that: “It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen … a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.”

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered to be nudity.(62) He also mentions that: “During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that a Jewish woman’s veil was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, it symbolized a state of distinction and luxury, for it personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. (63)

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of the lower classes would often wear it to give the impression of a higher standing. Given that the veil was the sign of nobility, prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, they often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.(64) Jewish women in Europe continued to wear cover their hair until the nineteenth century, when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of nineteenth-century European life forced many of them to go out bareheaded. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional head-covering with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women only cover their hair in the synagogue.(65) Some of them, such as the Hasidic (66) sects, still use the wig.(67)

What about the Christian tradition? Catholic nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years. But there is even more, as we learn from St. Paul’s very interesting statements about the veil: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil is a sign of the authority of man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman, who was created from and for man. In his famous treatise “On the Veiling of Virgins,” St. Tertullian wrote: “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the canon laws of the Catholic Church today is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. (68) Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites, still retain a head-covering for their women today. (69)

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent, but rather endorses, the head-covering. The Qur’an urges believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty, and urges believing women to cover the neck and bosom: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (24:30-31).

The Qur’an is quite clear that such covering is essential for modesty, and that modesty is important: O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested (33:59). This is the whole point: Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, its only purpose in Islam is to offer protection. Unlike its status in other traditions, such covering is not a sign of man’s authority over woman, of woman’s subjection to man, or of luxury and the distinction of some noble married women. It is no more than a sign of modesty designed to protect women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry.

In fact, the Qur’an is so concerned with protecting a woman body and reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: And those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after, for such men are wicked transgressors (24:4).

Some people, especially in the West, tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilized behavior, and self-restraint. We say “Fine, but that is not enough.” If civilization is enough protection, then why do women in North America dare not walk down a dark street alone or even across an empty parking lot? If education is the solution, then why does a respected Canadian university like Queen’s have a walk-home service mainly for female students on campus? If self-restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of men recently accused of sexual harassment includes naval officers, managers, university professors, Supreme Court justices, and even the top officers.

I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University: “In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes; 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives; 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime; and 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university; and a study found that 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’t get caught.”

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society in which we live. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed_ modesty in the dress, speech, and manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price.

Footnotes

1. Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), 115.
2. Thena Kendath, “Memories of an Orthodox Youth,” in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist (New York: Schocken Books, 1983), 96-97.
3. Rosemary R. Ruether, “Christianity,” in Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions (Albany: SUNY Press, 1987), 209.
4. For all the sayings of the prominent saints, see Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (London: Elm Tree Books, 1986) 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973), 28-30.
5. Bukhari, “Talaq,” 25, “Adab,” 24; Muslim, “Zuhd,” 42.
6. Denise L. Carmody, “Judaism,” in Sharma, Women in World Religions, 197.
7. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 140.
8. Ibid., 138.
9. Ibid., 115.
10. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Pres, 1973), 149.
11. Lesley Hazleton, Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), 41.
12. Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1893), 142.
13. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 141.
14. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 141.
15. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 164-65.
16. Ibid., 112-13. See also Sally Priesand, Judaism and the New Woman,(New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1975),p.15.
17. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1974), 162.
18. Mary Murray, The Law of the Father (London: Routledge, 1995), 67.
19. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 143.
20. El-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 11th ed. (Cairo: Darul Fatah li al-&amp;#8216;Alam al-&amp;#8216;Arabi, 1994), 2:218-29.
21. Akiba ben Joseph: (50?-132) a Jewish scholar of religion who had a significant influence on Judaism. (Ed.)
22. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 162-63.
23. The Toronto Star, 8 Apr. 1995.
24. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 2:318-29. See also Muhammad al-Ghazali, Qadayah al-Mar’ah bayn al Taqalid al-Rakidah wa al-Wafidah, 4th ed. (Cairo: Dar al Shuruq, 1992), 178-80.
25. Ibid., 313-18.
26. Tirmidhi, “Rada,” 11; Abu Dawud, “Sunnah,” 15; Darimi, “al-Riqaq,” 74.
27. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 219.
28. Ibid., 156-57.
29. Muhammad Abu Zahra, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami (Cairo: al-Majlis al-A&amp;#8216;la li Ri&amp;#8216;ayat al-Funun, 1963), 66.
30. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 122.
31. Armstrong, The Gospel, 8.
32. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 175.
33. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 142.
34. B. Aisha Lemu and Fatima Heeren, Woman in Islam ( London: Islamic Foundation, 1978 ), 23.
35. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 45-46.
36. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 144-48.
37. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 44-45.
38. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York: Orbis Books, 1975), 140.
39. Ibid., 17.
40. Ibid., 88-93.
41. Ibid., 92-97.
42. Philip L. Kilbride, Plural Marriage for Our Times (Westport, CT: Bergin &amp; Garvey, 1994), 108-9.
43. The Weekly Review, 1 Aug. 1987.
44. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 126.
45. Ute Frevert, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg Publishers, 1988), 263-64.
46. Ibid., 257-58.
47. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 191.
48. Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, 12.
49. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, eds., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989), 25.
50. Ibid., 26.
51. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 94.
52. Ibid., 95.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 95-99.
55. Ibid., 118.
56. Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 172.
57. A member of the religious movement founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith ((1805-1844) in New York. (Ed.)
58. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 72-73.
59. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 187-88.
60. Abdul Rahman Doi, Woman in Shari&amp;#8216;ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994), 76.
61. Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986), 239.
62. Ibid., 316-17. Also see Swidler, Women in Judaism, 121-23.
63. Ibid., 139.
64. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1984), 237.
65. Ibid., 238-39.
66. A mystical Jewish movement that first emerged in Poland and neighboring countries in 18th century, based upon prayer, love, and joy. (Ed.)
67. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism,” in Holm and Bowker, ed., op. cit., 128-29.
68. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes,” in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 272.
69. A group of Christians from The Netherlands and northwestern Germany who were organized in 1540 around an approach to baptism that differed from the mainstream Protestants. They migrated to America in 1540, and are very tolerant toward other religious groups and faiths. (Ed.)

All these brutalities may make us think that the strong and powerful always try to dominate and treat unjustly the less powerful. The fact is, however, that some societies have displayed great mercy and tolerance to the people under their rule regardless of their belief and race. This article tries to give some information about the tolerance of the Ottomans toward minorities, especially the Jews who were mistreated under the Byzantine dominion. They experienced expulsion from Spain after which they were accepted in the Ottoman lands and lived in peace and comfort.

Let us first look at the lives of the Jews during the Byzantines.

Jews of Byzantium

Jews were well-treated in Byzantium. The people of Byzantium did not like the Jews for religious reasons. They regarded them as damned by God since they denied the words of God and allegedly killed Jesus. They thus subjected the Jews to restriction and persecution:

Byzantine Jews were nominally free to follow their own faith, but the Byzantine Emperors excluded Jews from rights of full citizenship and restricted the locations of their settlement and synagogues as well as their rights to engage in trade and professions (Shaw, 1991, p.18).

After Christianity was declared to be the religion of the state by Theodosius 11(408 – 450), conditions for the Jews in Byzantine Empire became worse. Theodosius excluded the Jews from most of the privileges of citizenship while imposing all sorts of burdens on them. He prohibited them from building new synagogues. Soon afterwards, during the reign of Emperor Maurice, all synagogues were changed into churches and Jews were ordered to be forcibly converted to Christianity.

The situation became even worse for the Jews as the Byzantine Empire declined. In order to restore religious unity within the collapsing empire, rulers increased the pressure upon the Jews by reissuing the old legal restrictions and condemning anyone who happened to favour Jews by allowing them to live and work beside Christians (ibid., pp.2l-3).

Jews of the Ottoman State

The collapse of Byzantium was a fortunate event for the Jews under its dominion. Even before the Ottoman State was born, as Seljuk Turks established their state around central Anatolia in the twelfth century, Byzantine Jewry sprang rapidly to their assistance welcoming the tolerance and prosperity which the rule of Islam offered them. Thousands of Jews fled from Byzantine persecution to Seljuk protection. In the following century, Ottoman Turks established their principality in north-western Anatolia. Within two centuries Ottomans had taken over most of western Anatolia and gained control of Syria, Iraq and Egypt in the East. In the West they expanded through South-eastern Europe all the way to Vienna. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent extended the Ottoman rule across North Africa almost to the Atlantic and controlled much of Caucasia.

This Ottoman expansion marked a very substantial change for the Jews of the Middle East and Europe. In complete contrast to their situation under the Byzantines, Jews entering the Ottoman dominions were allowed to practice whatever profession they wished, to engage in trade and commerce without restriction and to possess landed property and buildings in town and country (ibid., p.26). After Sultan Mehmed II conquered Istanbul in 1453, he allowed Jews to settle in Istanbul and carry out their commerce. From the start, Sultan Mehmed II encouraged the emigration of Jews from Europe even more than the Jews already living in the expanding Ottoman Empire itself. Just as the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, and even Poland and Lithuania were being subjected to increasing persecution, blood libels, massacres, and deportations, the Turkish rulers of the expanding Ottoman state actively encouraged them to come and live under conditions of tolerance and freedom. Mehmed II himself is said to have issued a proclamation to all Jews:

“Who among you of all my people that is with me, may his God he with him, let him ascend to Istanbul, the site of my imperial throne. Let him dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his vine and beneath his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle. Let him dwell in the land, trade in it, and take possession of it.’’

As a result of these efforts, during the three decades following the Ottoman conquest, according to a Turkish register, Istanbul’s population increased to 16,326 households including 1,647 Jewish households. By the mid-l6th century, according to a similar census in 1535, 8,070 Jewish households were listed in the capital city. The city’s Jews numbered some 40,000 – a tenth of the population. Salonica, which had no Jewish population represented in the census of 1478, had 2,645 Jewish households by 1535. (Kedourie, 1992, p.165).

Similar increases were to be found in many Ottoman centres in the Balkans and Asia Minor because the Turks trusted them. They preceded the Greeks and Armenians as bankers, physicians and interpreters, and eventually gathered most of the empire’s trade into their hands (Thubron, 1978, p.189).

The following quotes provide clear evidence that Jews of that time were happy with the Ottoman Empire as well. Rabbi Isaac Tzarfati invited the Jews who were suffering in Germany to the Turkish state:

“…Listen my brethren, to the counsel I will give you. I, too, was born in Germany and studied Torah with the German rabbis. I was driven out of my native country and came into the Turkish land, which is blessed by God and filled with all good things. Here I found rest and happiness. Turkey can also become for you the land of peace. ..If you who live in Germany knew even a tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would not consider any difficulties, you would set out to come to us…Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap, and everyone of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame, as is the case in Germany…Arise my brethren, give up your lands, collect your forces, and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies, here you will find rest…(Shaw, 1991, p.32).”

The most significant example of tolerance Ottomans displayed for the minorities, especially the Jews, is that they opened their land to those who were expelled from Portugal and Spain.

Jews found refuge in Ottoman lands

During the 15th century in Europe, slavery, race discrimination, religious intolerance and the cruelties and atrocities of the inquisition resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Christians were becoming more powerful and grew confident in the wake of victories over Muslims. The defeat of the Muslims in Spain made things difficult for the Jews who had been living in peace under the rule of Andalusian Muslims. They now faced restrictions and difficulties. As Christian rule solidified, there was less need for Jews, and since they were accused of the death of Jesus, Spanish Jews were subjected to the same persecutions by Christians as had taken place elsewhere in Western Europe. These persecutions and restrictions culminated in a decree of expulsion. After Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain had accepted the capitulation of the city of Granada, they decreed the expulsion of the Jewish population from their united realms.

Since the Jews in Western Europe were already under pressure, the neighboring states of Spain did not seem to be happy about large-scale immigration of Jews. Sultan Bayezid, the ruler of the Ottomans at that time, heard of the evil nature of the king of Spain and the inflictions on the Jews who were seeking refuge and a resting place. He took pity on them, wrote letters and proclaimed that the Jews were to be given a gracious welcome. Despite considerable religious conservatism of his own, Bayezid went on to decree that all Jews fleeing from Spain should be admitted to his dominions without restriction, and with the same inducements that had been offered during the reign of his predecessor. Ottoman officers were ordered to do everything they could to facilitate the entry of Iberian Jews into Ottoman territory, and strict punishments were provided against all those who mistreated the immigrants or caused them any sort of damage (ibid., p.33).

It is estimated that 250,000 Jews came from the Iberian peninsula to the Ottoman realms and settled in all parts of the Sultans territory including modern Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Egypt, and in Anatolia at Bursa, Gallipoli, Manisa, Izmir (Smyrna), Tokat and Amasya. But most commonly they settled in places that became the centres of Jewish life in the Ottoman State in the capital, Istanbul, in Eastern Thrace at Edirne (Adrenapolis), along the shores of the Aegean at Salonica. This made the Ottoman Jewish community not only the largest but also the most prosperous Jewish community in the world, during the sixteenth and early seventieth centuries, a period which constituted the golden age of Ottoman Jewry.

The Ottoman Jews did indeed live in great relief and comfort. They were allowed to follow their religious requirements and build their own synagogues as well as being free to deal in commerce. There is no evidence that shows Jews were forced to change their religion. However, a considerable number of them willingly converted to Islam.

Conclusion

The reason why the Ottomans displayed such tolerance to all minorities under their dominion and why they allowed Jews to enter their territory and live peacefully though they gained no benefit from doing so originates from their religious values.

Islam takes into consideration that Jews, like Muslims and Christians, were a people to whom a Divine Book was sent, although they corrupted it in the course of time. Great figures of the old Testament, like Aron, David, Solomon and Job, are all prophets and, like Jesus Christ, are mentioned in the Qur’an. God chose Moses as the Messenger for the Children of Israel. Jews, like Christians, are considered to be a people of the book, ahl al-kitab, and enjoy special religious tolerance and autonomy.

All ‘people of the book’ were allowed to preserve their religions and recognized as religiously- based communities. They paid a special ‘poll tax’ called harac or cizye. The poor, the sick and the clergy were exempt. All minorities were exempt from military service and they were admitted the right to maintain their own forms of government within their communities. While they lived in great comfort and prosperity, there were some limitations. For example, they could not marry Muslim women or bear arms. Compared to the active persecution to which Jews were subjected in the Christian lands of Europe, the world of Islam was indeed paradise for them (Shaw, 1991, ph).

The modern world may be depressing with its catalogue of holocausts and massacres which continue up until today. However, we can learn from the tolerant attitude shown by the Ottomans towards their Jewish minority that co-existence in peace is possible through the observation of Divine principles. It should give us hope. Our real hope is that all tyrants will give up their cruelty and treat others as fellow human beings.

References 

• BACON, 1. (1990) Atlas of Jewish Civilization, Andr Deutsch, London, p.144.
• KEDOURIE, 5. (1992) Spain and the Jews, Thomas and Hudson, London, p.165.
• SHAW, S.J. (1991) The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and The Turkish Republic, Macmillan, pp.11-33.
• THUBRON, C. (1978) The Great Cities: Istanbul, Time-Life International, Netherlands, pp.189-90.U