What about Human Relations?
Whoever rejects Islam to salvation in the Hereafter but is not hostile to Islam or the Muslims, Islam encourages Muslims to deal with that individual kindly. It encourages them to cooperate with such people to achieve mutual benefits and prosperity in the temporary worldly life, provided that this cooperation does not endanger the Muslims ’fate in the Eternal life.
“O Mankind, we have created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that may know each other (cooperate with and compete). Verily, the best of you with Allah is the most pious.” (Holy Quran 49:13)
This verse emphasizes two facts. Firstly, part of the differences between people is a natural disposition to stimulate interaction between them and to facilitate competition. However, the real criterion of success is achieved by complying with the commands of Allah Almighty. Secondly, regardless of some differences, including the difference in faith, there are countless similarities and mutual interests and benefits to be shared with and to co-operate for, to secure happiness, for all, at least in this temporary life.
The basic rule of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is plainly stated in the following verses: “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion. Verily Allah loves those who are just and fair. It is only as regards to those who fought you on account of your religion and have driven you out of your homes and helped to drive you out that Allah forbid you to take them as guardians.” (Holy Quran 60:8-9)
Islam distinguishes between those who are neutral or supportive of Muslims, who reject Islam for themselves, and those who take a hostile stand. The first group’s country was called in the past Dar Silm, (abode of peace) and the other’s country was called Dar Harb (abode of war).
However, with the establishment of the UN, all member countries are Dar Silm without ruling out the exceptions imposed by reality, sometimes even though partially and temporarily. In other words, this question is supposed to be governed by international norms and circumstances. On the other hand, from the Islamic point of view individuals or groups should never take this decision into their hands. The matter should be left to governments. Usually, the decision of the individuals and the unofficial groups, despite their possible sincerity, is based on limited information and lacks far-sightedness.
Very often, it misses the Islamic viewpoint, and sometimes it leads the Muslim nation or a great portion of it into regretful situations. This is natural because Islamic legal opinion should be based on a firm understanding of Islamic teachings, clear and comprehensive information about reality, and sufficient visualization of the results. Perhaps the decision to meet the attackers of Medina out of the city or to defend it from the inside in the battle of Uhud is a good example of this fact. The young Muslims, out of enthusiasm for Islam, thought it more appropriate for the brave Muslims to go out for the attackers.
On the other side, the Prophet (PBUH), in the light of the number and strength of the enemy, thought it more suitable to defend Medina from the inside. The youth depended only on their sincerity and readiness to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Islam, while the Prophet (PBUH) was thinking of the safety of all Muslims and the future of Islam. Certainly, there is a great difference between the two ways of looking at the situation.
However, this does not exclude the fact that some decisions at the government level could be more disastrous, mainly, because of the arrogance of the decision-makers.
What about Dialogue across Religions?
Some people of various religions may hesitate to participate in dialogues between religions believing that this kind of dialogue means subjecting one’s religion to be questioned by others or to give up parts of their religion. This assumption is not true, simply because this dialogue is not actually between the religions but between their followers. In general, dialogue under the name could mean the following:
Mutual acknowledgement of each other’s religion being a true religion. This kind of acknowledgement is usually rejected by missionary religions such as Christianity and Islam because if they accept that, why do they waste efforts and money to invite others to their religion? Perhaps any mutual effort to promote both religions together undergoes this type of dialogue.
Mutual acknowledgement of the right of each other’s religion to exist and to find some effort to find peaceful ways for coexistence and to develop cooperation in the fields of mutual interests. Islam certainly encourages this kind of dialogue.
Each party is trying to persuade the others with their religion, believing that their religion is the one that secures felicity in both lives for humanity. If we look carefully at the effort of God’s messengers (peace and blessings be upon them all), we find that their efforts are nothing but the initiation of this kind of dialogue. It is their duty as well as the duty of all preachers. Dialogue is the best environment for preaching because the minds are usually at peace and are more ready to comprehend the other party’s opinions and evidence.
Spontaneous or casual dialogue is built into daily life activities where the participants utilize verbal and non-verbal means of communication.
Does Islam Support Human Rights Organizations?
Sometimes, organizations of human rights affiliated with the United Nations (UN) raise legal and political issues, which contradict the principles of the UN itself. For example, they interfere in some of the national laws, which have been chosen by the majority and are applied locally. There is no doubt that the motives of most of the members of these organizations are good. However, their sincere over-enthusiasm leads to issuing resolutions that violate the right of most nations to decide what is good for them, in this life or even in the Hereafter.
These resolutions are sometimes misused against some other cultures, violating the very freedom of these nations, which have voluntarily chosen to become members of the UN. It seems like some behind-the-scenes forces are penetrating these organizations to exploit them to achieve special purposes, such as damaging the relationships between nations and negating the principles of the UN by utilizing twisted ways.
This raises a few legitimate questions. Firstly, What are the sources of authority that these organizations are trying to impose on the members of the UN? Did most of their nations elect them? Secondly, if the members of these organizations represent their governments, are their resolutions superior to the majority’s decisions in their countries?
Finally, If the participants of the conferences and the members of the organizations do not represent the governments of any nation, from where does their legal force stem?
Does it stem from the Principles of the UN? Their resolutions violate these principles, which emphasize the right of each nation to choose its local laws. Does it stem from democratic values? Their resolutions violate democratic values by contradicting the majority’s will. Does it stem from the principles of justice and human rights? Their resolutions violate the human rights of the majority’s will of the countries concerned.
These organizations have no legal power that makes their resolutions superior to the local laws of the UN members. These resolutions are only recommendations based on personal or semi-personal opinions which could be useful or harmful. However, Islam encourages any effort to help the oppressed, including non-Muslims.
Therefore, these conferences and organizations should be supposed to interfere in some of the cases, which they are doing well in dealing with, and some oppressed people are benefitting from their good efforts. Among these are the following:
In case a nation oppresses another nation
In case a government oppresses its citizens or citizens of another nation in violation of the local laws or some international laws
In the case of citizens of certain countries invading the land of another nation by force and driving the original inhabitants out of their homes and lands.
In case the minority’s government abuses the majority and deprives them of their proper share in the natural resources of the country the opportunity of education, or to choose the work they are qualified for, or to live wherever they can afford, in terms of cost or other acquired provisions; but not provisions based on race or fate.
Conclusion
Islam emphasizes just and benevolent interactions with non-Muslims, encouraging cooperation based on mutual benefit. It distinguishes between neutral and hostile non-Muslims, with the concept of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb complicating these distinctions. The Quran emphasizes governmental authority in determining relations with non-Muslim entities, and historical examples like the Battle of Uhud emphasize collective wisdom and long-term strategic thinking. Islam supports peaceful interfaith dialogue, distinguishing between acknowledging other religions and promoting one's faith.
My favourit topic . Very well elaborated . Keep up the intellectual work.