Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave an interview to The Sunday Times on March 27. During the interview, he said that “many millions” of Muslims hold a viewpoint that is “fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.” (“Many millions of Muslims ‘fundamentally incompatible with the modern world’, says Tony Blair”, The Independent, 27 March 2016). This statement of Mr. Tony Blair may annoy some Muslims, but it is based on fact. Moreover, his remarks, directly or indirectly, apply to perhaps almost all present-day Muslims.
The comment that ‘Muslims are incompatible with the modern age’ is not meant in the sense of the religious beliefs they hold, but relates to their social behaviour. For example, in today’s world, freedom of expression is accepted as an absolute right of every one, provided that one remains strictly within the peaceful domain. However, many Muslims are not ready to concede this right to others. For instance, they are of the opinion that one who, according to their law, engages in an act of apostasy or blasphemy is liable to be punished. Similarly, in the present world, democracy is considered the right form of government, but there are Muslims who reject it claiming that it runs counter to their religion.
There is a need to differentiate between personal belief and universal norm. A person is free in matters of his personal belief, but when it comes to universal norms, Islam agrees to what has been accepted internationally.
The difference between Muslims and the modern world is that Muslims, according to their traditional mindset, believe in absolutism, but the present age is characterized by relativism. This means that for Muslims certain things are absolutely right or absolutely wrong, while modern thought does not agree with this viewpoint and holds that a person has the freedom to adopt whatever he thinks is correct according to him, only if he does not take to violence.
In this respect Muslims’ stand on blasphemy and apostasy should be re-considered. If somebody leaves Islam for another religion, Muslims believe that he should be killed. However, the modern mind regards opting for one religion instead of another as one’s freedom to choose, something which is a person’s inalienable right. In a similar way, if a person passes a derogatory remark about the Prophet Muhammad, it becomes an issue of blasphemy for Muslims, who demand punishment for the blasphemer. But for the person who makes such a statement, it is not an issue of blasphemy, rather one of freedom to express one’s opinion. There were many instances during the life of the Prophet of Islam when his opponents issued scornful statements about him, but he did not command his followers to kill them.
The standpoint of Islam in this matter is that there is a need to differentiate between personal belief and universal norm. A person is free in matters of his personal belief, but when it comes to universal norms, Islam agrees to what has been accepted internationally. For example, in the case of the Hudaibiya Peace Treaty, the Prophet agreed to erase the word ‘Messenger of God’ suffixed to his name as the other party was not ready to accept him as prophet.
This means that in matters of belief, Islam holds that a person can follow idealism, but in matters of international relations Islam advocates the principle of pragmatism.
In matters of belief, Islam holds that a person can follow idealism, but in matters of international relations Islam advocates the principle of pragmatism.
According to the dictionary, incompatibility means not capable of existing in agreement or harmony with something else. After the formation of the United Nations, it has been universally agreed upon that disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations. Many of the present Muslims, however, are not ready to accept this: their militancy in the name of jihad is a clear example of this disagreement. It is important to note that although this could be the way of thinking of present Muslims, it is totally against the spirit of Islam. In the first quarter of the seventh century, Islam had accepted the principle that disputes should be settled by way of peaceful negotiation. A practical example of this policy can be seen in the Hudaibiya Peace Treaty which was signed between the Prophet and his opponents in 628 CE.
If Muslims adhere to any other policy, it would be regarded as invalid according to Islam. This is why in this matter, it is important for people to judge the Muslim community in the light of Islamic teachings and not vice versa.
