One might also come at this statement from another direction, namely, that of the history of previous Muslim states and societies. What has been the verdict on them?
Interestingly, about a century ago, Western scholars of Islam were commending Islam for its tolerance:
First of all, here is Hamilton Gibb:
“It possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavours, so many and so various races of mankind.”
Then there is the assessment of Sir Thomas Arnold:
“On the whole, unbelievers have enjoyed under Muhammadan rule a measure of toleration, the like of which is not to be found in Europe until quite modern times. Forcible conversion was forbidden, in accordance with the precepts of the Quran… The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Muhammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances rather than inspired by a settled principle of intolerance… But such oppression is wholly without the sanction of Muhammadan law, either religious or civil”.
More recently, Bernard Lewis (certainly not a writer who could be said to be overly sympathetic to the faith) has written this:
‘Until the seventeenth century, there can be no doubt that, all in all, the treatment by Muslim governments and populations of those who believed otherwise was more tolerant and respectful than was normal in Europe… there is nothing in Islamic history to compare with the massacres and expulsions, the inquisitions and persecutions that Christians habitually inflicted on non-Christians, and still more on each other. In the lands of Islam, persecution was the exception; in Christendom sadly, it was often the norm.’
Why did these scholars arrive at these conclusions? One reason might be because of their awareness of Islamic history.
For example, when they weren’t busily trying to establish its own perverse and imagined version of how Muhammad’s original community at Medina lived, ISIS were known to have cast admiring glances at the Abbasid Caliphate. Which is a bit odd, as in the Baghdad of Harun, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and irreligious philosophers were all engaged in active, free flowing debate, both in court and private salons around the city.
As the British scholar, Edward Granville Brown put it:
‘The pious Muslims of Mecca and Medina who came thither were scandalized to find unbelievers invested with the highest offices at court, and learned men of every religion holding friendly debate as to high questions of ontology and philosophy, in which, by common consent, all appeal to revealed scripture was forbidden.’
Of course, since then we have seen the advent of Wahhabism/Salafi-jihadism and its dissemination from Saudi Arabia as well as the Iranian revolution which brought to power a Shia theocracy that is similarly warped.
Here’s William Dalrymple on the former:
“It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia provided 15 of the 19 hijackers on 11 September. Ever since the Thirties, the Saudi regime has vigorously exported Wahhabi Islam, the most severe, puritanical incarnation of a religion which historically has been remarkable for its tolerance and syncretism.The Saudis have used their oil wealth to try to kill off tolerant forms of Islam. Saudi money financed the most extreme Jihadis fighting in Afghanistan and the camps in which they were trained. It was these camps that produced the Afghan Arabs who form the hard core of al-Qaeda as well as a myriad of other similar organisations. Yet America, dependent on Saudi oil, continues to ignore the culpability of the Saudis, and allows them to suppress human rights as brutally as the Taliban…The Saudis now dominate as much as 90 per cent of Arabic language newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, radio and TV. They have also promoted the mass radicalisation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kurdistan by funding the hard-core Wahhabi, Salafi and Deobandi schools that now dominate education there.”
Given the extent to which the Saudis and Iranians have succeeded in hijacking the faith, it is therefore understandable that some may be apprehensive about the prospect of a Muslim state.
But, given all the recent declarations about the failure of multiculturalism by the likes of politicians such as Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron, and most recently Suella Braverman, it's also somewhat ironic that past Islamic societies actually might provide something of a template for what a successful multicultural society might look like.
