In this section, the fundamental premise shall first be summarized and then the correct attitude which Muslims and non-Muslims should adopt in the light of this premise shall be discussed

i. Summarizing the Fundamental Premise
    In order to make the reward and punishment that is going to take place in the Hereafter an observable reality in this world, the Almighty selects certain personalities called Rusul to elucidate and explain the basic truths to their respective peoples. With the special help and assistance of the Almighty, they remove misconceptions that surround these concepts and vehemently say that if people do not accept these truths they shall be doomed in this world and in the Hereafter too. They give glad tidings of success both in this world and in the next to those who profess faith in them. People who knowingly deny these truths are punished in various degrees so that this whole episode can become an argument for the reward and punishment that is to take place on similar grounds in the Hereafter.
    As a consequence of this fundamental premise what needs to be understood is that some directives of Islam are specific to the age of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his companions and cannot be extended to later periods. The reason for this is that a Muslim preacher cannot know whether a non-Muslim is knowingly denying the truth or not. Only the Almighty knows this. In the age of Rusul (the first period of history), He chose to reveal this judgement through His appointees, while in the second period of history He has not chosen to do so. Consequently, it is imperative that Muslims study the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet (sws), which are replete with the details of this divine scheme in the proper perspective. They are not authorized to follow certain directives which are specific to their Prophet (sws).

ii. Attitude required from Muslims
    Today, Muslims, in particular their religious orthodoxy, exhibit a very hostile and aggressive behaviour towards non-Muslims. This behaviour is very pronounced in countries where Muslims live as a minority. Jeffrey Lang, professor of Mathematics at the Kansas University who converted to Islam in the early eighties, vividly records this typical Muslim behavior of hostility and aggression in the following words:

‘I’m sure you know that it’s incumbent on Muslims living in the United states to work and struggle and, if necessary, to fight to establish an Islamic state here,’ said the dean of the Middle Eastern University, aware that tradition and scholarship were on his side.

‘My Idea of what makes a state Islamic might be very different from yours,’ I answered, ‘Do you, for example, feel that your country is an Islamic state?’

‘Of course it’s not perfect,’ he offered. ‘But we’re free to practice our faith and most of the Shari‘ah is enforced.’

‘But what if we’re already free to practice our rituals here and to influence and laws and government through democracy?’

‘But democracy recognises the will of the majority, while an Islamic state gives final authority to God as revealed in the Qur’an and teachings of the Prophet!’

Might not the two converge in a society where the majority are committed to the viewpoint that God is the supreme authority and Muhammad is His Prophet? If the majority is not so committed, then what purpose is served by declaring an Islamic state or a state religion?’

‘What you’re advocating is secularism!’¹

‘Do you or do you not agree that Salman Rushdie deserves the Qur’anic punishment for apostasy?’

There was no way to side-step her question, for this was already her second attack. Almost half of the audience was non-Muslim, and the BBC cameras were catching every word. Didn’t she consider the impact of her words? How do you answer such a challenge without confirming others’ worst suspicions about Islam?

‘I already stated that he’s a Murtad (apostate).’

Please go away! What are you trying to accomplish? Didn’t you see the media’s reaction to Yusuf Islam? It was news in every Western country! ‘RIDE ON THE DEATH TRAIN,’ ‘SONG OF THE KILLER MAN,’ ‘FROM FLOWER CHILD TO TERRORIST,’ ran the headlines. They talked to old girlfriends, who said that he had always had it in him.

‘Does he or does he not deserve the Qur’anic punishment of execution?’ she demanded.

The scarf forced him to concentrate on the wrath in her eyes, eyes that were sure to exact revenge for two centuries of anguish and humiliation at the hands of disbelieving imperialists. There was no stopping them. With a heavy heart, he sighed, ‘Yes. He deserves the Qur’anic punishment for apostasy.’

‘Assalamu alaikum,’ she said. Then she turned from the microphone and headed down the aisle towards her seat.

‘Allahu akbar!’ they shouted. ‘Allahu akbar!’²

iii. Attitude required from non-Muslims
    Today the non-Muslim world has severe apprehensions from the Muslim bloc. To them Muslims pose a great threat to their freedom and liberty. John L. Esposito, Loyola Professor of Middle East Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, writes:

According to many Western commentators, Islam and the West are on a collision course. Islam is a triple threat: political, demographic, and socio-religious. For some, the nature of the Islamic threat is intensified by the linkage of the political and the demographic. Thus Patrick Buchanan could write that while the west finds itself ‘negotiating for hostages with Shiite radicals who hate and detest us,’³ their Muslim brothers are populating Western countries. The Muslim threat is as global in nature as Muslims in Europe. The Soviet Union, and America proliferate and prosper. Other observers such as Charles Krauthammer, in the midst of the unraveling of the Soviet Union, spoke of a global Islamic unprising, a vision of Muslims in the heartland and on the periphery of the Muslim world rising up in revolt: a "new ‘arc of crisis’ … another great movement is going on as well, unnoticed but just as portentous: a global intifada"⁴.⁵

The most important requirement is to admit that religious and moral systems other than Islam, even if they are far from perfect in Muslim eyes, may contain a large measure of truth. Muslims would, of course, continue to hold that Islam is religiously and morally superior, but they would also have to recognise that the adherent of any moral and religious system normally thinks that his system is superior to others. Since there is no generally accepted criterion to distinguish between the truth and falsehood of such systems, co-operation between the adherents of different systems requires that all should admit that the others are true at least up to a point, and it is usually unnecessary to specify in what respects each is true. In other words, Muslims are required to accept a pluralism of religions and moralities, and to see themselves as one community within a pluralistic world. A corollary would be that they might possibly have something to learn from some of the other systems.

It is in the application of moral values to social and political life that co-operation would appear to present fewest problems, at least intellectually. The relation of morality to religion is a difficult question because, though we may speak of Christian ethics and Buddhist ethics, morality is to a great extent independent of religion, and is based rather on the nature of human beings. At the same time, however, religion helps individuals to live more in accordance with their moral beliefs. The life of all human communities is based, among other values, on those implicit in the fifth to the ninth of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, which may be stated positively as respect for parents, for life, for marriage and for property, and truthfulness in public statements. Recognition of these values is also assumed as part of the basis of the United Nations and other global institutions, though there is still much to do before all international political activity is based on moral principles. Since these values are all upheld by the Shari’ah, Muslims should have no difficulty in co-operating with others who are working for a fuller incorporation of moral values into the life of human beings at all levels.⁷