http://themarginaliareview.

com/archives/5067

themarginaliareview.com
Extra Islam salus est?
Marco Demichelis
While outsiders often view Islam as an exclusivist religion, the fate of
non-Muslims has provoked significant theological discussions from the classical
period of Islam (9th-12th centuries CE) to the modern day, without any
consensus regarding the interpretation of the Quran and Tradition. Long before
a number of modern Islamic exegetes such as the Egyptian Nasr Hamid Abu
Zayd, the Sudanese Mahmoud M. Taha, the Algerian Mohammed Arkoun, and
the Indonesian Nurcholish Madjid advocated a pluralist interpretation of Islam,
the ninth-century collection of ahadith called Sahih al-Bukhar transmits this
famous tradition of the Prophet Muhammad:

Mohammad Hassan Khalil,

Islam and the Fate of Others:
The Salvation Question ,
Oxford University Press, 2012,
272pp., $55.00 Mohammad
Hassan Khalil, Islam and the
Fate of Others: The Salvation
Question , Oxford University
Press, 2012, 272pp., $55.00

Bring out of the fire every one in whose heart there is faith or goodness to
the extent of a mustard seed, so they will be taken out having become
quite black; then they will be thrown into the river of life and they will grow
as grows a seed by the side of a river.

The tradition suggests that it will be easy for God to release the damned from a
temporary or non-eternal Hell. But other Quranic passages indicate that only the
Islamic religion finds acceptance with God (Q. 3:19; 3:85), and some verses
criticize the beliefs of other faiths, particularly the Christian concept of Trinity (e.g. Q. 5:72-73; 112). These
cases contrast with the general picture of Gods eschatological decisions presented in the Quran, that
Gods basis for judgement will be human behavior, and that believers enter heaven if their righteous
deeds outweigh their sinful ones: And We shall set up the just balances for the Resurrection Day, so that
not one soul shall be wronged for anything (Q. 21:47). The message of Muhammad appears
continuous with the earlier Abrahamic revelations and, although there are clearly major differences (such
as the concept of prophecy), common tradition on the attributes of God and eschatology binds these
religions together. According to the Quran: Those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the
Sabians, whoever believes in God and the last Day, they shall have their reward (Q. 22:17).
Mohammed Hassan Khalils monograph, Islam and the Fate of Others, emphasizes the emergence within
the medieval period of the notion of a shared and pluralist Islamic redemption. He concentrates on four
prominent Muslim thinkers, the first three of whom contributed decisively to the establishment of early
Muslim civilization: al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE), especially as represented by his inclusivist essay, The
decisive criterion for distinguishing Islam from infidelity; Ibn Arabi (d. 1240 CE) with his universalist and
comprehensive path to God; Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328 CE), whose The rejoinder to those who accepted the
idea of annihilation of the Garden and the Fire discusses a redemption policy for humanity; and Rashid
Rida (d. 1935 CE), a cautious universalist. Because of the respect these scholars have earned throughout
Islam and their obvious deep engagement with these issues, the decision to highlight them as
representatives of pluralism proves effective.
In al-Ghazalis essay Fays al al-tafriqa, a later work, the Persian author discusses what constitutes
Page 1 of 5

Dec 23, 2013 12:51:07PM MST

http://themarginaliareview.com/archives/5067

orthodoxy and what qualifies as unbelief within Islam. He assigns to damnation only those who stubbornly
rejected Islam after encountering it in its allegedly true form. Al-Ghazali also suggests that some
non-Muslims can be saved, since God will excuse those who did not hear the Prophets message, those
who heard only negative things about the Prophet, and those who were moved to actively investigate the
Islamic message after encountering it in its true form.
Living in the days after the Mongols had annihilated the caliphate and sacked Baghdad in 1258, the
Hanbalite jurist Ibn Taymiyya doubted the eternal nature of Hell and supported a universalist paradigm of
salvation. He argued in Radd al man qla bi-fan al-janna wa-l-nr that the people of the Fire will not simply
perish within Hell, but, on the contrary, they will spend the rest of eternity in Paradise, as Khalil
summarizes his teaching. In line with the suggestions contained within Jon Hoovers Ibn Taymiyyas
Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism and Mohammed Rustoms Triumph of Mercy, Khalil illustrates Ibn
Taymiyyas support for universal salvation. But he also stresses the difficulty of maintaining this position,
which brings with it the need to defend the eventual salvation of believers, while preserving Gods attribute
of justice. A rational position must preserve Allahs theodicy in relation to his Mercy.
A less pluralist image of eschatological salvation has emerged in modern times, for two main reasons.
First, the decline of Islamic empires (Ottoman, Safavid, and Moghul) in contrast with the rise of European
nations and colonialism has led to a historical period of decadence of Islam. Second, few Muslims today
study the medieval authors mentioned above. Rashid Rida, a member of the Salaf (revivers of Islamic
Studies), expressed his cautious universalism in his analysis of the writing of the Egyptian Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya (d. 1351 CE), whose Quranic commentary suggests that Gods expansive mercy and justice
are not contrary to reason. In Ridas view, Muslims (including converts) still stand in a preferred position
over nonMuslim believers who actively search for the Truth.
In opposition to this view, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), an Egyptian supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood,
advocated an exclusivist interpretation, such that transgressors will remain in Hell for many ages (Q.
78:23). Although he knows the works of authors such as Rashid Rida and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Qutb
does not mention them so that he can reinforce the impression that only Muslims will be saved. He can
cite in support Q. 5:72: If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him or her from the Garden,
and Hell will be his or her home. No one will help such evildoers. Khalil contrasts Qutbs view with that of
contemporary pluralist works such as South African theologian Farid Esacks Qurn, Liberation and
Pluralism and American academic Abdulaziz Sachedinas Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism.
Sachedina highlights the Quranic phrase, Your Brothers in Religion or your equals in Creation (Q.
59:9-10), a phrase reflecting the importance of religious mercy in the time of its author Ali ibn Abi Talib,
the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad and the fourth rightly-guided caliph.

Khalils edited volume, Between Heaven and Hell, focuses on the different
positions of contemporary authors. Its six sections contain contributions from a
number of leading Muslim and non-Muslim scholars engaging a variety of issues:
the ambiguity of Gods word in relation to the presuppositions of the exegete; the
tension within the Quran itself between pluralism and exclusivism; the reception
of this tension in various Muslim authors, both Sunni and Shia; and how the
juridical aspects of this discussion have played out in different countries. The
Page 2 of 5

Dec 23, 2013 12:51:07PM MST

http://themarginaliareview.com/archives/5067

articles sometimes reveal disagreements among the various contributors: while

some support the pluralist interpretation embraced by Khalil in his own
monograph, others, such as the modern American cleric Yasir Qadhi, claim that
God accepts no religion besides Islam, and Qadhi equates the rejection of
Muhammads prophetic message with the rejection of Allah.
An important controversy emerges in Reza Shah-Khazemis article, Beyond
Polemic and Pluralism: The Universal Message of the Quran. He rightly asks
how one can go beyond the benevolent presentation of Islam, promoted by
westernized Muslim academics and intellectuals, which has little connection with
living Islam but more in common with the positions of pluralist Christian and
Jewish colleagues. He cites John Hicks view that all religions are equal and
Mohammad Hassan Khalil,
equally salvific; one must abandon traditional claims to be the sole possessors of
Between Heaven and Hell:
Islam, Salvation, and the Fate the truth, and one must affirm the equal truth of all religions. But advancing a
of Others , Oxford University
pluralist interpretation of the overall message of the Quran usually results in
Press, 2013, 368pp., $35.00
trivializing it. This problem of a false benevolent perception of Islam does not
Mohammad Hassan Khalil,
Between Heaven and Hell:
relate directly to the well-intentioned Muslims or Christians on both sides, though
Islam, Salvation, and the Fate
they do not share a common reaction to pluralism. The main difficulties are, on
of Others , Oxford University
Press, 2013, 368pp., $35.00 one side, the ontological understanding of the main literalist meaning of the
Islamic message and, on the other, the ability of sharing this meaning within the
majority of Islamic and Christian communities. Concerning the first problem, Khalils monograph points out
that al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, and Ibn Taymiyya adopted an approach that was pluralist but nevertheless
strongly rooted in their interpretation of the Quran. However, such readings and interpretations of the
Quran must be considered in their historical context, bearing in mind the religious milieu of the Prophets
original message and the ages in which these Muslim religious experts lived.
A relevant answer to Khazemis article is Farid Esacks contribution, The Portrayal of Jews and the
Possibilities for Their Salvation in the Quran, which highlights the perennial problem of historicizing the
Quranic text. According to an historicized exegesis, one must distinguish the Meccan and Medinian suras
in relation to the Prophets political and religious context: in Mecca he opposes the authorities, in Medina
he is the authority. Esack argues that the Medinian verses established a legal and practical framework for
living with other religious communities, more so than the Meccan suras, which are involved in a discourse
with pre-Islamic polytheists. Some Medinian verses refer directly to historical events that occurred at the
time of revelation. In the Quran 5:61-70, Jews are first chosen by God as bearers of salvation through the
Torah, but later they are accused of treachery and corruption of their own laws. The Quran is both a
historically-rooted document and timeless divine revelation. These twin aspects have implications for the
ways in which scholars read verses in the Quran that concern the role and status of Jews and Christians
in Islamic theology. For both Jews and Muslims, salvation and condemnation relate to the correct
behavior of the human being.
At the same time, authors such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, and Ibn Taymiyya demand analysis within the
context of their own personal experiences. But it does not seem to me that their pluralism is related to the
openness toward other faiths characterizing Islam in their days; their very thought demonstrates that the
military and economic decadence of the Abbasid empire, from the tenth century to the sack of Baghdad in
1258, did not lead to a more rigid religious conservatism. On the contrary, for another century after the
calamity of 1258, Islamic scholars encouraged research into problems related to the salvation of others,
Page 3 of 5

Dec 23, 2013 12:51:07PM MST

http://themarginaliareview.com/archives/5067

as Ibn Taymiyyas last works shows. The encounter with Modernity ultimately provokes a movement
toward less engagement with other faiths and an exclusivist view of Islamic Eschatology.
The contemporary Islamic world suffers from a lack of education, reciprocal understanding, and specific
knowledge of medieval Muslim views on these questions. For example, Muslims who know something
about Ibn Taymiyya usually regard him merely as a reviver of the Hanbali Islamic tradition (the basis of the
contemporary legal system of Saudi Arabia) and as a literalist Quranic exegete. Yet his forgotten
universalism contrasts deeply with the contemporary simplistic understandings of Hanbalism. In a
post-historical phase marked by periods of colonialism and a clash of civilizations, teachers and
preachers unfamiliar with the important medieval discussions on salvation have diminished the potential
for a concrete dialogue between faiths. A process of mediatization of religion has resulted in a trivialization
of the Islamic message, which since the 1970s has received sanction in Arab school systems due to
underfunding and the influence of Political Islam. The legal and scholarly classes have failed to mount a
significant opposition to the oversimplification of religion, and journalists with limited knowledge of Islam
and Islamic scholarship do not help the situation.

Khalils volumes encourage us to perceive inter-religious dialogue on a deeper level than that of
superficial do-gooders unable to understand the real difficulties of religious confrontation. Both works
promote a more inclusive perception of Islamic thought on the salvation of others with attention to the
historical evolution of the topic from al-Ghazali in the eleventh century to Rashid Rida in the twentieth.
Islam and the Fate of Others underlines the pluralist understanding of Muslim eschatology by evoking
contributions from some of the most relevant past and contemporary scholars of Islam. It thus becomes
clear that well before the publication of Lumen Gentium by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965),
Islamic theology was able to interpret the Quran rationally, considering it as a plural word of God.
Between Heaven and Hell, with its inclusion of various views, leaves many questions open, especially in
relation to the contemporary period: How can the theory of inter-religious salvation lead to real, practical
dialogue? In what ways can the salvation question improve perceptions of the other?
Though there will always be those who can cite a sentence from the Quran to justify their limiting
salvation to Muslims, Khalils volumes amply demonstrate that such a position stands in contrast to
important classical and modern Muslim scholars. The main problem is the reception of this message in the
contemporary Islamic world. The Word of God and the Tradition allow us to doubt the eternal damnation
of non-Muslims of goodwill. But will the persistent sectarianism, dating back to the split between the Sunni
and Shia, grant this perspective a hearing?

Also Recommended from MRB:

Like a Jew: Anti-Judaism in Early Islam and Medieval Iberia
The Activist of Andalusia: Ibn Hazm of Cordoba
How Sufism and Jewish Mysticism Influenced Medieval Castilian Christianity
To Whom is the Quran Addressed?
Jon D. Levenson Talks to Charles Halton about Abrahamic Religions
Page 4 of 5

Dec 23, 2013 12:51:07PM MST

http://themarginaliareview.com/archives/5067

About the author: Marco Demichelis View all posts by Marco Demichelis
Marco Demichelis is Research Fellow in Islamic Studies and History of the Islamic World within the
Department of Religious Studies at the Catholic University of Milan.

Page 5 of 5

Dec 23, 2013 12:51:07PM MST