Paul L. Heck (May 22, 2015)

I found myself face to face with a Salafi this evening, he in robe and full beard, his wife cloaked in black, nothing to be seen but her eyes, along with their little boy (about five). He said to me, “If I go to America, I’d be killed as soon as I got off the plane.” By the end of our meeting, he had embraced me with two kisses, one on each cheek. What happened?

It was at a PTA meeting in Salé, the twin city of Rabat where I now live. (PTA stands for parent-teacher association.) What was I doing at a PTA meeting? Some of my grad students at Muhammad V University, where I teach this semester, are also high school teachers. One of them invited me to address a PTA gathering at his school on the issue of religious tolerance.

My god, my god, what have you done to me?

After studies at Harvard, Oxford, Chicago, and Princeton, now a professor at Georgetown, is this where I’ve ended up? In front of a Salafi at a PTA meeting in Morocco? There were all kinds of people at the meeting, professionals of various kinds, but it was a moment in time—me and the Salafi.

A Salafi is often thought to be intolerant by nature, unwilling to accept positions other than his own, responsible for the hatred—and the violence it begets in many places of the Middle East and North Africa. Salafis are known for their aversion to live in society like everyone else, whether in Europe or elsewhere. You’ve seen the media images—beards and burkas.

They’re actually vulnerable. They feel targeted, suspect, society’s enemy. Salafism is by no means innocent. Yet another suicide bombing targeting Shia occurred today at a mosque in Saudi Arabia. And the fact that Salafis believe the world is out to get them is partly their own doing. Their religious outlook requires a certain antagonism towards worldly society. It makes them think they’re the victims. And yet there is no single Salafi type. Some of them show up to PTA meetings!

But enough of all that. Let the pundits chatter away: Salafi this, Salafi that. I’m talking about a human encounter. But first let me sum up my PTA remarks. It might get a bit tedious, but it’s the background to the discussion that followed. So bear with me.

I spoke about tolerance in general. I then spoke about tolerance in its religious sense. And I should say that it was a bit odd to speak about tolerance to a group in Morocco, which is known for its tolerance. I let them know from the start: What could I possibly say to them on the topic? But off we went.

I began by building off some of the latest research on evolution. In the past, it was the law of the jungle. The strong prevails. The strong acts as he pleases, seizing what he can to dominate others and spread his influence and the superiority of his family in society, while the weak gradually fade away like dust in the wind. There’s no space for tolerance in this model of evolution. But that’s all history now. The experts now say that mutation and natural selection are not the only factors. Cooperation within a species is also vital for it to evolve.

I ran with the idea: Cooperation can’t happen without tolerance, and cooperation is key for evolution. This means that tolerance is essential for a society to develop and evolve.

But things are complicated. There’s the short term, and there’s the long term.

In the short term, the intolerant do prevail. Because of this, they become models of success for others. I may be tolerant of others, but I want to succeed. I notice the intolerant succeed. As a result, I seek to emulate them. However, in the long term, this is unsustainable. More and more become intolerant in order to succeed. And in the end, all of us lose. With no countervailing force, the intolerant increase in numbers and destroy one another, bringing down society as a whole. No evolution, only destruction.

You’ve got the tolerant: They accept ideas other than their own, cultures and religions other than their own. They might not agree with other people, but they don’t seek to eliminate them for holding ideas that oppose their own. They accept that those who disagree with them have the right to exist. And you’ve got the intolerant: They do not recognize that those who hold opposing ideas have the right to exist. And it goes beyond ideas. If I don’t accept that those who hold opposing ideas have the right to exist, I haven’t grasped their intrinsic value as human beings. I’m ready to do them injustice, even harm.

In principle, when we speak of tolerance and intolerance, we’re speaking of people in a position of power, not a position of weakness. Those in a position of weakness might be tolerant because they have no choice. They’re forced to be tolerant. But there is a societal aspect to tolerance and intolerance. It’s not just about ideas. To tolerate a person is not simply to recognize his right to exist irrespective of the ideas he espouses. It’s also to recognize his value as a human being and to take joy in his existence. To … take … joy … in … those … who … do … not … think … like … me?

Intolerance is ultimately about exploitation. The intolerant exclude others in order to dominate them … to be lords over them. The motive may be deeper. That is, the intolerant may actually not fully appreciate their own worth. As a result, they seek to prove their worth by dominating others. They may win in the short term, but they’re a threat to society in the long term. Evolution requires new ideas and new horizons. I can take joy in the ideas of others, even when they oppose mine, because these ideas open new horizons for me to explore. I may not agree with the ideas of others, but they prompt me to think anew.

In a society known for its intolerance, all are losers in the end, the intolerant and the tolerant alike. But that’s to speak of tolerance in general. What about tolerance in its religious sense?

What’s religion? There’s Abraham. And there’s Cain. We’ll get to all that in a minute.

Bottom line: Tolerance is a moral choice, and that’s because the intolerant succeed in the short term, making it seem attractive to be intolerant. Humans are weak. They want to succeed. It’s tempting to be intolerant. What about animals? Ants cooperate. But do they do so as a moral choice? What about bonobos? Because of our high communication capacity, humans, more so than other animals, are sensitive to moral reputation. We all understand this, whether highly educated or not. We feel it when people are tolerant and when they’re harsh. We know who’s good and who’s not. It’s not just Santa Claus.

Do you care whether you’re good or not? Or are you an ant?

And remember: A society can’t develop in the long term if some of its members are not tolerant. This means that some have to be willing to sacrifice for others. Some have to be counter models. Counter models? If the model that wins in the short term is the intolerant, then we need to have another (counter) model for a society to be able to develop over the long term. We need models of tolerance. We need people for whom it is more important to be moral than it is to be successful. We need people who protect society in the long term against the attraction of intolerance by offering a counter example. A reminder! To evolve, we need people who are able to make the moral choice.

This is where Abraham comes into the picture.

Who was Abraham? He fled his homeland in search of security. He faced tyrants. His own people weren’t tolerant of him and his ideas. One story speaks of him in Egypt where Pharaoh tried to exploit him and his wife. But he never resorted to violence, and he’s the model that countless people remember today. He never compromised his values and his faith. He never hid his ideas, but he never denied the right of all to exist, including those who opposed him. He prayed for (not against) those who opposed him. He even sought to protect a corrupt society from God’s wrath! He may have struggled against idolatry, but he never struggled against humanity. Although a stranger among the nations, he never hesitated to welcome others as his guests. He didn’t view them as foreigners from another planet. He looked at them as beings with value, worthy to be treated as guests.

Compare this to the story of Cain. Who was Cain?

He was a son of Adam, and he killed his brother Abel. Cain got nervous because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice. Cain was afraid. He was afraid for his standing before God. He could have turned to the mercies of the Lord that heal the wounded heart, but instead he turned to violence. He decided to eliminate the source of his humiliation. He didn’t take joy in God’s acceptance of his brother’s sacrifice. It made him envious. It made him feel humiliated. He needed to prove his worth, and so he killed his brother to erase him from existence–to erase from existence the thing that reminded him of his own fears for himself and his standing before God. What’s the measure of our standing before God? Who sets it?

And what’s our response? What’s your response? What’s my response?

Do I feel troubled if God favors others? Or do I take joy in the favor God extends to others?

What is religion? The story of Abraham? Or the story of Cain?

Together, they tell us who we are and the choice before us in life. There are two models. Who wants to follow the model of Cain? Who wants to follow the counter model, the model of Abraham? And there’s also the model of Hagar. (Who was Hagar?) Do the ideas of others threaten my existence? What will allow my society to develop and evolve? How do I want to be with others in society—in a city with varied ideas and in a world with diverse religions? How do we teach our children about the choice before them: their choice for Cain or for Abraham?

OK, that’s the background. Now back to the PTA meeting. People had lots of questions.

Are we born tolerant? Or are we born intolerant?

They concluded: Our human nature is sound, but demons can get under our skin.

The Salafi spoke up. “What you have to say is all very nice. But it doesn’t get us anywhere. It’s just ideas. If you had started by referring to all the verses in the Qur’an and all the statements in the prophetic tradition (hadith) that speak of tolerance, we’d all be with you.”

In other words, for an idea to be legitimate, it has to come from God direct.

He proceeded to cite a number of verses from scripture, then concluded, “Imagine if we all accepted this and followed it. We’d all be tolerant.” Note a couple things here: He has a great desire for unity, and he sees truth as the source of this unity. Truth lies in God’s message to humanity. Bottom line: You didn’t begin from Islam. We’d all agree with you if you had.

Many were sympathetic to the idea, so I decided to run with it: “All you’ve said is true. Those verses speak of tolerance. And your speaking your viewpoint … gives us the opportunity to do some training in tolerance. You began from a certain point of departure. I began from another one.  We have different ideas, but if we listen to each other, we may discover we basically agree. Or maybe we won’t, but the differences will make us think anew. I am grateful to you for your presence here and for your comments.” He smiled, and I added:

“I have a question: What about your son? He’ll have a solid moral upbringing at home under your care. But he’ll live in a world with people who disagree with him. It may be God’s message to us to be tolerant, but it’s also a universal rule (sunna kawniyya), ordained by God, that people differ on all levels. And such diversity is essential for a society to develop. How will your son be able to live in such a society and help it develop?”

I didn’t convince him of anything. It was important enough that he had a place in the conversation and did not feel left out. And it’s important to grasp his outlook: Truth as communicated by God through clear revelation is the standard. It’s not what scientists might say. Tolerance and openness are nice ideas, but they’re true because God has declared them so, not because science says they’re important for species development.

Another father spoke quite candidly: “We’re in the midst of a huge crisis. ISIS is from Islam, but are they tolerant? Even we Muslims don’t agree on God’s message, and then there are all the other religions and philosophies. What about people who are Muslim but not tolerant?”

I, too, have this question, but I wouldn’t single out Muslims.

He continued: “For this reason, we need international agreements on human rights. That’s the common ground. Human rights were established so that we can all search for meaning, so that every person can search for meaning and truth within his or her own circumstances.”

Welcome to Morocco! Space for all voices! (Click here to consider the Muslim Open Society.)

A mother spoke up: She was also pious, judging from her attire, but not ostensibly Salafi: “The tolerant are always the winners because they live by a divine standard, not a worldly one.”

I quickly commented: “Agreed. They get their heavenly reward. But are they also winners by worldly standards? Those who are tolerant … is there a payoff for them in this world for sticking to their moral reputation? Do the good not get something in this world for being good?”

Many heads nodded affirmatively, “Yes, they have moral standing in this world even apart from their reward in the next.” She then posed a question: “Why is this crisis of tolerance happening now, at this time and in that place (by which she meant the Middle East)? What’s made Sunnis and Shia so hateful towards one another, so intolerant, willing to kill, at this particular moment?”

I could see where the discussion was going. America was to blame. It’s a common response among people in this region. “This can’t be from Islam. Yes, they’re Muslims, but this can’t be from Islam. There has to be a foreign conspiracy that makes Muslims hate one another.”

I referred her to a recent dissertation of one of our students at Georgetown University: “This student of ours studied the history of Sunni-Shia relations during the Abbasid Caliphate. What did she discover? It’s all about good governance. When the ruler (caliph or sultan) was good and just, shepherding the affairs of all under his rule, coexistence flourished. When the ruler was biased, favoring one community over another, Sunni and Shia communities began to view one another antagonistically.” (Click here to read a summary of the dissertation.)

It’s the story of Cain.

Time was running out at this point, but the Salafi spoke up: “In your view, how are we to understand tolerance and intolerance? What’s to be the definition we can all agree upon?”

I didn’t want to get into definitions, so I referred to the realities on the ground: “It’s my impression that Morocco is a tolerant society. Morocco enjoys stability, and despite problems and challenges, there’s also real development in Morocco in comparison to other countries in the region. How are we to explain this? I don’t think we can discount its climate of tolerance as a factor in its development.”

The parents and teachers recognized this, including those who had earlier noted how difficult it is to be tolerant when people are not always tolerant. How true! It is difficult to be tolerant when others are intolerant. One wants to succeed! And yet there are enough in Morocco who are tolerant, serving as counter models and helping society to keep evolving.

Several had asked whether tolerance is a characteristic of individuals or of societies. And what makes one society tolerant, another less so? But they also understood my words about the reality on the ground in Morocco. There are enough counterexamples in Morocco to keep intolerance from triumphing. There are enough people in Morocco who are like Abraham. And it’s not just about religion. It’s about the possibility to develop and evolve.

The final word was given to the man who had spoken about human rights: “OK, we’re tolerant, but why is America so intolerant? They just do whatever they want with weaker nations.”

I wanted to say it’s not so simple. America does not do whatever it wants. I appreciate the sentiment. It is often the weak who are required to be tolerant, not the strong. No nation is perfect, but America is a positive presence in the world, as is Morocco. So much more to discuss, but the principal signaled that time was up.

All the parents thanked me and shook my hand, and I thanked them and shook their hands. But the Salafi made a beeline for me, saying as he approached, “This needs a kiss.” And please remember: A kiss signals a desire for friendship. (Click here to view my lecture on friendship.)

The kiss is a sign of peace.

The kiss of a Salafi. It made me think. Salafis have a great role to play in society. It’s not the role that many of them are currently playing. It’s not about intolerance, which, in their view, is the appropriate response to a world that is intolerant of them. It’s not about revenge.

Salafis actually have a positive contribution to play in society, as counter examples, not as counter examples in an antagonistic relation with society. They have a great role to play by incarnating the model of Abraham in society and thereby helping society develop and evolve.

Salafis … helping society develop and evolve? It will require refining their outlook.

I’ve met enough Salafis in my life to know they’re committed to their moral reputation and to the moral reputation of their societies. And they can be very tolerant — and fair. I’ve seen Salafis defend me before other Salafis. Can they rethink their view of society, even a corrupt society?

Doing so wouldn’t require submission to corrupt ways. They wouldn’t do this, and we can’t ask them to. Rather, Salafis can offer a positive witness to a corrupt society where intolerance reigns. They can be counter models by incarnating the tolerance that the revelation of Islam demands. They’d be helping save their society from its own destruction in the long term. And they’d be acting like Abraham. It’d be a great jihad. I wonder if Salafis might see it this way.