Page:An Analysis of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with Christians.pdf/8

 are oppressed (, p. 417). Nevertheless, the expression of religious pluralism in the Covenant with the Christians of Persia is a corollary of the freedom of religion in the Qur’an (11:118): “And if your Lord pleased, He would have made people a single nation” (, p. 284). An informative hadith, summarized by Musa, offers a compelling story in support of this verse of the Qur’an:

"Christian merchants from Syria came to Medina to trade. While they were there, they converted the two sons of one of Muhammad’s followers. The sons then returned to Syria with the merchants. When their faith sought permission from the Prophet to go after his sons and demand their return, the Prophet responded by reciting the verse: “There is no compulsion in religion”. The story goes on to say that the man held this against the Prophet, which led to the revelation of a verse of the Qur’an (4:65): “But no, by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you a judge of what is in dispute between them, then find no reluctance in their hearts as to what you decide and submit with full submission.” So no matter how much the Muslim father wished to demand that his sons return to Medina and Islam, the Qur’anic command that there is no compulsion in religion prevailed."

By guaranteeing the Persian Christians—and the two sons of Muhammad’s follower—the right to freely practice Christianity, Prophet Muhammad emulated “real pluralism”, which implies equal treatment of citizens before the law without any distinction being made based on religion (, p. 28). Securing the rights of these people meant that the Prophet wanted Christians to feel like they “can bring their full identities to the table”, which for Patel and Meyer is a crucial element in creating a religiously pluralistic society (, p. 2). Muhammad allowed Persian Christians the right “to believe that they are right and others are wrong, and they are allowed to think their beliefs are true and others’ are not” (, p. 2).

The religious freedom that Muhammad granted the Persian Christians directly contrasts with how states such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia treat their minority religious communities. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Islamic state that bases its law on the Qur’an and sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. While Article 8 of the Saudi Constitution states the government is based on “the premise of justice, consultation, and equality—in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah”—the United States State Department claims that religious freedom is heavily restricted in Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religion, in fact, “is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice”. In Saudi Arabia, the public practice of Christianity—and indeed every other religion other than Islam—is prohibited, nor does the Saudi Constitution separate “state” and “religion”. Saudi Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) continues to conduct raids on private non-Muslim religious gatherings. Despite these restrictions on Christians, the United States State Department did note “incremental improvements” in terms of safeguarding religious freedom in Saudi society. However, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not appear to care for Christians to the same extent of the Prophet himself. Prophet Muhammad set a legal precedent for Muslim rulers; non-Muslims were given the right to live in a nation that neither promotes nor disparages any particular religion. Under the leadership of the Prophet, religion—whether it be Islam, Christianity, or any other tradition—was not meant to be a matter of duress, intimidation, or persuasion, but rather of conscience and free will. According to the Covenant with the Christians of Persia, Muslims who coerce Christians into converting to Islam commit an act of fitnah, or sedition and, therefore, must be resolutely avoided. The Covenant explicitly points out: “There shall be no compulsion or restraint against them in any of these matters” (, p. 14). This commandment, which mirrors a verse of the Qur’an (2:256) on religious freedom, indicates that coercion and faith are not to mix in a “Muslim nation”.

Lapidus explicitly claims that Prophet Muhammad separated religious matters from political matters; he also argues that secular governments have existed in the Muslim world throughout history. He notes: