Volume 2 Number 1 March 2003

Introduction: This introductory essay seeks to begin a critical dialogue between Western liberal ideas of human right sand other more religiously predicated ideas of tolerance and acceptance of the other. As existing ideas of human rights are rooted in very particular cultural assumptions on self and society, other less individualistically framed sources of understanding, pluralism and tolerance are sought. The religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are presented as useful sources for new understandings of the relations between self and other not framed exclusively in the language of human rights. These are developed in greater length in the following essays of this volume.

Examining the question of tolerance through social praxis in the Islamic context, the author focuses on the voice of Islam as a non-assimilative critique of secular modernity. After discussing the controversial cases of Rushdie and Zeid, where the relationship between modernity and Islamic identity presented an important political challenge, she turns to Turkey ñ and issues of religious marriages and veiling ñ and suggests that the politics of tolerating difference in Islam requires reconciliation with history as well as reconciliation (as in the relationship between Islam and modernity) that must first come from within Islam.

The American Jesuit John Courtney Murray (1904-67) played a critical role in altering the Catholic direction on questions of religious toleration. Murray in fact changed the terms of the debate from religious 'toleration' to religious 'liberty', which he saw as a human right rooted in the created dignity of the person and the nature of faith. He also resisted common implications of the Enlightenment notion of toleration: the privatization of religion and religious indifference. Murray brought a keen theological vision to his defense of religious liberty and democracy. Controversy about Murray's thought shows the high stakes facing religious institutions: theological arguments for liberty can be extended into the life of the group itself, thus threatening unity and authority.

The gravest challenge to orthodox Judaism is not that of coexisting peacefully with communities whose forms of life it considers religiously objectionable but that of taking responsibility for the management of such peaceful coexistence. Government is required not merely to turn a blind eye to the conduct of such communities but to take active responsibility for their security, well-being and capacity to flourish according to their custom and conviction. This sort of active enabling is forbidden by Jewish Law as it now stands. Is the Jewish legal tradition capable in principle of grounding a genuinely liberal yet non-relativistic pluralism? This paper explores a way of answering this crucial question in the affirmative.

In this paper the author relates Jewish cultural resources to the structuring of intolerance and tolerance in the Jewish tradition. The role of collectivist and primordial orientations are highlighted not only in the definition of intolerance but in the construction of patterns of tolerance as well. Because of the decisive role of these orientations, the distinction between public and private spheres plays a large part in the contemporary structuring of tolerance in Israel. However, they receive a character which is inverse to the American Protestant pattern: Jewish religious values are to find expression in the public sphere, whereas the private sphere of the individual becomes the legitimate arena for secular belief and behaviors that are not in accord with Orthodox Judaism.

A master narrative on the Quríanís attitudes toward non-Muslims dominates both classical Quríanic exegesis and orientalist studies. During the Meccan period of revelation, according to this narrative, the Qur'an's message is generally one of tolerance toward non-believers, whether polytheist Arabs or Jews and Christians. This position was dictated by the Muslim community's military weakness. But when Muhammad relocated to Medina the Qurían becomes increasingly belligerent towards non-Muslims until finally, near the end of the revelation, it commands war against polytheists until they convert and against Jews and Christians until they submit to Muslim domination. In this essay, the author challenges this master narrative by studying the evolution of Quríanic views on tolerance. He argues that if the Qur'anic text is considered as a whole, the apparently belligerent verses emerge as limited in scope and application while an ethic of pluralism (best expressed in Q. 5:48) is consistently upheld.

This paper outlines three features of the Jewish classical tradition that contribute toward pluralism. First, the limitation of the Jewish religion to one nation is accompanied by a positive valuation of the role of other collectivities in the divine plan. Judaism recognizes that certain of its core values are shared by other political or religious entities, although realized in a variety of diverse ways. This recognition allows for legal and social interaction and sharing between Judaism and other traditions. Second, Judaismís skeptical approach to truth-claims and appreciation of intellectual diversity fosters intellectual pluralism within the normative community. Third Judaismís emphasis on tolerance not as an abstract political principle but, rather, as an encounter with persons who must be understood in light of their diverse circumstances allows for intra-group pluralism. The paper concludes by contrasting pluralism with tolerance and argues that pluralism transcends the liberal notion of toleration.