97that today we would fi nd repugnant. But by
comparison with other socie ties at that time,
they were relatively— I say relatively— progressive,
encouraging science and math. That is well
documented.
So why didn’t we have comparable problems re-
lating to cohabiting with “infi dels” within their
socie ties? Because these debates had already been
held. But modern- day Islamists, with their partic-
ularly vacuous approach to interpretation, have
resurrected some of them. In the theological sphere,
there’s a well- known Muslim exegete, phi los o pher,
and mystic, Ibn ‘Arabi. He proposed a theory that
eventually came to be known as wahdat al- wujud,
or the “unity of being,” which focused on a uni-
versal approach to oneness, truth, and justice in
matters theological, regardless of one’s religious
heritage. Some followers of Imam al- Ash’ari, whom
we mentioned earlier, also took the view that only
those who— like Satan— recognize Islam as true
and then knowingly reject it out of arrogance can
be described as kuffar, or infi dels. They referred to
the literal Arabic meaning of the word kafi r, “one
who conceals,” to argue that concealing the truth
is a deliberate act and cannot be ascribed to anyone
who doesn’t recognize it as truth in the fi rst
Bereitgestellt von | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Angemeldet