Mustering numerous examples from the Quran, Abdullah Saeed argues that a firm scriptural basis exists for an Islamic theory of religious toleration. He contrasts these Quranic statements with very different passages in Islamic texts of varying degrees of canonicity and with the actual attitudes prevalent in most Muslim countries today. Given the abundant benefits of religious liberty, he argues that Muslim thinkers should try to recover the idea from their own tradition:

[Concerning religious freedom], there is a considerable range of opinion among the classical [Islamic] jurists. Each jurist had his own legal and theological views, reasoning, and rulings. This diversity and the remarkable fluidity within Islam over time should . . . be seen as a blessing in disguise, because within the Islamic tradition there can be found positions which are less restrictive of religious freedom as well as reasoning which can be used to support contemporary conceptions of religious liberty. The Quran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad also provide a strong basis for Muslims to rethink contemporary restrictions on this liberty from within their tradition and to come to terms with the modern understanding. . . .

[To do so], Muslim thinkers and scholars must be wary of blind imitation of received practice and instead dig deep into their own traditions to rediscover and engage the wealth of insights that these traditions offer. This means examining the texts, interpretations, rulings, and practices that have accumulated over many centuries, and particularly during the first three centuries of Islam, to see what resources exist within these traditions to support a contemporary understanding of religious liberty. . . .

[In addition], contemporary Muslims need to examine closely the foundations of the restrictions on religious liberty that do exist in Islamic tradition and determine whether these are essential to Islam or not. Scholars need to ask if these restrictions actually have a basis in the Quran, or whether they are simply a product of the social or political contexts in which they first appeared. If these restrictions are shown to be derived from, and contingent on, historical context, then work can be done to counter the assumption that these restrictions are an essential part of Islam. Indeed, as I have suggested, when the diverse and historically fluid traditions of Islam are examined more carefully, key restrictions on religious liberty may be found to have little solid basis in Islamic scripture.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.