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.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.