ABSTRACT
The definition of the “other” in classical Islam—and to a certain extent even today, is unambiguous: he is the unbeliever (kafir), the one who did not embrace the religious message of Islam and did not join the community of believers. According to Muslim law there are two different kinds of unbelievers: those who are not monotheists and possess no divine revelation or holy book, and those who are considered to be monotheists and possess Holy Scriptures. In theory, those who were not considered to be monotheists had to choose between conversion to Islam or death (sometimes also slavery). In practice, large numbers of unconverted Zoroastrians (who were sometimes also taken to be monotheists), Indians, or Buddhists continued to live unharmed under the rule of Islam. This is an important factor to be remembered in the context of our discussion here: there is, in many fields, a wide divergence in Islam between rules and behavior. It seems sometimes as if this great civilization did possess an inner awareness of the impossibility of achieving unity between its theory and practice in its widely divergent parts. This made for a basically lenient, flexible attitude in many spheres, and for turning a blind eye to many practices which diverged from the desirable theory of holy law. 1
