It is true that God may forgive His servants whatever offenses or crimes they may commit, short of associating partners with Him.

This takes the form of ascribing divinity to any person or thing other than Him. It may take a clear form of offering worship to such beings, or it may take a tacit form, such as claiming for those being qualities and attributes which belong solely to God.

If we were to analyze God’s forgiveness by human standards, we find it most amazing and hard to believe. God gives us every thing — our lives, senses and well being. He gives us the means to survive and to develop our lives. He grants us our minds and intelligence, which enable us to improve human life and develop it. Without intellect, human life would have been extinct long time ago, prophets of doom were predicting that the earth’s resources could not support a world population of two billion human beings. Now the number of human beings on earth is close to six billion human beings and still increasing, with every sign that the earth is able to support several times its present population. But nothing of this could have happened had God not given us the intellect to develop new potentials and to ensure better utilization of the resources He has placed at your disposal.

Yet we disobey God at every turn and in every moment. We turn our backs on His message and persist in offending Him. If any being had someone working for him, and to whom he gives a decent wage, been persisted in disobeying his employer, he would soon be punished, then dismissed. But instead of punishing us, God gives us every opportunity to turn back to Him. Once we genuinely repent of our disobedience to Him, He turns to us in forgiveness and rewards us for our repentance. If we make our repentance complete by stopping our disobedience, He rewards us with admittance into heaven where we lead a life of pure happiness.

Unfortunately, we do not learn from God’s forgiveness to be forgiving others. We are at times too severe in inflicting punishment when we are sure that we can escape any blame for being too cruel. Indeed we may be unjust to others without justification. Look at the dictators and what they do to those who differ with them and try to exercise their right of freedom of speech and expression. Yet dictatorship is not limited to the political scene. Many people tyrannize over others when they are in a position of power.

This is seen in business, government offices, and even in private homes within the same family. Husbands may be unjust to their wives, bosses to their staff, employers to their employees, etc. In all such situations, injustice is a mark of unwillingness to overlook mistakes and forgive slips and errors. This hard attitude is described in the Qur’an:

"Indeed, man tyrannizes once he thinks himself to be self-sufficient."

"Compulsion is inadmissible in matters of faith." (2;256).

With this clear order given in the Qur'an, we know the reason why Islamic history has been distinguished for tolerance, freedom of belief and absence of compulsion. Not only so, but we claim that the same message of freedom of belief was preached by all prophets and messengers, beginning with Adam and ending with Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

We, Muslims, believe that Suleman was a prophet sent by God to the Children of Israel. Even though the Jews refer to him as King Solomon, he and his noble father are mentioned in several clear references in the Qur'an among the prophets that preached the message of the Oneness of God. Hence, King Solomon could not have been guilty of using force, or even the threat of force, to compel people to convert to his faith. Far be it from a prophet sent by Allah, Merciful Allah, to employ such tactics.

When we consider the story of Suleman with the Queen of Sheba as mentioned in the Qur'an, we find that the threat by Suleman to use force was in no way related to the queen's faith or his desire that she should convert to his religion. To comment on the story as related in the Qur'an and give a full explanation of its events will take much more space than can be allowed to a single question. I will, therefore, refer only the relevant passages. The reader may wish to refer to the story as related in Surah 27, entitled, "The Ants", or, "An-Naml".

The first we learn in the story about the Queen of Sheba and the fact that she and her people worshipped the sun is when the bird known as the hoopoe explains his long absence to the Prophet Suleman, who is described in the Qur'an as being able to communicate in the language of the birds. The hoopoe states that he went to Sheba and saw the queen there and her people worshipping the sun in place of God. Suleman states first that he is not going to take action on the basis of the hoopoe's statement until he has verified it. He said: "We shall see whether you have been truthful or are a liar." (27;27). Suleman then sent the hoopoe back to Sheba with a letter, giving him instructions to bring a reply.

Suleman's letter is indicative of his likely course of action. For its contents, we have the Queen's statement when she calls in her advisers to consider the letter and their reply. She says: "Councilmen, a gracious letter has been delivered to me. It is from Suleman and it reads: In the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent. Do not exalt yourselves above me but come to me in submission." (Verse 31)

There are three points to be emphasized about this letter. Firstly, its description as "gracious" by the queen herself. She did not feel threatened by the letter, but she realized that its delivery by a hoopoe which dropped it to her personally, was of a serious nature. Secondly, the letter emphasizes the qualities of beneficence, compassion and mercy as attributes of God. Thirdly, it requires that the queen and her advisers should go to Suleman committing themselves not to go to war against him. So, the letter highlighted differences of faith and required the queen to pay a visit to Suleman for a peaceful dialogue. The queen understood it as a political gesture, and she was well aware of Suleman's power. Therefore, she wanted to test Suleman's attitude with a political ploy. She declared to her advisers: "I am sending them a gift and shall be watching for what reply my emissaries bring back." (Verse 35).

It was at this point that Suleman took a very strong attitude and threatened to use force. When he received the queen's reply he declared that "what God has bestowed on me is far better than what He has given you. Yet, it is you who seem happy with your gift." He then commands the hoopoe to carry back his new message warning them that he will march to them "with armies they can never resist. We shall expel them from it, humiliate it and condemn it." (Verse 37). Commentators also mention that when Suleman received the Queen of Sheba's emissaries, he put on a great show to give them a very clear impression of his great wealth and far superior power.

Let us now consider the threat he made. From the angle of religious beliefs, there is no hint whatsoever in the whole account given in the Qur'an of the dealings between Suleman and the Queen of Sheba and their subsequent encounter that she or anyone else was forced to accept Suleman's faith. The threat to drive them from their land is largely a political stance. His initial condition was that the queen and her chiefs should come to him in submission. When they used delaying tactics and tried to win his approval with a gift, he issued a threat. In his threatening words, as reported accurately in the Qur'an, there is nothing to suggest that they could avoid expulsion only by adopting his religion.

It is important to explain the serious attitude the divine faith adapts with regard to political power. This attitude is made clearest in Islam, and it is clear from this account of the events that took place between Suleman and the Queen of Sheba that it also applied then.

It is well known that the faithfuls and the prophets are certainly the ones whose example should be followed by believers, and they are required to convey the message of the Oneness of God to all the people. They should call on them to believe that there is no deity save God. However, it is often the case that political power makes of itself a barrier between its subjects and learning about the divine faith. In the case of the Queen of Sheba, her people worshipped the sun because she did so. That was accepted as the true religion because the queen and her chiefs and nobles worshipped the sun.

There was no way Suleman could address her people and inform them about the divine faith, and at the same time they would feel free to follow it unless agreement to freedom of speech and belief was achieved between Suleman and the Queen. That was the thing he required when he wanted them to come to him "in submission".

It is worthy to note that Dr. Irving, who produced the first American translation of the Qur'an, translates Suleman's first letter as follows: "In the name of God, the Mercy-giving, the Merciful. Do not act haughtily toward me, and come to me committed to (live at) peace."

So, when the queen's reply was to send him a gift, he realized that she was employing political tactics in the hope that he would let her continue in the same way as before. She would still rule, having gained his friendship, and she would continue to lead her people in their pagan faith. That meant that Suleman would abandon his role as a prophet required to convey God's message to people. That was not to be., Hence, he threatened to remove her and her chiefs, and drive them out of their land humiliated so that he could address the people directly and call on them to believe in God. Whether they would do so or not is a matter of personal choice. There would be no compulsion to make an individual feel forced to adopt the monotheistic faith.

The expulsion of the queen from her land would have been a fitting punishment for her depriving the people of the chance to listen to God's message and the freedom to adopt it if they wanted to do so. Thus, the deprivation of power would be a fitting punishment for using that power to turn people away from the divine faith.

What I am saying is confirmed by every statement in the rest of the story, and by the tactics employed by Suleman when the queen finally arrives in his capital. She was his guest, staying in his palace and she continued in her worship of the sun. He did not impose on her an obligation not to continue with her practices, but he declared that he himself had submitted himself to God.

We are told that Suleman had her throne fetched from Sheba to his palace and ordered his assistants to make changes in that throne to disguise it in order to test whether she would know it. That was a big test for the queen, because she could not figure out how the throne was carried to Suleman's palace when it was safely lying in her own palace back in Yemen.

Her final conversion to Suleman's faith came as a result of his explanation of the monotheistic faith and his demonstration of how God provides guidance and gives His servants the means to utilize all resources in order to improve the quality of their lives and achieve happiness in this world and in the life to come. He had ordered a structure to be built of glass with water running underneath. He then asked her to go in, and she did not for a moment doubt that he asked her to go through the water. She pulled her dress up in order to walk along in the water, but he told her that it was all made of glass. She recognized the truthfulness of every word Suleman had said to her, and declared that she submitted herself to God.

This is a translation of the last three verses in the story, after her arrival in Suleman's palace and just when she was shown her disguised throne:

"When she came, she was asked: 'Is your throne like this?' She replied, 'It looks as though it were the same.' (Suleman) said: 'Before her we were endowed with knowledge, and before her we surrendered to the Lord'. What she had been worshipping instead of God distracted her, she belonged to disbelieving folk. She was bidden to enter the palace, and when she saw it she thought it was a pool of water, and (tucked up her skirt and) bared her legs. He said: 'It is a palace paved with glass.' She said: 'My Lord, how I have wronged myself. Now I submit with Suleman to God, the Lord of the Universe." (Verses 42-44)

The question of faith and its acceptance by any human being is very much related to a personal experience leading to a moment when an individual, indeed every individual, realizes with all clarity that all the basic principles of the divine faith are true and that he or she must adopt that faith in order to be at peace with himself or herself, and with the universe at large.

To the Queen of Sheba, a powerful queen in her own land, that moment came when she saw some aspects of far superior power that could not have been achieved by human beings at that time without God's help in revealing some of the secrets of the universe.

There is some confusion in the understanding of the Qur'anic verse, which has come about from the translation of the term 'waliy' which is rendered in the translation you have quoted as "friend". In fact the term "friend" is inadequate as a translation of the Arabic term. The term "friend" occurs in the Qur'an in verse 61 of Surah 24, entitled, Light. Had Allah meant that we must not take unbelievers as friends, in the strict meaning of friendship, He would have used this particular term, sadeeq, but He has chosen to use a different term which has much wider connotations.

Translators of the Qur'an have found difficulty in rendering the meaning of the term waliy as it occurs in the verse you have quoted and similar verses. It should be noted that in Islamic terminology, the same word is used for the person who acts for a woman in her marriage, giving the commitment to marry her away to her prospective husband. When the suitor accepts that commitment, the marriage is made. Such a person is normally her father, if he is alive and sane. If not, then her grandfather, brother, uncle, or even her adult son may act for her. In such a situation, we normally translate the term waliy as "guardian".

As for the situation of dealing with unbelievers, translators of the Qur'an have tried to come to grips with this term by using in their translations words such as "allies, protectors, helpers, bosom friends, etc." One translator uses both "friends and allies" to denote the meaning. Without wishing to comment on these translations, I can say that perhaps the word "ally" is closer to the meaning of the Arabic term. What Allah forbids in our relations with non-believers is the forging of alliances which have far reaching commitments that may take precedence over the implementation of certain provisions of our law.

With the difference in meaning explained, there is no question that friendship on social basis with unbelievers is acceptable, provided that these individuals are not actively hostile to Islam or to Muslims. A clear reference to this in the Qur'an is found in verses 8 and 9 of surah 670, entitled The Examined One. These can be rendered in translation as follows :

"As for such (of the unbelievers) as do not fight against you on account of your faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, Allah does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity. Indeed, Allah loves those who act equitably. Allah only forbids you to choose for your allies those that fight against you because of your faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid others in driving you forth. Those of you who choose such people for their allies are truly wrongdoers."

Perhaps it is important to explain that the phrase "Allah does not forbid you" which occurs in the first of these two verses does not merely mean an absence of prohibition. It implies in this context, as commentators on the Qur'an explain, a positive encouragement to act towards them with kindness and equity. There are numerous Hadiths which encourage Muslims to be kind to other religious communities, especially those who constitute minorities in the Muslim state. The strong emphasis placed on the need to behave towards them in this way has been heeded by Muslims throughout the ages. Minorities in the Muslim state have always enjoyed a fair and kind treatment by the Muslim majority.

The words 'fundamentalist' and 'fundamentalism' have only recently come to be used in association with Islamic advocacy. These words made their appearance in the Western media early in the 1970s [when we had Bhutto's regime in Pakistan], when they were highly ambiguous. Only few people had any real sense of what they meant and why these terms were floated. With hindsight, we can probably trace the usage of these terms and find out why these were invented and their present significance.

In the late sixties and early seventies, Western media seemed unsure of how to describe the trend of Islamic revival and its advocates in the Muslim world. The Western media, however, was keenly aware that Islam revivalism could gather strong momentum and have a great influence on the course of events in Arab countries and in the Muslim world at large. The Arabs had just emerged from a very bitter defeat which they suffered at the hands of Israelis in the 1967 war. I recall reading a main feature published in one of the main Sunday newspapers in England by Watt Montgomery, a prominent Orientalist, analyzing the situation in the Middle East and clearly pointing out that in their defeat the Arabs could easily turn to Islam and start an Islamic revival. Such early warnings highlighted the need for the Western world to choose how to deal with the forthcoming trend.

It is beyond the scope of this column to analyze the relationship between the West and Islam or to outline its historical background, but there is no disputing the fact that the West is highly interested in maintaining its supremacy throughout the world and a weak and divided Muslim world. Let us be clear on one thing: Some of us appear to do much worse than any colonial power in deepening divisions in the Muslim world. In the final analysis, however, we find that these belong to one of the three groups:

(1) Simple and naive people who do not realize what causes they are serving;

(2) Non-believers who pretend to be Muslims; and

(3) Agents who have sold themselves to forces hostile to Islam.

Many reasons can be given why those who wield the greatest power on world stage are interested in maintaining the status quo but we do not need to go into that in detail. What we are saying is that after the 1967 war, the Western media realized that there was need for a change of emphasis in its approach to Islamic questions.

Up to the mid-sixties, even the serious and quality papers in the West did not hesitate to describe Islamic revivalist movements in very harsh terms. This was part of the residue of the colonial past. In one Muslim area after another, the fight for liberation and independence was started by leaders who were keen to preserve the Islamic identity of their communities. While patriotic elements were ready to join the fight, it was the advocates of Islam who took the leading role, mobilized the people, marshaled the forces and provided most of the fighters and the martyrs. It was in the nature of things that the imperial power should paint a very unattractive picture of the Islamic revivalist movement which sought to oust them from their colonies.

By the mid-sixties all that had changed. There were only a very few areas still in imperialist hands. The newly independent Muslim countries were now under nationalist governments. But the specter of Islamic revival continued to scare the old and the new imperialist powers. Their age-long prejudice against Islam was not expected to disappear only because they have been kicked out of their old colonies.

The prejudice was still very much in the minds of Western writers, intellectuals and journalists. Some of them tried to consciously suppress it because they realized that it was contrary to their ideals of freedom. Some wanted simply to appear to be objective when they discussed the Islamic matters, though, they were not free from prejudices. To them, Islam represented a hostile force and they were not ashamed to appear to be hostile to Islam and its advocates. It is against this background that the term fundamentalism was first floated as a description of the Islamic revivalist movement.

At first, it was not met with much enthusiasm. But frequent use and strong hammering meant that in a few years, every one was using it, mostly disapprovingly, in reference to Islamic advocacy. Many writers felt uneasy about the term itself because of its historical Christian associations. Nevertheless, the term stuck and it is now in vogue. Let us now have a brief look at the meaning of this word. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines fundamentalism as "Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets held to be fundamental to the Christian faith". It gives as an example of these tenets, "the concept of the verbal inerrancy of the Scriptures". The dictionary also states that fundamentalism is opposed to 'liberalism' and 'modernism'.

Thus, to a Western Christian mind, the term 'fundamentalist' refers to a person who rigidly believes that every word in the Bible is strictly correct and must be unhesitatingly followed. This is contrary to the belief of most Christians, including churchmen, throughout the West. Thus, the main thrust of the word is rigidity and rejection of any compromise.

Historically speaking, there has always been a strong conflict between those who advocated a rigid and strict understanding and application of the Scripture and those who favored a more liberal one. Except for very brief periods in European history, rigidity was mostly on the losing side. In our present age, Christian fundamentalism is often viewed as being in marked contrast to the sensible liberalism of modern civilization.

When the word was used in reference to Islam and Muslims, it carried all those unfavorable connotations and combined them with others derived from the Western prejudice against Islam and the West's lack of understanding of the motives and ideals of the Islamic revivalist movements. Today, however, the word is used in a much wider sense. It includes all those who believe that it is the duty of Muslims to implement Islam in their lives at the individual and the community levels. What is even worse is that it blames all the mistakes of different Islamic movements and groupings who are active in politics on Islamic fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, the media in the Muslim world are now using an equivalent of fundamentalism in reference to Islamic revival. Thus they paint the call for the revival of Islam in unfavorable colors. This is a logical result of our continued look at the West as superiors to us. We borrow anything from the West, even its prejudices against us!

In Islam, the whole concept of fundamentalism is totally irrelevant. Every Muslim believes that the Qur'an is the word of Allah and that it has been preserved intact as it was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, over 1400 years ago.