Faith and Religious Tolerance

Faith and Religious Tolerance in Guantánamo is presented as both a struggle over the conditions of religious practice and a continuing possibility of human exchange. Mohamedou Ould Slahi’s account moves from banned books and prayers performed secretly to conversations in which he and guards compare Islam and Christianity without erasing their disagreements. Tolerance remains provisional: some practices are obstructed, others gradually permitted, and personal regard develops inside a relationship structured by detention.

Restricted Practice and Uneven Change

Religious observance was not simply a private matter for Mohamedou. He says that he had been forbidden religious rituals and that he continued to test how much prayer the authorities would tolerate. When guards stopped him, he prayed secretly. The restriction extended to religious reading: many Arabic and religious books were banned, and he says he still had not received Islamic books despite repeatedly asking for them. Novels and books about animals were available instead.

In July 2004, he found a copy of the Qur'an found among the laundry. He took it to his cell, worried that he had effectively had to take it in order to save it, and did not raise the matter with the interrogators. The episode captures the uncertainty surrounding even access to a sacred text: the book was physically present, but he had reason to think that possessing it might displease those controlling his detention. He also records that the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo had been arrested and another Muslim soldier charged with treason, details that made religious matters feel especially delicate to him.

The limits on reading were not confined to religious material. When Mohamedou asked why English-learning books were also banned, a guard explained that detainees could learn the language quickly and understand the guards. His account thus places religious restriction within a wider control of knowledge and communication. Access to a book could be treated as consequential not only because of its religious content but because reading might make detainees more capable of understanding the people and institution around them.

At the end of July 2004, Mohamedou prayed in view of new guards and, this time, no one commented. He took their silence as a meaningful change: prayer had moved, at least in that moment, from an act he needed to conceal to one he could perform under observation. The change did not mean that his requests for Islamic books were met; he says he continued to ask without receiving them. His account therefore distinguishes a limited tolerance of visible prayer from the broader restoration of religious freedom.

Conversations Across Religious Difference

A guard who was religious by Mohamedou’s measure gave him a special-edition Bible after he asked for one. Their discussions made religious difference explicit rather than treating it as a barrier to conversation. Mohamedou asked how, according to Christianity, a person reaches heaven. The guard explained the Christian belief that salvation comes through accepting Christ as Savior and believing that he died for one’s sins. Mohamedou responded that he regarded Christ as one of the greatest prophets but did not accept that Christ had died for his sins; he believed a person should answer for himself by doing what was right.

The exchange did not resolve into agreement. Mohamedou explained that, in his understanding of Islam, accepting Mohamed and living as a good Muslim were necessary for reaching heaven, and that rejecting Mohamed had consequences. The guard joked that both of them could go to hell and meet there. Mohamedou replied that, although he admitted to sin, he asked God for forgiveness and was not willing simply to accept damnation. When time allowed, the two brought out the Bible and the Qur'an to compare what the texts said. The books served not as props for a conversion scene but as shared points of reference for a conversation that preserved the participants’ distinct beliefs.

Their discussions also encountered limits. Mohamedou could not make sense of the Trinity and returned to the subject, asking the guard to explain how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit related to God. A further acquaintance was introduced to help answer his questions about Christianity, but the explanations confused him more, and differences in belief among the Christians themselves did not make the doctrine clearer. After the topic became contentious, Mohamedou and the guard stopped discussing it for several days before resuming. Eventually Mohamedou set aside the question. The narrative allows confusion and disagreement to remain unresolved rather than presenting religious dialogue as a path that must end in consensus.

Faith as Mutual Regard

Religious discussion also made room for humor and ordinary personal regard. Mohamedou and the Christian guard could disagree about the way to heaven while speaking openly about what each believed. The guard’s offer of his own Bible and their recurring comparisons of the two scriptures gave the conversation a reciprocal form: Mohamedou was not only explaining Islam but also asking questions and trying to understand Christianity. The fact that he remained confused about the Trinity does not cancel the value of that exchange; its significance lies in the continued conversation across a real difference.

A note from a guard offers a related expression of faith. The guard wished Mohamedou luck, invoked Allah’s plan, and hoped he would think of the guards as more than guards, adding that they had become friends. Another guard, writing on April 19, 2005, described having tried for ten months to maintain a detainee-guard relationship, while acknowledging how difficult it was not to like Mohamedou. The message connected personal affection with an appeal to keep faith. These gestures did not alter the fact of detention, but they show that some guards could recognize a person beyond his institutional role and address his religious commitments with respect.

Mohamedou also debated belief with a new guard raised as a conservative Catholic. The guard said he believed only what he could see. Mohamedou answered by distinguishing belief from knowledge: seeing something removes the need to rely on another person’s assurance of it. He used the example of a cold Pepsi in a refrigerator to make the distinction concrete. He said he had faith and imagined that he and the guards might have been good friends under different circumstances, and he wished that God would guide them toward the right choices. His response combined disagreement with goodwill: he did not abandon his beliefs in order to understand the guard, nor did he treat the guard’s skepticism as a reason to withhold concern for him.

The Meaning and Limits of Tolerance

The episodes together define tolerance less as an official policy than as an uneven practice. Prayer becomes possible in front of new guards, while access to Islamic books remains denied. A guard supplies a Bible and discusses salvation; other religious topics become uncomfortable or confusing and are set aside. Personal friendships and notes of encouragement coexist with restrictions that Mohamedou cannot control. The text does not collapse these contrasts into a claim that mutual kindness makes the restrictions disappear.

Faith also shapes the terms in which Mohamedou evaluates others. He argues for the reasonableness of belief, listens to Christian explanations, admits uncertainty about doctrines he cannot understand, and expresses the hope that guards will make good choices. His account presents religious conviction as firm without making conversation impossible. Tolerance here does not require agreement about Christ, Mohamed, sin, or salvation. It appears instead in the fragile space where people can ask questions, share sacred books, recognize one another’s humanity, and sometimes allow a prayer to go uninterrupted—while the larger conditions of detention continue to set strict limits on what that freedom can mean.