the Message Continues ... 14/16
Article 14
The concept of
peace in Islam
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds
of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being
raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who
are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create
strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of
violence. And now the attacks in New York and Washington on 11th September 2001
will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in
general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New
York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be
condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.
It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence,
neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and
political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like
Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qur'an. But this mention is not to establish any
integral link between religion and violence but to portray
certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be
called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable
solution.
It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The
twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All
scriptures, particularly the Qur'an while permitting violence in some inevitable
situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to
establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and
violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less
that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings - the tendency for
aggression and violence and the exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah,
according to the Qur'an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim)
and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)
In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best
of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to
understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and
created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for
both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence.
For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle
to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously
resist the temptations of wealth and power.
The Qur'an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasizing the role of need
based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as
pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur'an, "They
ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus." (2:219) It is obvious
from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and
give away the surplus with you to other needy people.
Similarly the Qur'an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should
not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that
those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah
announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)
Thus the Qur'an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the
believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of
conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the
world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs
violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or,
if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own
dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to
maintain peace is such unjust political order.
The Qur'an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his
followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to
maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was
rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain
their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an
unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e.
arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust
order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.
Allah thus says in the Qur'an, "And what reason have you not to fight in
the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and
the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are
oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a
helper." This verse in the Qur'an combines both what is empirical and what
is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an
unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological
statement when it says that the weak among men, women and
children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are
oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur'an makes
it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to
relive them of injustice.
It is also important that the Qur'an more then once focuses our attention on the
on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant
and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is
represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and
Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their
oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of
the unjust order, unjust situation.
There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the
powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on
situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia)
than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not
go into details of those conditions here, which are
quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam
accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet
could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace
on their own terms.
If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the
Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what
situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract
manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in
deciding whether peace will prevail or not.
One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone
violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes
quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any
religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is
unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle
peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to
remove the cause of injustice.
It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined
to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that
throughout the text of the Qur'an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun
i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an
qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and
oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an
oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle
against him.
Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders
of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter
compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values
applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus,
as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between
Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the
oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt
violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of
violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.
The Qur'an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses
involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words "if they
commit violence against youŠ.". Thus we find in verse 2:190 "And
fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not
aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors." (emphasis added)
Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur'an does not permit unconditional
war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in
the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah
are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain
Muslims from committing aggression and excesses.
Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for
power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving
personal or collective feeling of revenge.
When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the
battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got
off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he
expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had
killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge.
Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a
religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to
call it qisas and Qur'an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as
it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes
clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery.
Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be
revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz)
is a person of great merit.
The Qur'an says, "Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those
who restrain (their) anger and pardon men." And Allah loves the doers of
good (to others)." (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to
restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one
should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and
to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defense, is
most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.
The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various
tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy
Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and
Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet
was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the
Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily
resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society
was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through
raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw).
The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used
to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in
the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is
Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the
Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of
the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made
as Al-salam-u-'alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of
greeting among the Muslims.
However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic
morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this
reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this
inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e.
the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar
(i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept
themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great
restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.
One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on
it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors -
Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The
holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the
Qur'an. Thus Qur'an says, "Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an
excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers
Allah much." (33:21)
But the Arabs with few honorable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar
in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as
many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay
zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided
caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs
(Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more
than one hundred thousand deaths.
Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological - peace - and
what was empirical - violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram
when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried
to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged
in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during
the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his
enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no
compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the
Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.
Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and
political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of
their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal
rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralized state
came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal
struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood
bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted
down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was
direct result of struggle for power.
All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for
power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather
than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for
spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur'anic
directive was very clear that "call people to the way of your Lord
with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner."
(16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that
empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword.
This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and
terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.
Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good exemplars of Islamic
morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi
saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their
distance from the power centers. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because
it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent
member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the
community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that
Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs
stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the
converts stopped giving jizyah.
ISLAM AND PEACE
The Qur'an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace
was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from
the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace
as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah's name is Salam
i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e.
servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.
In Qur'an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly
the Qur'an calls upon Muslims, "O you who believe, enter into complete
peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open
enemy." (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace
whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly.
Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in
the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.
In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my
Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who
takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of
perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means
dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches
perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In
fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilization. Since
Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfected, he ordains peace and those who
surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be
reached.
We find in the Qur'an (14:23) "And those who believe and do good are made
to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord's permission. Their
greeting therein is Peace!". Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden)
is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all
Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is
peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, " Enter it (i.e.
jannah) in peace and security." (15:46) Thus peace and security are the
main attributes of paradise.
Muslims invoke peace for all Allah's messengers because they brought the message
of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after
the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah
are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again
in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or
sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace."
Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite
i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behavior. We have converted
this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behavior. The
harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy.
Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of
violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish
peace on this earth and hence it emphasized need-based economy and condemned
accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104
clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.
Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy
peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid
equal emphasis on justice (Allah's name is also Just 'Adil along with Peace,
Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without
justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living
in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also
full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasize
justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained
obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the
blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as
Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.
Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They
pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply
satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They
have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests.
It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfillment who matter
and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of
Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.
Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human
rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is
there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are
killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try
to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated
people.
Article 1 - Article 2 - Article 3 - Article 4 - Article 5 - Article 6 - Article 7 - Article 8
Article 9 - Article 10 - Article 11 - Article 12 - Article 13 - Article 14 - Article 15
DISCLAIMER:
All material published by Al-Huda.com / And the Message Continues is the sole responsibility of its author's).
The opinions and/or assertions contained therein do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of this site,
nor of Al-Huda and its officers.
Website Designed and Maintained by Khatoons Inc. info@khatoons.com