We have written on this subject earlier also but
there is so much to be written as there is gross misunderstanding and Islam is
often associated with violence, especially in the form of jihad which is
considered a permit to enter paradise where one will get 70 Houries. Jihad, as
we have repeatedly pointed out nowhere means war in Arabic language; it only
means utmost and sincere efforts to undertake a mission
I feel very sorry that Muslim theologians, under
pressure from conquerors or of their own in many cases especially due to given
context, used the word jihad in the sense of war and relied on several weak
ahadith about paradise, houries and so on to tempt Muslims to join armies of
conquest. The Qur’an talks about paradise in case of what it calls shahadah
(martyrdom) and not jihad. Also, we have shown in one of our articles that
houries (or hur) does not mean young beautiful luscious woman but applies to
both genders and are not for sexual enjoyment but for spiritual and intellectual
companionship. People have added much more to it than found in the Qur’an.
It is important to understand causes of violence
associated with Islamic history. We can divide these causes in three categories:
Wars the Prophet (PBUH) was forced to fight and which were purely of defensive
nature (perhaps only exception is battle of Hunain after conquest of Mecca which
became necessary to stop aggression from rich neighbourhood of Mecca fought
against powerful and aggressive tribe of Hawazin, Thaqif Sa’d and Jasam) These
tribes at the valley of Hunain wanted to undo the conquest of Mecca and hence
this attack on them had become necessary.
The second cause of violence was civil war which
broke out during the time of first and 4th Caliph and it was of great
ferocity which could not have been stemmed without use of counter-violence.
The third cause was wars of conquest undertaken
mostly during the time of 2nd and 3rd Caliphs i.e. Hazrat
Umar and Uthman but the third Caliph was also embroiled in civil war.
All these three causes had nothing to do with
spread of religion. One cannot help as far as defensive wars were concerned. One
has no choice but to defend and expel violence with violence and once expelled
stop use of violence any more. Civil war is also situation on which one has no
control. If a section of people rebel and take to arms one has to repel the
rebellion. There is no other way.
However, the third category, the war of conquest,
could be controversial and there were internal debates among Muslims. A section
of people led by Hazrat Ali was of the opinion that one must concentrate on
education and improving quantity of Muslims rather than expanding the Muslim
rule. However, those in favour of expansion won the debate as there was great
economic pressure as wars between believers and non-believers seriously affected
Meccan trade which came almost to a halt.
Also, after most of the Bedouins accepted Islam
the inter-tribal raids stopped as it was not permitted by Islam and Yemen also
became Muslim and its fertility having been destroyed due to destruction of dam
of Ma’arib Yeminis continued to migrate towards North called Fertile Crescent.
There was one more reason for sending out armies
of conquest. There were two powerful empires – Roman towards North West and
Iranian Empire towards East. Roman Empire was Christian and towards the East
Zoroastrian. Both these Emires feared emergence of a new power centre in Madina
and wanted to crush it before it became powerful enough to challenge them.
The Muslims of Arabia, on the other hand, feared
that Roman and Sassanid Empires must be crushed before then crush newly emerging
Muslim power. However, Muslims had no trained army whereas Roman and Sassanid
Empires had huge well trained armies and also elephants, horses and best
available weapons. All that Muslims had was revolutionary fervour and strong
inner conviction. Also, as pointed out they were pressured for very survival. It
was do or die situation.
They fought with great revolutionary zeal on both
fronts and peasantry from both the empires sided with Muslims as it was greatly
suffering under heavy taxation and opened the doors of strong fortresses for
Muslims to enter. Thus Muslim revolutionary zeal and help from oppressed
peasantry made victory possible against unimaginable odds. It was no child’s
play to defeat such great Empires, in fact most powerful Empires of the world in
7th century.
Thus it will be seen that factors other than
religious were responsible for these wars of conquests. Many scholars even put
it in category of jihad which is totally a misconception. These wars were not
fought for the cause of Islam but for political and economic reasons. Qur’an
nowhere prescribes war for spread of Islam. In this respect the Qur’anic
prescription is very clear “Call people to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and
goodly words” (16:125)
Religion cannot be forced on anyone. It is matter
of faith and deep conviction and one can convince the other only through
persuasion and intellectual arguments which appeal to ones conscience. Islam
basically does not launch a conversion mission. It believes in religious
co-existence, even with unbelievers, if they leave Muslims in peace (109). It
also accepts all the previous prophets as prophets of Allah and does not
discriminate between the Prophets….
Thus there is no question of violence, much less
jihad for spread of Islam. Even a kafir, as long as he/she co-exists peacefully,
has right to live and cannot be subjected to any form of violence. His right to
live is as inviolable as that of a believer provided they recognize others’
right to live. The right to life is fundamental and is inviolable and
unquestionable.
Also, the context has greatly changed between 7th
century Arabia and contemporary world. Today all nations are signatories to the
three generations of human rights and freedom of belief is very fundamental
right. Islam accepted plurality in the world as Allah’s creation and what third
generation of human rights declared by UNO Qur’an granted in 7th
century.
But the people of 7th century living in
the feudal world and having become masters of two great empires could have
hardly appreciated these rights. Qur’an came to be interpreted in variety of
ways by rulers, by Sufis, by ethnic groups and by theologians. There was no
single interpretation. The feudal ruling classes used Qur’an so as to serve
their own interests and employed theologians who were ready to oblige them
(rulers).
Also, Islam spread to different areas of the world
which were unevenly developed from highly cultured and civilized areas like Iran
and India on one hand, and, tribal areas of Central Asia to marginalized groups
in East Asia and primitive areas of Africa. How could Qur’an be then understood
in uniform way in view of such great diversity. Arabs had hardly any culture
before Islam and even after emergence of Islam they tried to stick to their
pre-Islamic tradition and what we call Shari’ah law is mostly Arab customs and
traditions.
Iran had, on the other hand, very rich culture
since pre-Islamic days but this was mainly feudal culture and Arab culture, on
the other hand, was tribal and much more egalitarian in nature. Then also as in
pre-Islamic days, Iran emerged as a separate Islamic Empire with its own
political interests and Arabs, except in initial stages, could never establish
their hegemony over Iran.
The theologians from these regions interpreted
Qur’an very differently due to differing political, cultural and geographical
contexts, So to quote from one interpretation and then try to prove some Islamic
doctrine would not be correct. So many sects came into being in Islam and each
sect is based on different interpretation of Qur’an and hadith. Each sect
started denouncing the other as ‘kafir’ and use of violence legitimate against
them,
Though Qur’an teaches tolerance and respect for
others belief Muslims never adhered to core teachings of Islam and intolerance
became the rule. And some sects despite Islam being rigorously monotheistic,
developed concept of human incarnation of God like the Druzes of Lebanon and Ali
being God like the Alavids (Nuseris) of Syria. They keep their beliefs strictly
secret
Such doctrines are far from Qur’anic teachings and
yet they do exist. What Qur’an teaches and what Muslims practice are two worlds
apart. There is very little in common. The Wahabis or Salafis are most
intolerant of all sects in Islam. For them any non-salafi is kafir and will be
deprived of deliverance. Since its origin is Arabia it believes in literal
meaning of Qur’an and reject concept of ta’wil i.e. interpretation.
Then these sects of Islam got associated with some
or the other political power like the Wahabis with the Saudi family and so on.
Thus what was basically violence for political power also became sectarian
violence. But again it had nothing to do with teachings of Islam. It was a
result of power struggle between different sects and Qur’an does not talk of
sects. On the contrary it denounces sects and pleads for unity among Muslims.
Thus we must clearly distinguish between violence
as a result of power struggle between different dynasties and groups and
violence as a result of religious teachings. As for the later, Qur’an lays
maximum emphasis on compassion, persuasion and wisdom as against cruelty,
coercion and retaliatory action or revenge. Qur’an, like any other religion,
lays stress on high moral values.
Thus peace, not war, is fundamental to Islamic
teachings. It is political power within or without, in the group or outside,
that necessitates violence. Just because group follows certain religion, people
attribute violence, not to the group but to the religion it follows since often,
the group, in order to legitimize its violent action, invokes religion. This has
happened in all religious communities.
No religion, it must be noted, advocates violence.
Islam lays emphasis on peace as much as Buddhism does or Hinduism does but its
history is full of violence and this violence is wrongly attributed to Islam. In
Buddhist and Hindu history too there is great deal of power struggle and hence
violence but that is explained away as a result of power struggle but not so
when it comes to Islam.
As we know there was great deal of inter-tribal
violence in pre-Islamic Arab society and power struggle continued in Islamic
history along tribal lines even after Islam and despite Islam’s advocacy of
unity of all believers. This inter-tribal struggle for power and control over
the community resources are there in all religious communities including
Buddhist, Hindu and Christian.
In Islam, like in Christianity and Judaism there
emerged a group of mystics (Sufis in Islam) who kept away from power struggle
and devoted themselves to real teachings of their respective religions. However,
in Christianity there has been a concept of renouncing the world whereas in
Islam there is no such concept. The Sufis marry and have families too. Though
they are in the world, are not of the world.
They believe in the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud
(though there are different schools of thought as well) i.e. Unity of Being and
Sufis belonging to this school in particular do not discriminate between people
of one or other religions and treat all with same respect. The doctrine of
wahdat al-wujud demolishes all walls of separation and unity of God becomes
unity of His creation i.e. of all human beings.
Wahdat al-wujudi Sufis also believe in a very
important doctrine of what they call sulh-i-kul i.e. peace with all. This
is very important doctrine for those who believe in non-violence. If one
believes in peace with all there is no question of any violence and this
doctrine applies to entire creation of Allah including animal world. According
to this doctrine, like Gandhiji, non-violence is inviolable constraint and
violence cannot be resorted to.
If it is inviolable constraint certain things must
be observed. Truth, for example, must be part of any non-violent campaign and
that campaign must be only for a cause without any personal benefit. Thus truth
and non-violence are integral whole. One cannot fight in a non-violent way for
something like personal power or anything which is false. Thus truth and
non-violence go together as falsehood and violence.
That is why while religion teaches its followers
to stand by truth and peace followers often led by selfish interests and hence
violence becomes part of their struggle. It is only campaign for truth which can
be sustained in non-violent manner. Even a person leading non-violent campaign
for a cause can become victim of violence as Gandhiji himself was shot dead by
force of hatred and falsehood.
Gandhiji had observed that “while there are causes
for which I am prepared to die there is no cause for which I am prepared to
kill.” This is very important doctrine for non-violence as non-violable
constrain. The Sufis followed this doctrine as they kept themselves away from
all selfish gains, be it of power or wealth. That is why Sufis lay great stress
on controlling desires.
All conflicts are basically created by desire,
socially uncontrolled desire. Qur’an, therefore advises Muslims to give away in
the way of Allah what is above ones basic needs (it is called ‘afw) The
Sufis never saved anything even for next day under the doctrine of tawakkul
(i.e. total reliance on Allah) and not to care what happens next day.
It was this kind of restraint on desire that
enabled Sufis to lead a peaceful life. Thus the 2nd dimension of non
violence (first being truth) is simple need based life. Some Sufis like Sarmad
Shahid who was supporter of Dara Shikoh, Shah Jahan’s elder son who called
Hinduism and Islam as two great oceans, stretched control of desire to such an
extent that he went about naked (wearing cloths is also a desire and he recited
Islamic kalma only half la ilaha, there is no god but did not
recite other half except one God as he thought he still was not able to deny all
idols of desire and thus has no right to say except one God).
Sarmad may be an exception but most of the Sufis
led need based life and resisted greed and so could refrain from violence. Then
there was a cult of Sufis who felt very happy if someone abused them and used
filthy words as they felt successful in resisting ego. These Sufis not only
resisted desire and greed but also resisted their ego and would in no case thus
use violence. Thus extreme tolerance both in religious and personal sense
becomes another important dimension for practicing non-violence.
In a democratic world like ours in theory at
least, no violence is needed as power is no longer got through sword but through
votes. Secondly, all fundamental rights are well defined and guaranteed by
state. It was not so during medieval ages as power could be seized only through
sword and there were no rights or partnership in governance as in democracy.
But even in democracy we know violence is norm
rather than exception. The most democratic nation like America tends to be most
violent and possesses most destructive weapons and keeps on attacking other
countries to usurp their oil and other raw materials. It refuses to urge its
people to adopt simple way of living and maintains highest standard of living by
using violence against peoples of Asian and African countries.
Thus non-violence as a philosophy and ideology
occupies morally high ground and all religions, including Islam preach peace and
non-violence but no religion or ideology could succeed in establishing it firmly
on ground as powerful vested interests always sabotage it in practice.
Democratic nations similarly may boast of peace and non-violence but tend to be
quite violent when it comes to grab resources of some of the Asian and African
countries.
Thus violence remains the norm in 21st
century though for thousands of years religions have preached peace and
non-violence remains just a dream. More we claim it progress more violent we
become as our needs are increasing very fast with higher technology. Simple life
style has become necessity only for poorer classes who keep on toiling for their
very existence. And yet we blame religion for our greed.
***
