Islam and Nonviolence

Introduction

Chaiwat Satha-Anand (Qader Muheideen)

INTRODUCTION

A seminar on Islam and Nonviolence, to many, sounds unimaginable in a world where the term “Islam” has ceased to be a simple description. Instead, it means a lot of “unpleasant” things to some non-Muslims. Edward Said, a Columbia University professor, writes, “For the right, Islam represents barbarism; for the left, medieval theocracy; for the center, a kind of distasteful exoticism. In all camps, however, there is agreement that even though little enough is known about the Islamic world there is not much to be
approved of there.”1 Needless to say, concerning the issues of violence and nonviolence, Islam is normally perceived as heavily oriented towards the former.

But Glenn D. Paige, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai‘i thinks differently. This American professor is not a Muslim. People around him sense that he has a strong inclination towards Buddhism and Jainism. His most significant bond with them is, perhaps, the precept that instructs human beings to abstain from taking the lives of other living things.

He exemplifies this very principle because he is an extremely rare political scientist. He is seeking to be a nonviolent (or to be more precise—a nonkilling) political scientist; since 1980 he has taught a course in Hawai‘i on “Nonviolent Political Alternatives.” Professor Paige was the temporary convenor of the United Nations University exploratory seminar on “Islam and Nonviolence” held in Bali in February 1986.

The idea of this seminar grew out of a special relationship between us. We met in 1978 in Hawai‘i, where I was a Ph.D. student in political science. It all began when I registered for Professor Paige’s course on “Nonviolent Political Alternatives.” As a member of the Muslim minority community in Thailand, I had left my home country one year after a bloody episode in its political history had taken place at Thammasat University, and I had come in search of political alternatives to violence. This American professor was ready. Together we strolled along the relatively virgin academic path of nonviolence. In the professor, I found academic training in nonviolence. In me, the professor found a case of Muslim receptivity to nonviolence that radically altered his former perception of Islam. Subsequently the professor met another nonviolent Muslim political scientist, Syed Sikander Mehdi, a University of Karachi professor. Paige met Mehdi at an international course on “Nonviolence: Meanings, Forms and Uses,” organized by Theodore L. Herman, then director of Peace Studies at Colgate University, held at the Inter-University Centre of Postgraduate Studies, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia during June 26–July 6, 1983.

Meeting these two Muslim political scientists who took nonviolence seriously led Paige to dream of a seminar, a meeting place, a forum where those keenly interested in developing Islamic contributions to peaceful global transformation could meet, exchange ideas, and try to identify feasible future projects of common interest.

Paige then put his dream into writing and sent a proposal to the United Nations University in Tokyo for consideration. It was approved on December 6, 1984. First, it was scheduled to be held in Sabah, Malaysia, in May 1985. But the seminar had to be cancelled because of a change of the Sabah Government in April 1985. Then it was rescheduled for December 1985 in Bali, Indonesia, only to be postponed again until early 1986, at the Indonesian Government’s request, so that the Minister of Religious Affairs officially could
open it.

Paige’s dream was finally realized when the seminar was held successfully at Ashram Canti Dasa, Bali, Indonesia during February 14–19, 1986. Among eighteen participants from India, Jordan (an American), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and the United States, there were fourteen Muslims—ten men and four women. It must be pointed out that Mrs. Gedong Bagoes Oka, the famous Gandhian of Bali and head of the Bali Canti Dasa Ashram, provided all the participants with rare motherly care that was unforgettable.

THE EXPLORATION

The papers presented in this volume cover a wide range of issues. Nevertheless these varied issues can be grouped into three categories—theoretical, theological, and instrumental. My paper, “The Nonviolent Crescent,” is basically theoretical. It tries to argue for the Muslim’s sacred obligation to fight for justice in the modern world through nonviolent means.

Three papers take primarily a theological approach to their subject: the first by an Indian historian, Razi Ahmad’s “Islam, Nonviolence, and Global Transformation”; the second by an Indonesian political leader and writer, Abdurrahman Wahid’s “Islam, Nonviolence, and National Transformation”; and the third by a rural development activist from Bangladesh, Mamoon al-Rasheed’s “Islam, Nonviolence, and Rural Transformation.” Addressing issues of social transformation at the global, national, and local levels, these authors attempt to show how Islam is indispensable for human change. They argue that such transformations need to be carried out nonviolently and that there are ample Islamic injunctions which sanction peaceful change. One author, however, cautions that nonviolence will only be realized in the contemporary world when equality becomes a reality. Since Islam highly values equality, it can contribute to a nonviolent world. In addition, Islam deals with the roots of violence by fighting injustice and seeking to educate the human mind for nonviolence.

A paper by the Malaysian physicist Khalijah Mohd. Salleh on “Islam, Nonviolence, and Women” provides fresh insight. She points out that for Muslim women to work effectively for nonviolence, Islamic knowledge is badly needed. She concludes, “It should be noted, however, that her contributions can become meaningful and effective provided opportunities are given her to engage in society.”

A paper by Mazzahim Mohideen, then deputy director of Sri Lanka’s Marga Institute, on “Islam, Nonviolence, and Interfaith Relations” looks at the relationship between Islam and other global religions. It seeks to discern commonalities of perception, teaching, and practice that can serve to promote ongoing dialogue “for the promotion of interfaith harmony, human development, and global peace and order.” Emphasizing the primacy of human beings in the physical universe, he claims that this assertion is shared by people of all persuasions.

Collectively these papers bring into focus a number of issues.  First, for Muslims, Islam is definitely a repertoire of solutions for social ills that is still waiting to be fully realized. Second, even among Muslims, there is still a severe lack of comprehensive Islamic knowledge. Therefore, the search for more Islamic knowledge assumes paramount importance. Third, Muslims must try to project an image of Islam that is genuine and closer to the Muslims’ own understanding of it, rather than passively accepting the image portrayed by popular writers whose knowledge of Islam and Muslims leaves much to be desired.2 The message of Islam revealed in Surah (chapter) 5, Ayat (verse) 32 of the Holy Qur‘an needs to be widely shared. The Almighty says:  “And if any one saved a life, It would be as if he saved The life of the whole people.”

It should also be noted that amidst the brotherly and sisterly atmosphere, debates, sometimes heated, did take place. These debates signified the seriousness which the participants in this exploratory seminar accorded to the discussion.

OF DISCREPANCIES AND SOLACE

The seminar, like so many others, was attended by participants with basic differences. True, many of us were Muslims, as are all the authors of the papers included here. But each of us came from a distinctive social background, class, and culture. One difference observed was between those from countries in which Muslims were a majority and those in which they were not. Even the books read by the participants differed. As a result, perceptions of an issue were at times dissimilar. Moreover the very terms used in formal presentations and informal communications differed. For example, it was pointed out that the terms “violence” and “nonviolence” are not Qur‘anic terms. Therefore it was suggested that “coercion” might be preferable. However, there are at least two problems with this. First, if a term is non-Qur‘anic, can it not be discussed? “Nuclear weapons” is certainly not a Qur‘anic term. But is it not part of present reality and deserving of serious discussion by Muslims? Second, judging from a sociological standpoint coercion and violence are different concepts. Coercion, in fact, can be both violent and nonviolent.

The discussion revealed lack of knowledge about both Islam and nonviolence. For example, most participants were not familiar with the literature on nonviolence, such as Gene Sharp’s extremely important book The Politics of Nonviolent Action.3 Consequently they failed to see that nonviolent action is a form of fighting for justice. Like many people throughout the world, quite a few thought that nonviolence is equivalent to submission or passivity. Also, when some participants quoted a Hadith (a saying attributed by tradition to the Prophet Muhammad), others might question its authenticity. This raised the concern that the seminar needed expert classical Islamic scholars, and surely this is appropriate for further inquiry into specific issues. But what was needed at the outset, it was suggested, was not petrified textual exegesis. Instead, as ordinary Muslims, it was inspirations from the Words of God and the Traditions of the Prophet that should be embraced.

Despite our shortcomings, the exploratory seminar on Islam and Nonviolence accomplished at least three things. First, it indicated to the world that Islam indeed can offer a peaceful solution to social ills. Second, it provided an opportunity for a broad spectrum of Muslim social activists, scholars, and concerned non-Muslims to join together in a penetrating exploration of nonviolent alternatives to global violence in the present era. Third, it helped to construct a human bond that otherwise would be nonexistent. This human bond was, and is, supported by strong religious conviction.  For Muslims, Islam provides a comfortable basis for discussion of issues related to general human and social problems. Differences which arose in the seminar, though significant, were primarily hermeneutical. As such, a commonality was already there and any conflicts which arose were truly instructive and healthy.

What is more important, perhaps, was a non-Muslim’s unusual remark at the end of the seminar. Professor Paige told the participants that never before had he experienced so strongly the spirit of God among mortals. This seminar was just a beginning. A lot more work needs to be done, including research, study, and further seminars. But the faith is there, the beginning made, and the supportive human relationships established.

NOTES

1. Edward Said, Covering Islam (New York: Pantheon, 1981), p. xv.

2. For example, V. S. Naipaul, Among the Believers (New York:
Vintage, 1981).

3. Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter
Sargent, 1973).

Originally published on The Center for Global Nonviolence site at http://www.globalnonviolence.org/islam.htm as Chapter 9 of the book Islam and Nonviolence containing essays from a 1986 conference in Bali co-sponsored by Nahdatul Ulama and the United Nations University with participants from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.  Reprinted in TAM with permission of Glenn D. Paige, President, Center for Global Nonviolence http://www.globalnonviolence.org/