Islam, Nonviolence, and Global Transformation

Razi Ahmad

Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: “I will create a viceregent on earth.” They said: “Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?— Whilst we do celebrate thy praises And glorify Thy holy (name)?” He said: “I know what ye know not.” (2:30)

Since the dawn of human civilization step by step “man” has been forging ahead towards the goal of perfection. Living in the state of nature, he fought ceaseless wars and the fittest survived. But this situation did not last long and man had to find ways and means for coexistence. Had there been no such understanding, human civilization would not have reached the present stage. What was that force that compelled man to move from an isolated existence to life in families, clans, groups, and nations? Undoubtedly it was the
law of love that prompted a life based on cooperation. With the passage of time man not only organized groups, but the institutions developed gradually passed from the stage of violence and war to that of cooperation and nonviolence.

It has been aptly observed that: humanity to tame the individual and make him social and civilized employed a two-fold method. It first informed and reformed his mind and then created external circumstances, checks and hindrances, that made unsocial conduct difficult and painful. On the one hand there was a psychological and an ideological approach, on the other hand an institutional and external approach.1

By this process man’s mind and will were gradually “converted by the teaching, preachings and examples of the great ones, the reformers and prophets.” The inner and the outer processes developed simultaneously. In the long run this helped the kings and lawgivers to institutionalize the outcome. Whenever there was lack of coherence or support, the process experienced a severe backlash and was temporarily interrupted. Ideological and institutional interdependence constituted an important element in the process of human thinking. We cannot imagine an ideology taking root without an institution, nor can we envision an institution flourishing without an ideology. Man learned this in the process of his
evolution. The validity of this theory became apparent in recent years, as the world witnessed the failure of the League of Nations, an institution ahead of its ideology.2

The tragic collapse of the League of Nations and the present tendency on the part of some powerful countries to bypass and ignore the resolutions of the UN make it clear that despite its marvellous achievements in the fields of knowledge, science, and technology—“humanity has not yet recognized the propriety, justice and efficacy or even the need of truth and nonviolence in group relations.” Narrow nationalism makes nations distrust one another.  The race for nuclear armaments apart from conventional arsenals has reached a new height with the piling up of nuclear warheads capable of annihilating human civilization in a matter of hours.

It was Gandhi who, for the first time in recent years, experimented with nonviolence on a broad scale in solving sociopolitical issues. His experiments in South Africa and later on
in India roused a hope for a better future among the downtrodden, exploited, and suppressed, as well as in those wanting to serve society. Inspired by the emancipation of India largely through nonviolent means they all looked forward to the emancipation of all of humanity through similar means. A brief assessment of the Gandhian concept of nonviolence seems pertinent. And since the concept is based on a synthesis of religion and politics, it may be worthwhile to first have an idea of the concept of nonviolence as
envisaged by some religious traditions.

NONVIOLENCE IN VARIOUS RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

Thanks to recent scientific developments the world has shrunk to such an extent that the echo of an incident in one part of the world vibrates in other parts with equal intensity. But at the same time increasing contact between and dependence upon different peoples and cultures has ironically widened the gap between the haves and have-nots and has opened up innumerable avenues of friction and distrust. Since time immemorial prophets and saints have tried to teach the lessons of peace and coexistence, but human
history has no want of incidents when human hypocrisy has touched low levels. Religion means consciousness, righteousness, and piety.  Spiritual and metaphysical doctrines prompt men to be closer to each other. Religions envisage a quest for the meaning of life, truth, and ultimate end. But with the passage of time religion has lost its dynamism and has tended to become a set of rituals and dogmas. Though these various drawbacks and weaknesses have crept in, the vital role of religion in nourishing the development of human civilization cannot be denied. In this long process the instinct of nonviolence has played a significant role. In one form or another, the principle of nonviolence has an important place in every religion. Some religions limit its practice to human beings; others encompass the entire world of living beings. Some consider it the highest virtue, and others regard it as second only to social justice.3

Hinduism

Quoting T. W. Rhys Davids, O. P. Jaggi says that in Hindu literature the word ahimsa is found first in the Chandogya Upanishad.4 Ahimsa is an important element in other Upanishads as well, along with such qualities as restraint, truthfulness, nonstealing, celibacy, compassion, rectitude, forbearance, temperance in food, and cleanliness. During the Upanishadic period animal sacrifices to the gods were not prohibited; sacrifices were considered a duty towards the gods and were not taken as himsa. In the Mahabharata ahimsa gains prominence. But if a choice is to be made between ahimsa and duty, the latter is to be given priority. The Bhagavad Gita is more categorical about duty coming first, ahimsa second. The Laws of Manu adds that the himsa prescribed in the Vedas should be construed to mean ahimsa, because moral duties arise from the Vedas.5 Thus from its beginnings, in Indian philosophy ahimsa is considered an important aspect of human behavior.

Jainism

Vardhaman Mahavir, the twenty-fourth Tirthankara in the line of the great Jain teachers, went much further than the established Hindu conception of ahimsa and preached strict observance of nonviolence towards all living creatures. For the attainment of nirvana of the soul, observance of nonviolence was considered to be the “highest ideal” of life.6 Therefore, the Jain approach to nonviolence is very broad, covering both physical and metaphysical aspects. The ethical principles of Jainism are also based on nonviolence. A believer in Jainism has to observe the following six rules (anuvrata):

1. I will not kill innocent moving animals voluntarily.
2. I will not commit suicide.
3. I will not commit abortion.
4. I will neither join any organization or party whose aim is violence and destruction; nor will I participate in such activities.
5. I will not consider any individual an untouchable.
6. I will not behave cruelly towards anyone.7

Buddhism

In one of its aspects, Buddhism was a revolt against the intolerant social order that had been allowed to grow up under the priestly class of Brahmins. In the name of religion many distortions had developed which violated the spirit of the scriptures. Buddha, himself a crown prince, realized the agony of the masses. In reaching self-realization he came to understand that ignorance was the root of all suffering. When the flame of desire and lust is extinguished the state of nirvana is reached.8

Buddha started preaching his revolutionary ideas and within a short period there was an atmosphere ready to welcome the gospel of truth. It was the first time in Indian history for someone to challenge the long established supremacy of the priesthood. The seeker’s salvation no longer rested within the framework formulated by the privileged class. Now, right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right exertion, right mindedness, right meditation, right thinking, and right point of view became the foundation of nirvana. This fundamental change in socioreligious approach had a far-reaching effect and the downtrodden welcomed the new religion with open hearts. When Buddhism became a state religion it also gained support from influential quarters. But with the passage of time Buddhism lost its luster and revolutionary character in the land of its birth.

Judaism

The Jews attach more importance to social justice than to nonviolence per se. Their credo is “evil for evil, good for good.” According to the Old Testament,

Who sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed . . . He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. . . . And if any mischief follows, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.9M

Christianity

Christ said:

Ye have heard that it was said, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (Matt. 5:39–40).10

This approach is a departure from the teachings of Judaism. For Jesus Christ, God is a Loving Father. Christ, according to whatever little is known about him, stood for justice, love, nonviolence, and compassion. Christ rebelled against the prevalent faith, which had become very complicated and ritualistic. This attitude was not tolerated by the priests and he was tortured and finally crucified.

Jesus emphasized love of God and love of fellow human beings. His love has no limits and the poor and downtrodden have his special consideration. “Love thy neighbor” has a broad meaning. Jesus said,

Love your enemies, . . . pray for your persecutors, so that you may show yourself true sons of your Father in Heaven, for He makes His Sun rise on bad and good alike, and makes the rain fall on both upright and wrong doers, For if you love only those who love you, what is there remarkable in that? (Matt. 5:44–46)11

The Sermon on the Mount contains the most fundamental teachings of Jesus. These teachings have inspired thousands of people. Friedrich Heer, in his monumental work Great Documents of the World, notes: “Jesus is no political revolutionary, no founder of a Church and no anarchist, though as the Sermon shows he does abolish all orders, powers, and rights that men have invented themselves and that bar the gate to the ‘Kingdom of God’.”12

In A.D. 313 Constantine, the emperor of Rome, embraced Christianity and declared it a legal religion. Before that, Christians had not been allowed openly to observe their religious rites. They had been tortured and persecuted. But with the conversion of the emperor, the course changed. Christians were not only granted full religious liberty but all avenues were opened for the propagation of Christianity. Within a short period the number of followers increased tremendously. But with the influx of men and women with worldly passions, there also developed a large degree of corruption and misinterpretation. The Cross, a symbol of love and compassion, now became an emblem of imperial authority and the Roman Army. These developments changed the basic conception of “love” and “nonviolence.” Church leaders started to give new meanings to the basic principles and a compromising attitude developed. A theory of “just war” was worked out. When the Roman Pope claimed his temporal power, a further drastic change occurred. He now became the de facto head of the State as well as the Church. He was now more interested in power than in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The principles of love, compassion, and resist-not-evil were neglected and by stages rejected. Religious people who disagreed with the Pope were harassed. The story of the crusades is a story of the negation of the principles for which Christianity stood. But with the dawn of the Renaissance and Reformation, the introduction of the reforms initiated by Martin Luther, and the advent of the Industrial Revolution, a new chapter opened. The history of groups like the Mennonites and the Quakers in the years that followed is the story of the reshaping of Christian thought, along with a revival of interest in nonviolence and peace.

The Nonviolence of Gandhi

Gandhi is considered to be the twentieth century prophet of nonviolence; as a matter of fact nonviolence and Gandhi have become synonyms today. Gandhi was a religious man and took keen interest in the teachings of different religions. During his student days in India and England he was deeply influenced by friends adhering to different religions. Under these various influences he developed a new conception of religion based on tolerance and human fellowship. He considered man holistically and never divided human life and behavior into compartments. People of various faiths were one before him. Therefore, in his teaching we find the spirit of integration.

Committed to religion, Gandhi tried to mold his life and program in the true spirit of religion. In other words, we can say that the spiritual aspect of religion remained his guide. He saw more similarities between religions than differences. For the first time in recent human history we find in him a public figure who proclaimed sarva dharma sambhava—equal regard towards all religions. He says, “religions are different roads converging on the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals.”13 He explained his conception of religion in the following way: “By religion, I do not mean formal religion, or customary religion, but that religion which underlies all religions, which brings us face to face with our maker.”14 The deep impact of religion inspired him to search for truth. And in this process of searching for truth he discovered nonviolence. He says, “To me Truth is God and there is no way to find Truth except the way of nonviolence.”15 Nonviolence is refraining from killing anyone out of anger or selfish motives or from causing pain to others. Only with complete selflessness can one aspire to achieve such a goal.

Gandhi’s search for truth and his commitment to nonviolence reaches a new height when he says:

To see the universal and all-pervading spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to truth has drawn me into the field of politics.16

From his South African days until his last days we find this same spirit guiding him. When the cherished goal of the independence of India was in sight his principles were tested and he had to pass through the fiery ordeal of Muslim-Hindu hatred, this perhaps being the most troubled phase of his life. However, his faith in nonviolence remained undiminished.

Hundreds of books have been written by both Indian and foreign writers on the Gandhian technique. He himself wrote hundreds of pages elaborating his ideals. It is not possible to review them here. I merely want to show that with Gandhi the concept of nonviolence reaches a stage where it takes a scientific shape in the arena of group relationships. Throughout his life Gandhi experimented with truth and nonviolence and made it the basis of his technique of struggle for leading India to independence. In
recent years the American civil rights crusader, Martin Luther King, Jr., adopted this technique quite successfully. In view of these examples, there should not remain any doubt about the validity of the technique of nonviolent struggle.

The world has experienced enough of the destruction of wars and violent struggle. The unimaginable loss caused during the First and Second World Wars is still haunting our minds. Once again the future of human civilization is at stake—this time owing to the piling up of nuclear warheads by the great powers suspicious of each other. In Gandhi’s own words:

If the mad race for armaments continues, it is bound to result in a slaughter such as has never occurred in history. If there is a victory left, the very victory will be a living death for the nation that emerges victorious. There is no escape from the impending doom save through a bold and unconditional acceptance of the nonviolent method with all its glorious implications.17

ISLAM

“This day have I
Perfected your religion
For you, completed
My favour upon you
And have chosen for you
Islam as your religion” (5:4).

This last revelation to the Holy Prophet clearly indicates that Islam was not a completely new way. There had been religions before the advent of Islam, but with the passage of time they had lost their luster and were no longer sure guides for humanity. Circumstances gave birth to this new religion of peace; conditions prevailing in Arabia were pathetic. Internecine feuds and jealousies among the tribes, continuation of war from generation to generation, and innumerable vices culminating in the burial of living female babies, had made the social structure unbearable. In the neighborhood of Arabia the intolerance of the Roman Church had made the situation gloomy. In Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, people were confused by the conflict of Magian mysticism, Jewish conservatism, and Christian intolerance. Religion had become a bundle of rituals, hypocritical ceremonies, and dogmas. When, in spite of grave opposition and persecution, Islam was able to establish itself in Arabia, a new situation developed all around. M. N. Roy writes:

The strident cry of the new religion that there is but one God, softened by great tolerance, subject to this fundamental creed, was enthusiastically hailed by the distressed multitudes searching for the secure anchor of a simple faith in a stormy sea of social disintegration, intellectual bankruptcy and spiritual chaos.18

With the rise of Islam, the foundation was laid for a unique social order. It allowed freedom of conscience to all who embraced it or who placed themselves under its protection. In a very short period Islam became a shield against all types of persecution.

Nonviolence in Islam

At the age of forty, in about 611 A.D., Prophet Muhammad declared his prophethood in Mecca and preached his gospel of one God, thus discarding 360 gods and goddesses housed in the holy shrine of Ka‘bah. Although he was respected by the Meccans for his compassion, honesty, purity of character, gentleness, and truthfulness, and was respectfully called Amin (Trustworthy), his preaching of the new faith in “One God” infuriated nearly the entire city. The dominant groups in Mecca charged Prophet Muhammad
with blasphemy and let loose ceaseless torture on him and his supporters. He went to Ta’if to preach his ideas. There, too, he was tortured and humiliated. He and his family were ostracized. Throughout this period he neither cursed anyone nor said ill words about anyone. On the contrary, he prayed for their enlightenment and peace. The period of persecution continued for twelve years. Then a plan to murder him was hatched and finally he was compelled to migrate to Medina. This migration helped not only in the speedy spread of Islam but also changed the course of human history. Within a few years Islam became an established force. The signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 A.D., after the fall of Mecca to the forces led by the Prophet, can be cited as the best example of his love. At that time the marching army of God could easily have compelled the demoralized Meccans to accept whatever terms he wanted. But the Prophet agreed to the terms suggested by the Meccans. Within two years the Meccans violated the truce and
the Prophet was compelled to march and finally Mecca was conquered. Stanley Lane-Poole writes:

The day of Mohammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave Quaraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn with which they had afflicted him and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca. Four criminals whom justice condemned made up Mohammad’s proscription list, when as a conqueror he entered the city of his bitterest enemies. The army followed his example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no house was robbed, no
woman insulted.19

The history of Islam is only fourteen hundred years old and it could be said to be the latest in the series of great world religions. Nobody can deny its contribution to world civilization except those with prejudiced eyes. Arnold Toynbee has rightly observed that, “the prevalent depreciation of Islam in the West is a relic of anti-Islamic Christian prejudice.”20 There is no need to describe the achievements of the Muslims, as every detail of their rise and fall is available. Their mark on world history by way of their contribution to human civilization is a recorded fact. As H. A. L. Fisher notes:

From one end of Europe to the other, Christian states found themselves confronted with the challenge of a new oriental civilization founded on a new oriental faith.21

This unprecedented success of Islam was “due to revolutionary significance and its ability to lead the masses out of the hopeless situation created by the decay of the antique civilizations not only of Greece and Rome but of Persia and China and of India.”22 Within a short span of time the disunited Arabs were united under one banner. They demolished the edifices of Caesars and Kaisers and out of that ruin they accumulated treasures of knowledge and preserved and multiplied them for the benefit of future generations. The military victories of the Muslims were a prelude to a more magnificent and lasting performance in the social and cultural fields. Political unity provided opportunities for economic prosperity which in the long run resulted in cultural and spiritual progress. A new social order, based on new ideas, was inaugurated.M. N. Roy writes:

The rich spiritual legacy of the glorious civilization of ancient Greece was almost buried under the dreary ruins of the Roman Empire, and lost in the darkness of Christian superstition. The grand mission of rescuing the invaluable patrimony which eventually enabled the peoples of Europe to emerge from the depressing gloom of the holy middle ages and build the marvellous monument of modern civilization, belong to the Saracen arms, and to the sociopolitical structure erected on the basis of Islamic monotheism. The sword of Islam, wielded ostensibly in the service of God, actually contributed to the victory of a new intellectual life which eventually dug the grave of all religions and faiths.23

We have seen in brief the concept of nonviolence as envisaged by some traditions. It has also been observed that some traditions went to an extreme length and to some extent bypassed the practical aspects of human aspirations and limitations. On the other hand, Islam has adopted a realistic attitude and expects its adherents to adopt a middle course in solving day-to-day issues, keeping in mind the spirit of equality, brotherhood, love, and purity of character. No one is allowed to kill anybody except under certain specified
conditions. The Holy Qur‘an says:

We ordained
For the Children of Israel
That if anyone slew
A person—unless it be
For murder of for spreading
Mischief in the land—
It would be as if
He slew the whole people:
And if anyone saved a life,
It would be as if he saved
The life of the whole people. (5:35)

But, at the same time, Islam gives full consideration to human weakness. While love is the ideal, a common man cannot love his enemy. Unless a man reaches a spiritual height he is bound to react and “good for good” and “bad for bad” is all that will satisfy him.

When Islam began its expansion the marching army was welcome as deliverers of the oppressed peoples wherever it went. The revolutionary teachings of Islam had totally changed the attitude of those in the army. On account of their ways they got full support from the masses. When the first Caliph Abu Bakr dispatched the Islamic army to Syria the following discipline was to be strictly enforced:

Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services, leave them alone.24

The injunctions were strictly carried out and the marching army was taken by the vanquished as their liberators. The word Islam is derived from Arabic salama which means to be tranquil, at rest, to have done one’s duty, be faithful, and at perfect peace. The noun derived from it means peace, greeting, safety, and salvation. According to Justice Amir ‘Ali the word does not imply, as is commonly supposed, absolute submission to God’s Will, but rather it denotes striving after righteousness.25 After a thorough study of the basic tenets of Islam one concludes that it is based on a belief in the unity, power, mercy and supreme love of the Creator; charity and unity of all people; subjugation of passion; and accountability for all actions on the day of judgment. The individual is the nucleus of the social order. Islam emphasizes the holistic development of the individual as a basis for a healthy society. There are innumerable verses in the Qur‘an which command believers to be righteous and above passion in their dealings with their fellow beings. Love, kindness, affection, forgiveness, and mercy are recommended for the true faithful. The Holy Book says:

O mankind! We created
You from a single (pair)
Of a male and a female,
And made you into
Nations and tribes, that
Ye may know each other
(Not that ye may despise
Each other). Verily
The most honored of you
In the sight of Allah
Is (he who is) the most
Righteous of you.
And Allah has full knowledge
And is well acquainted
With all things). (49:13)

And hold fast
All together, by the Rope
Which Allah (stretches out)
For you, and be not divided
Among yourselves;
And remember with gratitude
Allah’s favour on you;
For ye were enemies
And He joined your hearts
In love, so that by His Grace,
Ye became brethren. (3:103)

Kind words
And covering of faults
Are better than charity
Followed by injury. (2:263)

The Qur‘an has elaborately and repeatedly emphasized freedom of conscience. Faith and conviction are matters of conscience and no compulsion is allowed in this regard. We find
several verses in the Qur‘an clarifying this point. For example:

Let there be no compulsion
In religion. Truth stands out
Clear from Error. (2:256)

It should now be clear in our minds, as I said at the outset, that it is natural that Islam, the latest in the series of world religions, should guide people faced with the enormous problems of the contemporary world. From the beginning the Prophet Muhammad exhibited maximum tolerance, fellow-feeling and brotherhood, peace towards all, compassion and love, righteousness and freedom of conscience, courtesy towards all; and duty towards parents, kith, and kin, and especially towards the downtrodden and exploited. Therefore God said of him:

We sent thee not, but
As a mercy for all creatures. (21:107)

GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION

From the date of the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, or even simply from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, remarkable changes have occurred in ways of thinking and working. But at the same time the nineteenth century wars and the two great world wars Islam, fought within the first half of the present century tell a different tale. And now human civilization has reached a point where there are only two apparent alternatives left—survival of civilization and total annihilation.

The record of human life and civilization is one of dynamism. There are always new ideas, new problems, and new approaches. Fresh philosophical concepts continue to arise. The first half of the twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented intellectual, scientific, and technological upsurge which laid the foundation of a new era. It also appeared that a new dimension had been added to human perception. As a result all human values, including moral and spiritual ones, have been put on trial. Where we stand today there is no incentive to goodness at all. And when there is no place for “values” there is no chance for civilization in the true sense of the term.

The danger of the annihilation of human civilization and the erosion of ethical values have compelled the leaders of the world to think seriously about the future of humanity. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, former U.S. President, expressed such concerns:

[ON LIBERTY]: In the Council of Government we must guard against the acquisition of undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.

[ON EQUALITY]: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

[ON FRATERNITY]: Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it.26

Another American President, John F. Kennedy, in a broadcast on October 22, 1962, said, “We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth.” Confirming that fear on December 16, 1962, Marshall Timoshenko, a Soviet military commander, said, “today war can erupt just by mistake. A nuclear war would kill eight hundred million people.” Why this apprehension? Because the colonialism of yesterday has taken a new shape. Spheres of influence, protectionism, and block psychology are playing important roles and represent a craze for domination and exploitation. Here Islam undoubtedly comes to our rescue, provided it is practiced intelligently.
Islam is a simple religion. It expects its adherents to strictly observe the basic tenets: profession of faith, prayer, fasting during the month of Ramadan, zakah (alms), and hajj (pilgrimage, for those who can afford it). In addition to these obligations a Muslim is required to fight in the cause of God. This obligation, known as jihad, is often misinterpreted.

The Holy Qur‘an says:
Fight in the cause of Allah
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;
For Allah loveth not transgressors. (2:190)

And slay them
Wherever ye catch them
And turn them out
From where they have
Turned you out;
For tumult and oppression
Are worse than slaughter. (2:191)

And fight them on
Until there is no more
Tumult or oppression,
And there prevails
Justice and faith in Allah;
But if they cease,
Let there be no hostility
Except to those
Who practice oppression. (2:193)

Islam is a monotheistic religion based on universalism. “Islam,” says H. A. R. Gibb, “never identified itself with Arabs, although at times Arabs had identified themselves with it. . . . Islam set the terms of a new experiment in pure monotheism, unsupported by any of the symbolism or other forms of appeal to the emotions of the common man, which had remained embedded in the earlier monotheistic religions.”27

The simplicity of Islamic principles made a Muslim willing to surrender to the command of the Almighty. There is no mediator in between. In his farewell speech before his death the Prophet clearly said that after him, the Holy Qur‘an, his own life, and—at stages of confusion—conscience should be the guides for Muslims. All barriers such as clan, color, and nationality were abolished and Muslims of the world were knit into one thread of brotherhood. During Islam’s formative stage religious speculation or mysticism had little scope, though its elements were present in the Qur‘an. The Prophet gave priority to the performance of one’s duties. But gradually it emerged, especially through Imam Ghanzali
in the East and Ibn-Tufail in the West, both of whom helped to make this system of intuitive knowledge acceptable to the world.  Ameer Ali comments that the holy men and women who flourished in the first and second centuries after the Prophet were more Quietists than Sufis. In the third century when Junaid flourished, Sufism had become a recognized Islamic philosophy.28 When Islam reached India and became part and parcel of the Indian way, the then prevalent Indian mysticism also influenced it. During the
entire Muslim period, with a few exceptions, Muslim rulers adopted a middle way and Sufis played an important role in bringing the Hindus and Muslims closer to each other. In due course this process gave birth to a composite culture which had a distinctive peculiarity. In other parts of the world as well Sufism played animportant role, especially in softening the attitude developed under the influence of orthodoxy.

At the time of the birth of Islam, the social, political, and legal conditions in Arabia were anarchic. Therefore, after establishing a firm footing, steps were taken toward a sound legal structure which ensured the weak not only protection but also a share in the benefits created by the new order. H. A. R. Gibb says that law in the eyes of the Muslim scholars was not merely an intellectual study. It was the practical aspect of the religious and social doctrine preached by Muhammad.29 After establishing a legal structure, Muslims gave attention to theology. With the establishment of an empire, the Arabs came into contact with several races and religions which made it necessary for them to formulate the theological structure based on tahwid. With the passage of time the simple, rigid, monotheist religion of Islam “broadened into a complex of legal schools and theological sects, superimposed on a medley of congregations with their own rituals and an extraordinary diversity of religious ideas and practices.”30

It is a historical fact that the downfall of Baghdad in 1258 prepared the ground for the advent of the Renaissance in Europe. By the time Europe started to gain from the far-reaching effects of the industrial revolution, the Muslim world had started to decay in spirit. Still it maintained its political supremacy. Before the First World War the Ottoman Empire was the biggest empire on earth. After the First World War a wave of narrow-minded nationalism swept over the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire became fragmented. The victorious powers tried to benefit from the situation, acquiring numerous protectorates. But the nationalistic trend did not allow the imperialist forces to further exploit the area, for a wave of revival soon began, in order to face the challenges from within and the dangers from without. Mohammad Iqbal has reproduced a translation of a Turkish verse of the poet Ziya which says, “In order to create a really effective political unity in Islam, all Muslim countries must first become independent, and then in their totality, they should range themselves under one caliph.”31 Commenting on it Iqbal writes,

It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither Nationalism nor Imperialism but a League of Nations which recognises artificial boundaries and racial distinction for facility of reference only, and not for restricting the “social horizon” of its members.32

The European economic and expansionist pressure created a chain reaction throughout the Muslim world. The movements of Abdul Wahab of Najd, Ahmed al-Tijani of North West Africa, Ahmad Ibn Idris of Morocco, Mohd. Ibn Ali al-Sunusi of Algeria, Mohd Othaman al-Amir Ghani of East Africa, Mahdi Mohammad of Sudan, Jamaluddin Afghani, Mohd. Abduh, Shaikh Rashid Rida of Egypt, Shah Waliullah, Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan of India, among others, were the exponents of the new Muslim renaissance.

The fourteen hundred year Muslim history is pregnant with the story of the rise and fall of various liberal and orthodox theological movements, caliphs, ruling dynasties, autocrats, and dictators. Islam gave to the world a simple code capable of great development in accordance with the progress of material civilization. Its conception of the state is simple and based on flexible tenets. It has complete appreciation for human rights and duties. There is no high rate of taxation. All men are treated as equal in the eyes of the law and the principles of self-government are emphasized. By making law supreme Islam made the executive authority answerable to the law—a law based upon religious sanction and moral obligations. William Urquhart comments:

The excellence and effectiveness of these principles (each capable of immortalising its founder) gave value to the rest, and all combined endowed the system which they formed with a force and energy exceeding those of any other political system. Within the lifetime of a man, though in the hands of a population wild, ignorant, and insignificant, it spread over a greater extent than the domains of Rome while it retained its primitive character, it was irresistible.33

The twenty-first century is knocking at our doors. Good and bad experiences of the present century will soon be rolled into the pages of history. And human achievements up to the end of the twentieth century will certainly provide incentives to march forward into the future. At the same time the sad experiences should serve as eye openers to the long-suffering world community. The United Nations Charter declares:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold
sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institutions of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Can the world community claim that the spirit of the United Nations is being honored? The situation as of 1986 is gloomy. The world is divided into two sharp blocs. A third group of non-aligned states is also trying to get recognition, though many of the nonaligned countries support one or other bloc. The developing world is faced with internal challenges and external pressures. Most of the countries do not have a people’s or a representative government. Hardly any country has cordial relations with its neighbours.

The Muslim world is passing through a very peculiar period. Pakistan does not enjoy good relations with Afghanistan. Iran and Iraq have been at war for six years and lakhs of people have been made cannon fodder. Egypt does not have good relations with Libya. Libya is drowned in controversy with Morocco. There are about fifty Muslim countries inhabited by more than six hundred million people. Most of them are developing ones. The faces of the entire Middle East, Indonesia, and some countries of Africa have been changed by petro-dollars. However, these countries stand nowhere in the present world of superior innovations in the fields of science and technology.

It should be borne in mind that we have been discussing Islam and its teachings in the global context without judging the acts of particular Muslim states or rulers. A Muslim might have been a ruler or a founder of an empire, but he might not have been a true one according to the standard fixed by Islam. We have found many scholars committing the serious mistake of taking an act of a Muslim ruler to be an act prescribed by Islam. This has created much confusion in regard to the evaluation of the contribution of Islam to human civilization.

If we look into the pages of history we find that violence committed by nations on a large scale, apart from individual acts, has been due to personal rivalry, desire for territorial gains, competition for hegemony over weaker people, both individuals and nations, economic gains, racial or national friction, the possession of huge wealth and power, decline of spiritual power, apathy toward ethical values, and so forth. In the past the sphere of war was limited, but with the industrial revolution came the demand for markets which gave birth to colonialism. And with the expansion of colonialism the evils of war also expanded. A. R. Azzam rightly says,

The evil of colonialism will continue to prevail until people discover by trial and sacrifice a solution equally acceptable to the strong and the weak. . . . The sacrifice of colonialism is necessary for the salvation of present day civilization.34

I need not describe the effects of colonialism here as history is full of the evils of its by-products—expansionism, exploitation, treachery, deception, and torture. Islam does not permit such injustices. The renowned Egyptian scholar Anwar al-Jundi has discussed these issues and has drawn attention to the following essential principles of Islam:

1. It is Islam which freed human reason and soul from the polytheism and worship dedicated to someone other than God; it freed thought, will and action; it refused to elevate sentimentalists and rationalists and established that the most salient concept was that existing between belief and action, the word and behavior.

2. Islam recognized man’s inclination and sentiments, everything that is instructive and natural in him.

3. Muslims are not submissive. Islam believes in nature’s submission not in its challenge; it believes in the meeting of the generations not in the clash between them.

4. Islam does not approve of the theory of changing morals according to differences in situation and time.

5. For Islam, man is not completely bad, he is not burdened with original sin; the sin is not rooted in his being. Islam teaches that man is both good and bad and it is his faith in God which diverts him from the evil; man is enslaved neither by his hereditary characteristics nor by his environment.

6. Islam refuses to break the unity of thought in face of economy and politics, society and religion; it reinforces the maintenance of all the elements in a single orientation which is
based upon the unity of the human soul.

7. The spirit of Islam and its method, which unite morals and the law (shari‘a) under a monotheistic belief, do not oppose the march of civilization, but on the contrary, vigorously drive this march onwards towards higher goal.

8. Islam has established a complete system covering the general lines to be followed by man in his behavior towards himself and his community.

9. It supports the community and individualism, links spiritualism and materialism and wholly integrates the human soul and reason. It calls upon Muslims for movement, for
transformation of their means and lifestyle, and for welcome for any innovation fitting in with the framework of their values and principles.

10. Islamic principles possess sufficient flexibility and comprehensibility to suit them to any human society and to offer for its problems the truest solutions within the framework of belief in God, excellent morals, effective individual responsibility and faith in resurrection and future reward.

11. Islam was the origin of the appeal for the liberation from all tyrannical oppression; for the study of the universe; for the search of proofs; for the refusal to imitate falsity; and for the separation from ancestral beliefs when these are not founded on the explicit truth accepted by the heart.

12. Islam has the capacity to coexist with different civilizations and cultures. The characteristic of Islam is that it unites, liberates and controls, individualism and collectivism, science and religion, nationalism and effectivity, the spirit and matter, revelation and reason, this life and the hereafter, the world of mystery and the perceptible world, stability and evolution, the past and the present, conservation and regeneration, Islam and humanity.35

Step by step human civilization has reached its present condition. Outer space is now within the reach of human beings. But it is also clear that in spite of such achievements man has not yet reached a stage of “man” as envisaged by the great prophets, saints, and thinkers. We are faced with several complicated problems, and among them the question of the world’s existence is the most vital. The situation demands the highest priority. Glenn D. Paige has suggested five tasks for a nonviolent global transformation:

1. Removal of the threat to human survival posed by nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction.

2. Removal of the threat to economic survival posed by violent maintenance of structures of material deprivation and by diversion of life-sustaining resources for life-taking purposes.

3. Removal of threats to freedom and diversity of cultural expression that are posed by psycho-physical terror, torture, and killing.

4. Removal of threats to the viability of the biosphere that result from direct violence and from related economic and industrial despoilment.

5. Removal of lethal divisiveness among various segments of humanity that prevents constructive cooperation in solving global problems.36

All religions, including Islam, have been striving for peace. From time to time man has also proclaimed his resolve to live in peace and harmony—for example in the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the requisite will to implement this resolve has been lacking. Time and again this has put man on trial. Simply put, if humanity is to survive it must adopt a nonviolent method for solving its problems, whether the difficulties are between individuals, between communities, or between nations. Islam can play a vital role in solving human problems and in developing alternatives for peaceful global transformation.

Islam does not rule out violence in certain situations. This violence, however, is defensive in character. For the rest, Islam emphasizes social justice, brotherhood, and the equality of humankind. The virtues of forgiveness and mercy, tolerance, submission to God, recognition of the rights of others, and right means are emphasized again and again both in the Holy Book and in the sayings of the Prophet. Furthermore the Prophet demolished all national and racial barriers. Islam aims at a peaceful and just social order. If there were aberrations in history they were a violation of the essential spirit of Islam.

The world is thirsting for peace and longing for a new just economic and social order. The basic teachings of Islam strengthen the forces of peace and of a just social order.

NOTES
1. J. B. Kripalani, The Gandhian Way (Bombay: 1945), pp. 75-76.
2. Ibid., p. 76.
3. O. P. Jaggi, Religion, Practice and Science of Non-violence (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1974), p. 1.
4. Ibid., p. 8.
5. Unto Tahtinen, Ahimsa (Ahmedabad: 1976), p. 5.
6. Ibid., p. 8.
7. Ibid., p. 10.
8. Ibid., p. 15.
9. Ibid., p. 32, with reference to Gen. 4 and Exod. 21.
10. Ibid., p. 33.
11. Ibid., p. 35.
12. Friedrich Heer, Great Documents of the World (London: 1977), pp. 53–54.
13. N. K. Bose, Selections from Gandhi (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1948), p. 224.
14. R. K. Prabhu and U. R. Rao, eds., The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 64.
15. D. G. Tendulkar, Mahatma II (Bombay: 1951-54), p. 312.
16. Prabhu and Rao, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 101.
17. Ibid., p. 453.
18. M. N. Roy, The Historic Role of Islam: an Essay on Islamic Culture (Lahore: Sind Sagar Academy, 1974), p. 28.
19. A. R. Azzam, The Eternal Message of Mohammad (London: 1979), p. 27.
20. A. Toynbee, A Study of History XII (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 472.
21. H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (London: E. Arnold, 1936), pp. 137–138.
22. M. N. Roy, The Historic Role of Islam, p. 7.
23. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
24. Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam (London: 1949), pp. 137-138.
25. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (tr.), Sahih Muslim Vol. 3 (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1976–1979), p. 940.
26. Quoted in Glenn D. Paige, “Nonviolent Global Transformation and Peaceful Korean Reunification,” paper presented at the International Symposium on the Reunification of Korea and Peace in Asia, International Conference Hall, Yokohama, Japan, July 6-8, 1985, pp. 2-3. Quoting respectively Eisenhower’s “Farewell Broadcast, January 17, 1961,” on Spoken Word record SW-94-3; The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 1985, p. 2; and BBC TV interview of August 31, 1959 cited in Soldiers as Statesmen, ed. Peter Dennis and Adrian Preston, (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1976), p. 132.
27. H. A. R. Gibb, Islam (London 1978), p. 47.
28. Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, pp. 456-7.
29. Gibb, Islam, p. 61.
30. Ibid., p. 113.
31. Mohammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Lahore: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1986), p. 159.
32. Ibid., p. 159.
33. Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 277.
34. A. R. Azzam, The Eternal Message of Mohammad, p. 219.
35. Mohammad Arkoun, “The Islamic Consciousness: A Cultural Profile,” Cultures IV, No. 1 (1977) Perenniality of Values, UNESCO, 1977, pp. 70–75.
36. Paige, “Nonviolent Global Transformation,” pp. 5–6.

Originally published on The Center for Global Nonviolence site at http://www.globalnonviolence.org/islam.htm  as Chapter 5 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/