|
Home
Search
Subscribe Online
Archives
About
Us
Cartoons
Online
Book Store
E-Greetings
Jobs @ MG
Advertise
on MG
Our
Team
Contact Us
Muslim
Matrimonials
Our Advertisers
| |
Developing a theology of peace in Islam - ii
By Asghar Ali Engineer
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 he spat on
his face. Ali immediately got off his chest and let him go. The defeated
foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after
he spat on him. Ali told him had I 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 defence, 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 As-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 death of the Holy Prophet his
successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality,
akhlaq-i-karima. 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 honourable 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. Three of four Khulafa-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 saw the grandson of the Prophet being 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
centralised 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.
(Contd.)
q |
Subscribe
Now: MG
needs your support
|
