Some years ago, American forces organised a military operation and killed Osama bin Laden. Both when alive and when he was killed, there was much talk about him.
Lessons contained in any incident or event are always of interest. What one learns from this event is that militancy is clearly no option at all for anyone—for an individual, a group, a country or a superpower. Why? Because something that does not produce any result cannot be an option at all.
Osama staged a massive operation through his Al-Qaeda network. It was the biggest act of terror that the world had ever seen—planes crashing into the Twin Towers in New York. No one had ever heard of such daring terror before. Despite this unprecedented terror operation America remains just as it was. Its strength unimpaired. For its part, America organized a big, well-planned operation. It identified Osama’s hideout in Pakistan and managed to kill him. But killing Osama the individual did not put an end to the ‘Osama phenomenon’. Osama is dead, but his ideology is still alive, and acts of terror continue.
What is the lesson from this? As mentioned earlier, violence is no option at all—for anyone, individual or a state. It only results in greater destruction, greater evil, and nothing else. History testifies to this. Yet strangely, violence has been present throughout human history
There is much talk today—as before—about peace and pacifism. That we need an ideology of peace is something every sensible person acknowledges. But where is that practical ideology of peace? People often say, “We must have peace. War is such a bad thing.” True, but for this we need a workable ideology of peace, one that will effectively rule out any and every justification to resort to war.
People think injustice leads to war, and that, therefore, those denied justice should first be given justice for peace to prevail. This is a flawed concept. You may think you have given justice to someone, but he may not think he has received his just due. And so, he will remain dissatisfied and disgruntled and can easily take to violence. This demand for ‘just peace’ cannot work. It can never result in peace.
The only way to establish peace is to work for peace for its own sake, unconditionally, and not link it with justice or human rights or anything else. Agreeing unilaterally to peace will open doors to many opportunities to progress. Availing these opportunities, one can obtain all those things including justice.
This is the only workable formula for peace and also the formula that Islam recommends. Islam is an ideology of peace and presents this eminently workable formula for peace, yet strangely, Muslims have failed to understand this or convey it to others.
But killing Osama the individual did not put an end to the ‘Osama phenomenon’. Osama is dead, but his ideology is still alive, and acts of terror continue.
The Prophet and his companions embodied the Islamic model of peace, but soon after their time, derailment set in among Muslims, so much so that even today Muslims are engaged in violence, which they have wrongly named as ‘jihad’. According to a Hadith (words of the prophet) report, the Prophet Muhammad said that in the later period, a group among his ummah (followers) would consume wine. When asked why they would do so (when God has expressly forbidden it), the Prophet said that these people would give a new name to wine and declare it lawful. (Al-Darimi)
That is what some Muslims have done in the case of terrorism, too. They have sought to declare terrorism as legitimate by calling it ‘jihad’ and making it permissible. This is a case of repackaging something unlawful as lawful by giving it a fictitious name.
The Prophet was born in 570 CE in Makkah and started his mission in 610 CE. The chapter Al-Muddaththir in the Quran was among the early revelations received by the Prophet. At the start of this chapter, God addresses the Prophet thus:
O, you, wrapped in your cloak, arise and give warning! Proclaim the glory of your Lord; purify your garments; shun uncleanness; do not bestow a favour in the expectation of receiving more in return; and for the sake of your Lord, be patient. (THE QURAN 74: 1-7)
Patience or Sabr is not defeatism nor is it a passive attitude. Patience means to think over issues in a cool and calm manner—without resorting to reaction, to resentment, to hate or, to revenge. It is engaging in positive planning. At the very outset, this was told to the Prophet. How amazing! The Quran (4: 128) also says as-sulh khair or ‘reconciliation is best’. Sulh means ‘peace’, and as-sulh khair indicates that a peaceful settlement of disputes is the best. This clearly indicates the importance of the peaceful method in Islam.
Another Quranic verse says: “Let them not dispute with you on this matter” (22: 67). This means that Muslims should not give others an opportunity to dispute with them. The Arabic style of expression used in this verse means that they should not give their opponents a chance to enter into controversy with them. For example, in Arabic it is said: La yadribannaka Zaydun. This phrase literally means that ‘Zayd should surely not beat you’. However, the sense implied in this sentence is: ‘You should surely not give Zayd an opportunity to beat you.’ Believers should adopt a course of action that does not lead to confrontation but seek to maintain an environment of peace. Why? Because without this, it is not possible to call people to God. These two Quranic verses (4: 128 and 22: 67), tell us the path we should adopt.
Life involves facing situations that you will not like, are unpleasant for you and will be against your desires. Differences are a part of nature. Given that problems are bound to appear, what should we do?
What we should do is to learn to manage problems, rather than fight them. This is the formula that Islam gives—manage problems, rather than seek to fight them or try to eliminate them. This is also the formula of pacifism. Many people hope for a problem-free life. They want injustice and oppression to be completely eliminated. Only then, they say, can there be peace. This is Utopian thinking and will never happen. And then what do these people do? They establish organizations in the name of peace. Some even pick up weapons in the name of attaining ‘just peace’. Others bring crowds into the streets to shout and demonstrate in the name of peace. Such an approach creates many problems. Like physical violence, this ‘street activism’, too, produces agitation. It produces agitated minds. It fills people’s minds with hate, with the ‘us-versus-them’ mind-set. It is based on opposition to others, on the belief that others are oppressors and that you are oppressed, that others have deprived you of your rights and that therefore you need justice, else there will be no peace.
Violence is no option at all—for anyone, individual or a state. It only results in greater destruction, greater evil, and nothing else. History testifies to this.
Whether someone picks up a gun or engages in street activism, bringing people into the streets, mobilising crowds and engaging in the politics of sloganeering, it is all the same thing. Neither of these methods is condoned in Islam. The Prophet never adopted a policy of agitation, of demonstrations, of slogans even though he faced many problems. This formula of ‘just peace’ can never work; it can never bring about peace. Why? Because there are bound to be problems in this world since this is a part of God’s creation plan itself.
Differences between people will always exist. People are bound to get hurt by other’s attitudes and behaviour. All these are included in God’s creation plan. So, learn to accept problems as part of life. Recognise that you cannot eliminate problems. All you can do is to manage them.
According to a Hadith report, the Prophet said:
“God grants to rifq (non-violence) what He does not grant to unf (violence)”. (Abu Dawood)
The Prophet of Islam was an embodiment of this principle. In his years as a prophet in Makkah, he faced innumerable challenges. He was persecuted. His companions were beaten. He was boycotted. His opponents made it difficult for him to stay on in the town. But in this entire period of 13 long years never did he engage in agitation, nor take out a demonstration or start a fight. When the number of Muslims grew, some of Prophet’s companions suggested that they fight to end oppression. But the Prophet did not allow this. He told his companions that he had not been given permission to fight, and he exhorted them to keep patience. That is, he advised them to solve the problems they were facing through patient planning. This is what is called ‘problem management’.
Look at how the Prophet managed problems. The Prophet’s opponents in Makkah plotted to kill him, thinking it would solve the challenge that his mission posed to them. And when this was decided in the tribal parliament, the Dar al-Nadwa, what happened? At night, the Prophet silently came out of his house, took Abu Bakr—a childhood friend and Companion—with him, and left Makkah for Madinah so that there could be no chance for confrontation.
This was a way of managing a challenging situation. Had the Prophet announced and left Makkah, had he left in the day time instead of at night, had he left the town after having a quarrel or argument with those who opposed him, it would have caused a confrontation. You, too, must learn how to avoid confrontation and manage problems that you will face in your life. The basic principle to bear in mind is that peaceful settlement of problems is the best way. ’As-sulh khair’, as the Quran says.
The Quran advises not to give others the chance to enter into confrontation with you. It takes two hands to clap. If you refuse to raise your hand to strike against someone there will not be a clap! Likewise, avoid anything that might give others the opportunity or excuse to resort to violence. That also means that you should not engage in violence yourself.
Years of persecution in Makkah made the Prophet shift to Madinah. Never did he utter a word against the oppression of the Makkans. But what do most people do? They rant and rave against their ‘oppressors’. They complain about human rights’ violations and injustice. These days, a new buzzword is ‘internationalisation’. People now go about internationalising their alleged persecution. Some Muslim groups have placed their people in Europe and America to ‘internationalise’ issues, such as that of Kashmir and Palestine. But all this was not the method of the Prophet. The hue and cry about ‘persecution’ and the ‘internationalising’ of these issues further exacerbates existing problems.
Never did the Prophet resort to such methods. Not once in his life in Madinah did he ever speak against the Makkans. But because they were polytheists and considered the Prophet's message of tawhid or the oneness of God to be a threat, they took to the offensive by unleashing battles against him. But the Prophet managed these battles in such a way that they turned into mere skirmishes. All the so-called ghazwas (wars) which the Prophet fought were actually skirmishes, not wars. They began in the afternoon and ended the same evening. This is by no means a ‘war’. Wars are like the First and the Second World War. The ‘battles’ of Badr and Uhud that the Prophet engaged in which lasted half a day, were only skirmishes.
Why did they turn out to be skirmishes when the Makkans wanted to unleash war? The Makkans attacked, in the hope of fighting, but the Prophet’s wise management with his peaceful policy, transformed them into mere skirmishes. Take, for instance, the Battle of Khandaq also called the ‘Battle of the Trench’. But how was it a battle? An army of Makkans 12,000 strong advanced towards Madinah. When the Prophet came to know of this—keeping himself informed was part of his management system—he took his companions and arranged for a trench to be dug around the portion of Madinah that was open to attack. The Makkans arrived at the trench, laid siege there for a fortnight and then returned. There was no fighting. This is another example of the Prophet’s method of problem management.
Believers should adopt a course of action that does not lead to confrontation but seek to maintain an environment of peace.
Yet another example of the Prophet’s policy of pacifism is his peace negotiations with the Quraysh. The Quraysh, the most influential tribe in Arabia, were opponents of the Prophet. The Prophet entered into talks with them at a place called Hudaibiya until they finally agreed to a peace treaty. However, the Quraysh laid down some conditions that weighed heavily against the Muslims. For instance, a clause of the treaty said that if after the signing of the treaty a Makkan accepted Islam and went to Madinah, he would have to be sent back to Makkah. There were several other conditions like this.
On the paper on which the text of the treaty was written, the Prophet was referred to as ‘Muhammad, the Prophet of God’, but the Makkans objected to this. As they did not believe he was a prophet of God, they demanded that the phrase ‘Muhammad, the Prophet of God’ be replaced by ‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’. The Prophet’s companion Ali, who was writing the treaty on paper, was not ready to do this. Then, the Prophet erased these words with his own hands and agreed to write ‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’. This peace treaty of Hudaibiya was another brilliant instance of the Prophet’s management of problems.
There are no hard-and-fast rules for managing problems. It is dependent on the situation, requires discernment and an open mind while choosing the course of action. With wisdom determine what needs acceptance or rejection in order to avoid confrontation.
Scholars generally define peace as the absence of war. Peace is a positive term, so why give it a negative definition? The right definition of peace must have a positive content which is the presence of opportunities. So, a more comprehensive definition of peace is: a state of the absence of war and the presence of opportunities. When peace is established, opportunities will emerge. Availing these can lead to growth and progress. That is what happened in the wake of the Hudaibiya no-war treaty. It led to increased, peaceful interaction between Muslims and others, enabling them to learn about Islam. In a mere two years, a large number of people entered the fold of Islam, and when the Prophet marched towards Makkah 10,000 companions accompanied him. This event was predicted in the Bible. ‘He came with ten thousands of saints’ (Deuteronomy 33: 2), the Bible says. This is the miracle of peace.
The Prophet then sent letters to the rulers of lands adjacent to Arabia and dispatched envoys to different tribes in Arabia to convey the message of Islam. Entire tribes embraced Islam, another miracle of peace. In this way, the Prophet provided a model and an ideology of peace. Following this he established some very important principles to maintain peace, two of which are mentioned here. One relates to internal revolt or khuruj, rebellion against an established government. The Prophet declared this to be haram or unlawful in Islam. He laid down that once a government is established in a country, one must accept it.
This was not meant to encourage a passive attitude. If you do not rebel against a government, you will engage in peaceful work, such as inviting people to God, promoting education, running businesses etc. The political field is just one of hundred fields, and you still have opportunities to work in the remaining ninety nine. But if instead, you involve yourself in that one political field; all work in the remaining fields comes to a complete halt. That is why the Prophet declared revolt against an established government to be unlawful.
This issue is so important that in his commentary on the Sahih Muslim (a collection of traditions attributed to the Prophet), the 13th century Islamic scholar Imam al-Nawawi, while asserting revolt (khuruj) as unlawful, says that if you have differences with the ruler, then you should personally communicate with him. That is, take an appointment with the ruler and engage in a one-to-one conversation with him. He adds that as far as khuruj against the ruler is concerned, it is haram or unlawful according to the consensus of the religious scholars. Even if the ruler is corrupt or oppressive.
The Prophet has clearly laid down the principle regarding internal politics of a country that once a government is established, it is wrong to engage in the politics of opposition. Instead, one must engage in the politics of construction in other fields while avoiding political confrontation. The Prophet affirms another principle for relations with other countries. He declared aggressive war against other countries or states unlawful. No Muslim has the right to attack another country and invade it. However if another country attacks a Muslim country, the Muslim government can fight in self-defence. Islam permits only defensive war. Even in defensive war it should be understood that one should not rush to fight as soon as one hears news of war. A Muslim state should first resort to peaceful negotiation and try to understand the motives for the aggression. These methods aim to avoid or to minimize war. Should all such efforts fail and the other country attacks, then only a limited defensive war is permissible, and nothing more than that. A limited armed action is allowed only to put an end to aggression. This again has conditions. A Muslim force can only fight with the members of the attacking army or combatants, and not non-combatants.
To understand the implications of this today, you must keep in mind today’s context, which is very different from 7th century Arabia. We live in the age of weapons of mass destruction. In this age, no war can be fought in which non-combatants are not killed. This, therefore, means that according to Islam, today war is not possible at all.
So, at the internal level, the Prophet has declared political revolt unlawful and stressed that Muslims should focus only on constructive activities. On the external front, he allowed only for a defensive war in the face of clear aggression. He specified that even in this case, it is not permissible to kill non-combatants. Since in today’s age of weapons of mass destruction it is not possible that non-combatants will not be killed during a war, there is only one option for Muslims now—and that is peaceful settlement of disputes. The option of war has ended.
This is Islamic pacifism. It is unfortunate that Muslims have forgotten this and have been unable to deliver the message of Islamic pacifism to the world. Muslims are as unaware of this ideology of peace as others are. The reason for this is that throughout history—and equally today— there is a very big evil called ‘selective reporting’. At home, a motherin-law does selective reporting of her daughter-in-law to her son, and a daughter-in-law does selective reporting of her mother-in-law to her husband. Neither of them will provide the full story. This is a mentality that has been carried down over the centuries.
The historical treatises written by Muslims are all characterised by selective reporting. They talk a great deal about battles and wars, but almost nothing about other issues. The Prophet engaged in dawah work, inviting people to God, and so did his companions. Following this, vast numbers of people embraced Islam, but details of the spread of Islam are not recorded in history books written by Muslims. The first book specifically on this subject was written in the 19th century by a British scholar, Professor T.W. Arnold—titled, The Preaching of Islam.
How strange it is that all books on Muslim history by Muslim authors suffered from this sort of selective reporting! They mention little or nothing of the peaceful activities that resulted in the great spread of Islam, but focus almost wholly on wars and political victories. Even the titles of their historic writings reflect this—Futuh al-Sham (Conquests of Syria), Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (The Book of the Conquests of the Lands), and many such books. ‘Islamic history’ was mostly about wars and conquests. To them, the later period of Muslim history was a chronicle of the military conquests of lands, although had the Prophet, his companions and other early Muslims not engaged in tremendous and peaceful work, there would not be more than a billion Muslims in the world today.
More than one billion Muslims! How did that happen? Can anyone embrace and willingly follow a religion at the point of a sword? No! Today, there are almost 60 countries with a Muslim majority. It happened due to peaceful work. But in the books of history written by Muslims, there is little or no mention of this. Developments that came about through peaceful efforts have not found a place in these books, whereas only events like wars and political victories are related. This is selective reporting.
This trend continues even today and we are victims of such selective reporting. An interview with a Muslim news journalist is an example of this attitude. His questions were all about Muslims being allegedly oppressed across the world. In response to the questions, his attention was drawn to the fact that his source of information about such oppression was the media and he was quoting what he had read or heard in the media.
The media is an industry of selective reporting. It highlights sensational reports, and ignores other news. The Muslim media claims that Muslims are being oppressed and besieged by others etc., but this is totally baseless. There are ninety nine good things happening with Muslims, but the media ignores these to focus on the one negative news. And that one piece of information is highlighted in such a way that people assume, it reflects the totality of the Muslims’ reality. This is the damage caused by selective reporting.
There is only one option for Muslims now—and that is peaceful settlement of disputes. The option of war has ended.
In 1992, the Babri mosque was destroyed. The whole world knows about it. People keep talking about it. But do people know that there are still some 5,50,000 mosques intact in India, where prayers are offered and where the azan, the call to prayer, is given, five times every day? No one wants to talk about this! There’s no media reporting about these 5,50,000 mosques, but there is a great furore in the media about just one mosque.
In another example of selective reporting, a newspaper carried reports of communal riots in a city in northern India. Upon visiting the city it was observed that people were, going about their business as usual. Where utter chaos was expected in the entire city, there was nothing of the sort. Upon enquiry about the location of the riots, it was found out that it had happened in a small locality but the newspapers gave out the news under a sensational heading "Riots rock the city”.
There has been enormous selective reporting in the writing of Muslim history, and today, in the age of the media, selective reporting continues unabated. All of this keeps people away from peace. It drives them into hate, anger, and enmity. We need to work to bring about a new history, a new age. We need to reprocess history. That will make people understand how meaningful and relevant the ideology of peace is and how peace can be established.
