Because of a wrong interpretation by some Muslims, jihad has come to be understood as war to ‘reform’ others, or what is called in Urdu as muslihana jang (reformist war). These people say that Muslims are God’s khalifas or deputies on earth and that it is the responsibility of Muslims as God’s deputies to establish the rule of God in the world. They think they are charged with the God-given task of making people obey God’s rules. They name this war as jihad. This understanding of jihad is undoubtedly false. It has nothing to do with the Quran and the Sunnah, the Prophet’s practice.
The notion of a ‘reformist war’—from the point of view of its consequences—is nothing but war for promoting fasad or strife. In society, everyone has the right to peacefully express their views, but the belief that one can use physical force to ‘reform’ others is simply unacceptable when it comes to relations between communities and countries. In any particular society, and also at the international level, no group of people can arrogate to themselves a right that they are not willing to allow others also to enjoy. If a particular group wants to have the right to engage in ‘reformist war’, then, obviously, it must be ready to grant the same right to other groups as well. The result of this would be that each group would start warring with the other groups, all in the name of self-styled ‘reform’. Needless to say, no ‘reform’ can ever come about this way. The only result will be never-ending strife.
The fact is that there is only one legitimate form of war, and that is war fought in defence. If a nation transgresses its geographical boundaries and openly attacks another nation, then, in such a situation, the nation that has been attacked has the right to reply by fighting in defence. Other than this, there are no legitimate grounds for war at all in Islam. This principle is as firmly grounded and accepted in Islam as in many other non-Islamic systems.
In this regard, there is an issue that needs particular attention. It relates to the past, to the period of the age of monarchs. In this period, much of the world was under various dynasties. At that time, the monarch was considered to be above the law. He thought he could do whatever he wanted. Because of this, every king engaged in deeds that were clearly morally or legally improper.
Morally improper deeds were committed by kings all over the world in those days. But all this is now just a part of ancient history. However, while in many countries this has been forgotten and did not cause conflict between communities, this is not the case in India, where it has become the cause of considerable and continuing bitterness between Hindus and Muslims, leading to repeated communal riots. It is a major challenge in the path of promoting communal harmony.
In society, everyone has the right to peacefully express their views, but the belief that one can use physical force to ‘reform’ others is simply unacceptable when it comes to relations between communities and countries.
The basic reason for this is Muslim ulema and intellectuals have wrongly seen and portrayed Muslim dynasties in India as ‘Islamic’ dynasties, considering them to be a chapter of the history of Islam as such. In fact, however, these dynasties merely consisted of rulers who happened to belong to some Muslim families. It is completely wrong to consider their rule as ‘Islamic’ rule. These two things are totally different. But because this difference was not kept in mind, the events that were associated with particular Muslim kings or Muslim dynasties came to be associated in people’s minds with Islam as a religion. Because this basic distinction was not borne in mind, another terrible blunder that Muslims made was that they perceived the period of the rule of these Muslim rulers as a source of Islamic pride. They viewed it as a symbol of the domination of Islam. On the other hand, Hindus began thinking on the lines of what is called ‘righting of historical wrongs’. Naturally, both these stances led to mutual bitterness. When Muslims began taking pride in the memory of the deeds of Muslim kings, then, consciously or otherwise, these kings became, for them, a sacred part of their religious history. And, on the other hand, Hindus perceived these same deeds as historical misdeeds and began trying to redress them.
Both sides have blundered. The mistake of the Muslims is that they are not ready to re-look at the history of these Muslim rulers because they have given this history a religious hue. And, on the other hand, the mistake of the Hindus is that they are not willing to forget the past. They insist on the righting of historical wrongs, even if this results in destroying the potentials and prospects of the present.
In this matter both parties need to be realistic. Muslims should not give the Muslim rulers of the past the status of ‘Islamic rulers’. Instead, they should see them simply as the government of particular families. They should disown the un-Islamic and immoral behaviour of these Muslim rulers. They should openly condemn them for this—be it Mahmud Ghaznavi or Aurangzeb or anyone else.
For a country to progress, a necessary condition is to maintain national progress as the main issue, setting aside everything else as of secondary importance.
On the other hand, Hindus should seek to forget the past, in line with the saying, ‘The past is past’. They should desist from emotionalism in this regard and adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach. Hindus should remember that historical wrongs have always happened, but yet no one has ever been able to remedy any of them. This theory about righting historical wrongs is undoubtedly unwise. It is tantamount to spoiling one’s present in the name of correcting the past. This view is against nature. People who think in this way will, in the name of salvaging their past, only lose their present and future.
Unfortunately, however, this is precisely what has happened in India. Countries that have sought to build their present after forgetting the bitterness of their past have achieved brilliant success. One example of this is Japan. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Japan did not seek to correct the wrongs committed against it by America, but, instead, focused on trying to rebuild itself. The result was that Japan is today an economic superpower. In contrast, in India people tried to rectify historical wrongs, but that only further exacerbated the country’s backwardness.
For a country to progress, a necessary condition is to maintain national progress as the main issue, setting aside everything else as of secondary importance. People in general should be concerned that national progress should continue unhampered. They must refuse to let emotionally-driven issues and controversies come in the way of national progress. Without this sort of popular consciousness, it is impossible to have social peace.
A story is told about a Qazi or Muslim judge. One day, he had to hear a very strange case. It involved two women who were fighting over a newly-born child, each claiming it as hers. However, neither of them had any sort of legal proof of being the child’s mother. This was a big test for the Qazi. Finally, he ruled that the child should be sliced into two, and that each woman should get a part of the child’s body. When the Qazi passed this judgement, it made no impact on the woman who falsely claimed to be the child’s mother. But the real mother burst out screaming. ‘Don’t kill the child! Give it to this other woman, if you want!’ she pleaded.
Attempting to eliminate differences is to defy a universal law of nature. Needless to say, no individual or group is so strong that it can fight with, and win against, nature.
This is the true standard of love. Those who truly love their country must shout out, like this woman did, ‘We cannot bear to see our country being destroyed! We must forget the past so that we can fully use the opportunities available in the present in order to gift our country a glorious future!’
In national life, peace and unity are possible only on the basis of acceptance. It is a principle of nature that differences will arise between individuals and also between groups. Differences are a necessary part of life. That is why communal harmony cannot come about by eliminating differences. Rather, it is possible only on the basis of tolerance and acceptance.
The fact is that attempting to eliminate differences is to defy a universal law of nature. Needless to say, no individual or group is so strong that it can fight with, and win against, nature. That is why pragmatism demands that as far as the issue of religious and cultural differences is concerned, we must abide by the principle of tolerance, rather than resort to confrontation. Accept differences so that unity can be established, because seeking to establish unity by eliminating differences is simply impossible.
