These days violence committed by Muslims has become a daily news feature. Referring to this, commentators generally observe that the case of present-day Muslims is a case of terrorism. However, such a comment is based on face value. If we go deeper we would realize that this way of looking at the phenomenon is not right.
To my way of thinking, the case of present Muslims is not one of terrorism, in fact, it is a case of unawareness. Present Muslims are victims of misunderstanding about the present age. These Muslims are obsessed with the historical glory of Islam. They want to re-establish the political empire of Islam, which according to their notion was successfully established in the past. Their actions are a result of this conditioning of theirs. What is required is deconditioning of their minds. De-militarization of Muslims can be achieved only through the de-conditioning of this political mindset.
The modern age is an age of globalization. Modern opportunities have made it possible for every group of people to establish an ‘Empire’ of their own. The political empires of the past cannot be brought back. However, building non-political empires is possible for any group in this age. There are various scopes for work in the non-political field.
In today’s age, one can build, for instance—an educational empire, an industrial empire, a media empire, as well as a spiritual and ideological empire. The making of peaceful empires has become so much possible today that if any group uses wisdom and the right planning, it can certainly create an empire for itself.
In the Makkan period, the tribal chiefs of Makkah once asked the Prophet what he required of them. The Prophet replied: “Only a kalima (word), which if you adopt you will become masters over the Arab and non-Arab world.” This prophetic saying was about the coming age. It means that the advent of Islam was to initiate a new process in history, which would usher in such developments that it would become possible for a group to attain global supremacy, provided it remained completely peaceful.
De-militarization of Muslims can be achieved only through de-conditioning of their political mindset.
Present Muslims are unaware of this reality. They want to build a political empire of Islam. In the present age of nationalism, this has become totally non-workable. Muslims should make the ideological empire of Islam their target, which is as much possible as the making of a media empire.
Make Muslims aware of the present age and “Terrorism” will automatically disappear.
Source: Spirit of Islam April 2015
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave an interview to The Sunday Times on March 27. During the interview, he said that “many millions” of Muslims hold a viewpoint that is “fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.” (“Many millions of Muslims ‘fundamentally incompatible with the modern world’, says Tony Blair”, The Independent, 27 March 2016). This statement of Mr. Tony Blair may annoy some Muslims, but it is based on fact. Moreover, his remarks, directly or indirectly, apply to perhaps almost all present-day Muslims.
The comment that ‘Muslims are incompatible with the modern age’ is not meant in the sense of the religious beliefs they hold, but relates to their social behaviour. For example, in today’s world, freedom of expression is accepted as an absolute right of everyone, provided that one remains strictly within the peaceful domain. However, many Muslims are not ready to concede this right to others. For instance, they are of the opinion that one who, according to their law, engages in an act of apostasy or blasphemy is liable to be punished. Similarly, in the present world, democracy is considered the right form of government, but there are Muslims who reject it claiming that it runs
The difference between Muslims and the modern world is that Muslims, according to their traditional mindset, believe in absolutism, but the present age is characterized by relativism. This means that for Muslims certain things are absolutely right or absolutely wrong, while modern thought does not agree with this viewpoint and holds that a person has the freedom to adopt whatever he thinks is correct according to him, only if he does not take to violence.
In this respect, Muslims’ stand on blasphemy and apostasy should be reconsidered. If somebody leaves Islam for another religion, Muslims believe that he should be killed. However, the modern mind regards opting for one religion instead of another as one’s freedom to choose, something which is a person’s inalienable right. In a similar way, if a person passes a derogatory remark about the Prophet Muhammad, it becomes an issue of blasphemy for Muslims, who demand punishment for the blasphemer. But for the person who makes such a statement, it is not an issue of blasphemy, but rather one of freedom to express one’s opinion. There were many instances during the life of the Prophet of Islam when his opponents issued scornful statements about him, but he did not command his followers to kill them.
The standpoint of Islam in this matter is that there is a need to differentiate between personal belief and universal norm. A person is free in matters of his personal belief, but when it comes to universal norms, Islam agrees with what has been accepted internationally. For example, in the case of the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty, the Prophet agreed to erase the word ‘Messenger of God’ suffixed to his name as the other party was not ready to accept him as a prophet.
This means that in matters of belief, Islam holds that a person can follow idealism, but in matters of international relations Islam advocates the principle of pragmatism.
According to the dictionary, incompatibility means not capable of existing in agreement or harmony with something else. After the formation of the United Nations, it has been universally agreed upon that disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations. Many of the present Muslims, however, are not ready to accept this: their militancy in the name of jihad is a clear example of this disagreement. It is important to note that although this could be the way of thinking of present Muslims, it is totally against the spirit of Islam. In the first quarter of the seventh century, Islam had accepted the principle that disputes should be settled by way of peaceful negotiation. A practical example of this policy can be seen in the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty which was signed between the Prophet and his opponents in 628 CE.
If Muslims adhere to any other policy, it would be regarded as invalid according to Islam. This is why in this matter; it is important for people to judge the Muslim community in the light of Islamic teachings and not vice versa.
Source: Spirit of Islam July 2016
Muslims of the present day generally see themselves as the victims of plots and targets of the violence of their “enemies”. The Quran rejects this theory, saying, ‘And never will God allow non-believers to harm the believers.’ (4:141). Then what is the reason for the Muslims’ present plight? In another verse, the Quran, in response to this question, has this to say: ‘Whatever misfortune befalls you is of your own doing.’ (42:30)
Now the question arises as to what is the real cause of the problems being faced by Muslims in present times. This is the answer given by the Quran: ‘O Prophet, deliver what has been sent down to you by your Lord. If you do not do so, you will not have conveyed His message. God will protect you from the people.’ (5:67)
This verse of the Quran makes it clear that the issue of the protection of believers is linked to dawah work. That is, if the Muslims perform their dawah duties, they will continue to remain under God’s protection. Whereas, if they neglect dawah work, this divine protection will be taken away from them. The solution to the problem of Muslims cannot be found either in protests or in confrontations. The only solution to their problem rests in dawah work. No other strategy can be of any avail to the Muslims in this matter: only dawah work guarantees divine protection for the Muslim Ummah.
According to the teachings of Islam, Muslims were bound to fulfill the responsibility of disseminating the message of God at a global level. A global infrastructure was necessary for the performance of this task, but Muslims failed to develop it. Then, God allowed the secular people to develop the necessary technology. This role for the secular people had been predicted in a tradition of the Prophet. According to this tradition, ‘In the future, God will certainly make secular people support this religion.’ (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith No. 3062)
The coming into existence of this global infrastructure through secular people, after the failure of Muslims to develop it, was exactly in accordance with this tradition of the Prophet. The Muslims were duty-bound to understand this divine plan and to make full use of the modern infrastructure for global dawah work. But, for certain reasons, they have failed to understand this divine plan and, on the basis of self-styled issues, have unwisely entered into rivalry with secular people—even going to the extent of waging war and indulging in violence against them.
This attitude on the part of the Muslims was totally against the divine scheme. Now, the only salvation for the Muslims is to revise their policies and plan their actions anew. They must regard other people not as rivals, but as madu, or addressees. With the help of the infrastructure produced by modern civilization, they must perform peaceful dawah work at the global level. This is the only way for the Muslims. There is no other way in which their problems can be addressed. It is the duty of the Muslims to make everything else secondary to dawah work. They must make dawah work the sole mission of their lives. Only then will they regain God’s help. This will ensure not only protection for them in this world but also salvation in the Hereafter.
Source: Crisis of Muslims Leaflets
Once, a well-known Muslim ideologue from the West, while addressing a Muslim conference, declared: “Rebellion against a tyrant is obedience to God!”
This phrase portrays the mindset formed by a political interpretation of Islam. The modern generation of Muslims is generally influenced by this political interpretation. Today, the agitations and protests across the world in various countries in the name of ‘Islamic Revolution’ are a product of this political interpretation. This sort of so-called ‘revolutionary politics’ can by no means whatsoever, be considered as Islamic politics. In stronger terms, this politics is actually Satanic politics in the name of Islam. The founding father of this politics was Satan himself. Today, the flag-bearers of this sort of politics are undoubtedly following in the footsteps of Satan, not of Islam.
The Quran relates that when God created Adam, there were two other creatures present — the angels and the jinn. God ordered the angels and the jinn to bow down before Adam. The angels obeyed this commandment of God, but Satan, who was the head of the jinn, refused to obey this order. And so he became a rebel against God.
This was the first incident of revolt against authority in human history. This political revolt or the ‘politics of opposition’ is undoubtedly the practice of Satan. To focus on one’s work without confronting the authorities is the method of the angels. And confronting the authorities and agitating, fired by the ‘politics of opposition’, is the method of Satan.
Strangely, this negative politics of Satan has prevailed throughout almost the whole of human history, among both believers and others.
The direct result of this negative politics is that instead of becoming a history of progress and development, human history became a history of destruction.
Why is it that almost the whole of human history turned into a history of this sort of Satanic politics? The reason for this is that the Creator has given man an exceptional feature and that is the ego. It is actually the ego that provides man a special status in the whole of the cosmos.
This sort of so-called ‘revolutionary politics’ can by no means whatsoever, be considered as Islamic politics.
There are two aspects of the ego — the positive and negative. In collective life, be it within the family or in the wider society, it always happens that people face experiences that prick their egos. On such occasions, if a person can control himself—if he can properly handle the issue of ‘ego management’—he would have used his ego, as it were, in a proper manner. But if his ego is provoked and he lets it affect his entire personality, he will create immense problems for himself, and for others, too. He will have failed in the art of ‘ego management’.
One has to always face this issue of managing the ego. When this problem occurs in the political sphere and one fails to manage one’s ego properly, it is what is called the ‘politics of opposition’. This is what challenging the political authorities is about. Because most people fail in the art of ‘ego management’, almost the entirety of human history presents a picture of political destruction.
The solution to this problem is explained in the Quran and Hadith in terms of what can be termed as the 'politics of patience' or sabr. The politics of patience is no politics of defeat. It is but another name for political status quoism—that is to say, to accept, in practical terms, the status quo as far as the issue of political power is concerned, and, without confronting the political authorities, to avail the opportunities present in the non-political sphere.
It is this formula that is expressed in a Hadith report, according to which the Prophet indicated that: “God grants to non-violence what He does not grant to violence.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2593)
Source: Spirit of Islam May 2014
Waging war with Muslim rulers is nothing more or less than armed revolt (khuruj) and khuruj is haraam in Islam. The renowned Syrian traditionist Al-Imam Al Nawawi (d. 1277) in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, explains the traditions of the chapter ‘Fitan’, i.e. that when Muslim rulers become corrupt, believers should, if possible, convey to them the message of Islam, peacefully, by giving them good advice in private meetings. He later writes: “Be these Muslim rulers, sinners or tyrants. rebellion (khuruj) and waging war against them is haraam, for on this point there is a consensus (ijma) of the Muslim scholars.
According to this established teaching of Islam, waging violent jihad against both Muslim as well as non-Muslim rulers is haraam. The responsibility of the believers as regards non-Muslim rulers is that of peacefully carrying out missionary work. In a case of clear aggression by them, defensive war can be waged only by Muslim rulers and not by any individual or any organization. If non-Muslims rulers do not attack them, then on no pretext are Muslims allowed in Islam to perform jihad against them. The same holds for Muslim rulers. Believers are not allowed to perform jihad against Muslim rulers in the name of reform. Islam allows war only in defense. There is no concept of war for the purposes of reform in Islam.
This teaching of a non-confrontational approach as regards Muslim rulers is based on profound wisdom. The truth is that corruption in rulers never closes the door to performing peaceful missionary work and reform work. And despite the imperfections of Muslim rulers, many vistas remain open for peaceful activities.
Today in the sphere of political power having been greatly narrowed down, this possibility is much greater than ever before. Now it has become possible to do all kinds of constructive work—such as preaching of Islam, spreading education, carrying out social welfare and reform activities, and developing character in individuals. All these activities can be pursued outside the political sphere, and are all the more effectively performed through the establishment of educational and other such institutions. Moreover, freedom of speech and modern communications have greatly extended the sphere of these activities. In such a situation, the importance and utility of the correct teaching of Islam has greatly increased.
The truth is that now there is no need to clash with governments. Now all those improvements which earlier could be achieved only with the support of political power can now be achieved without it. Hence there is no need to strive for political power, which in any case should never be an issue in Islam. The theory of political Islam simply does not exist in the Quran. It has been concocted and popularized by deliberate misrepresentation of the Quran.
Source: The Prophet of Peace
In Islam, rebellion against an established government is strictly prohibited. Islam wants to create an atmosphere of peace in the complete sense of the word. So that everyone can live without fear. And the rebellion is against it. The Prophet provided a model and an ideology of peace. 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 a 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 an 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 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.
Source: Spirit of Islam August 2015
In my opinion, there is only one problem facing present-day Muslims—that is, their self-styled concept of jihad. All other issues of intolerance and extremism have branched out from their misconceptions about jihad. The most essential point for Muslims today is to know the importance of peace and to know that jihad is not needed in today’s age. The command for jihad, in terms of qital (war), is suspended. If in present times, we can achieve everything we want by peaceful methods, then why engage in qital or fighting? This is the basic problem that needs to be addressed. Trying to establish Islamic Shariah by force or through coercion is also an offshoot of this wrong concept of jihad.
Muslims must throw away their arms in the oceans and work peacefully for constructive goals.
Whenever Muslim countries are in crisis, why does Islamic fundamentalism flourish there immediately?
Crisis in Muslim countries leads to flourishing of Islamic fundamentalism. This is because since the time the Palestinian issue gained prominence, Ikhwanul Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood) has gained stronghold in Arab countries. The Muslim Brotherhood were initially against the West but later they also turned against their own Arab rulers and tried to dethrone them because they thought that these rulers were agents of the West. In order to destabilize the Arab rule, Muslim Brotherhood began confronting and clashing with the rulers. As a result, the Arab rulers became very sensitive towards Islamic movements, as they considered them to be a form of extremism or fundamentalism whose aim was to revolt and de-stabilize the existing rule.
Is the concept of ‘religion’ to be blamed for the chaos in the world, or is it humans who are responsible? The source of chaos in the world is not religion. Its source is the misuse of freedom by human beings. God bestowed freedom upon mankind in order to put us to the test in this world. It is the misuse of this God-given freedom that creates all kinds of problems in society. Evil is not a part of creation. It is a result of misuse of freedom by man.
Source: Spirit of Islam January 2018
After a long and deep study of Islam, I came to know that in Islam, war is not the prerogative of the individual but of an established government. Only an established government can declare war. In other words, individuals can pray on their own, but they cannot wage wars of their own accord. Only when a war is declared by the ruling government, can the public join in and support it, and not before that. Islam does not sanction individual actions on this issue. Therefore no Non-Governmental Organization or NGO can declare war.
As a general principle, the Quran tells us that, even where an external attack is feared, the common man should not act independently, but should take the matter to the ruler, and then under his guidance take proper counter-measures. (4:83).
The Hadith also states that ‘the ruler is a shield, fighting is done under him, and security is attained through him.’
This clearly shows that the decision to do battle and its planning are the tasks of an established government. The common man can play his role as need be under government orders, and not independently.
This Islamic principle shows that there is no room for non-state warfare, which is what we generally call guerilla war. A guerilla war is fought by individual organizations, not by the State. As far as the state is concerned, if it wants to wage a defensive war against any country it has first—in obedience to the Quran—to issue a proper declaration. Only then can it wage a lawful war (8:58). In Islam, there is only ‘declared’ war. Therefore, in accordance with this principle, no proxy war in Islam can be lawful.
Most Islamic actions are governed by certain conditions. The waging of war is also thus subject to certain principles, one being that, even when a defensive war has been declared by the State, it will be aimed only at the combatants. Targeting non-combatants will be unlawful. The Quran enjoins us not to do battle with those who are not at war. Such people have to be dealt with kindly and equitably. But you are free to do battle with those who are fighting against you. (60:8-9)
If, for instance, a Muslim state is at war with a particular nation, and this war is in conformance with Islamic principles, it should still not permit any destructive activities against non-combatants (civilians), as was done on September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington. Similarly in Islamic war, Muslims are not permitted to commit suicidal bombings in order to destroy the enemy. Strapping explosives on to oneself and hurling oneself upon the civilian settlements of even those with whom one is at war, for the purpose of destroying the enemy, and in the process killing oneself deliberately, is totally un-Islamic.
Because of the importance of peace, the Quran has clearly declared that no aggressive war is permitted in Islam. Muslims can engage themselves only in a defensive, not in an offensive war, irrespective of the circumstances (2:190).
According to Islam, peace is the rule and war is only an exception. Even in defensive war we have to see the result. If the result is doubtful, Muslims should avoid war, even in a defensive situation. Stray acts of aggression are not enough for Muslims to rush into war. They have to assess the whole situation and adopt a policy of avoidance when war is not certain to achieve a positive result.
Source: The True Face of Islam
Contrary to common belief, Islam does not promote war with their enemies. Under the scheme of the divine trial of human beings, God has granted man freedom. Due to this freedom, enmities may develop between people (20:123), which sometimes leads them to war. But Islam makes a clear difference between enmity and war.
Believers do not have the right to wage wars against their enemies. What the believers have to do as regards their enemies is far from waging war. Their duty is to peacefully convey to them the message of Islam. The Quran gives a clear injunction on this subject:
“And good and evil deeds are not alike. Repel evil with good. And he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend.” (41:33-34)
That is to say, Islam believes in turning one’s enemy into a friend through peaceful means, instead of declaring him an enemy and then waging war against him.
Islam does give permission to do battle. But such permission is given only in the case of an attack by opponents in spite of the policy of avoidance being followed by the Muslims, thus creating a situation where self-defence is required. The Quran has this to say: “Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been wronged” (22:38). At another place the Quran gives a valid reason for fighting: “They were the first to attack you” (9:13).
This shows that according to the teachings of Islam, war is to be waged not against the enemy but against the aggressor. If Muslims hold someone to be their enemy, that does not give them the right to attack him. The one and only right given to them is to convey the peaceful message of Islam. Islam permits defensive fighting against violent aggression, but only when all efforts at avoidance and reconciliation have failed. The practical example of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH provides incontrovertible proof of the value of this policy.
Source: The True Face of Islam
All skirmishes that we see in the life of the Prophet were in self-defence. None was done as offensive action directed against others. The Battle of the Trench happened in 627 AD. When the Prophet came to know that people were coming from Makkah to attack the Muslims of Madinah, he gathered all of his Companions and asked them how to deal with the situation in a non-confrontational manner. One of them, Salman Farsi who was from Persia, said that in Iran whenever kings have to avoid a battle, they dig a trench around their area. The Prophet liked this idea and all of the Muslims together dug a trench around Madinah. Madinah was covered from three sides: on one side there were dense date palm trees and on two sides there were mountains. So only one side of the city was exposed to entry, while three sides of the city had natural obstructions. On the exposed side, the Muslims dug a trench so that the army of the opponents could not reach Madinah. When the leader of Quraysh saw the trench, he exclaimed:
By God, this is a strategy which the Arabs know not of! (Sirah ibn Kathir, Vol. 3, p. 202)
The digging of the trench was a matter of strategy. A few skirmishes did take place at the time of the Battle of Khandaq when some people from the other side tried to get over the trench, but these were only one-to-one engagements.
Source: The Seeker’s Guide
Islam does give permission to do battle. But such permission is given only in the case of an attack by opponents in spite of the policy of avoidance being followed by the Muslims, thus creating a situation where self-defense becomes necessary. According to the teachings of Islam, war is to be waged not against the enemy but against the aggressor. If Muslims hold someone to be their enemy, that does not give them the right to attack him. The only right given to them is to convey the peaceful message of Islam to others. Islam permits defensive fighting against violent aggression, but only when all efforts at avoidance and reconciliation have failed. The Quran states:
“Permission to fight is granted to those who are attacked because they have been wronged. (22:39)
At another place the Quran enjoins the believers thus: “Fight in the cause of God against those who wage war against you but do not commit aggression. God does not love aggressors. (2:190)
A tradition narrates: “God grants to gentleness what He does not grant to harshness. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2593)
In the Quran God is referred to as: ‘the Source of Peace’. (Quran 59:23)
The practical example of the Prophet Muhammad provides incontrovertible proof of the value of this policy of avoidance and non-confrontation. He never lifted the sword in aggression or for territorial conquests. Only under extreme circumstances of defense did he allow defensive battles. Additionally, all the battles fought at that time were actually skirmishes and not wars as none of them lasted even for a day.
Source: The Seeker’s Guide
The Quran uses two different words: jihad and qital. Where the reference is to a peaceful struggle or exertion, the Quran uses the word jihad. For instance, the Quran (25: 52) refers to a peaceful jihad of inviting others to the faith through the Quran. And when the reference is to physical war, the Quran uses the word qital (as for instance, Quran 3: 121). But in the later period, after the demise of the Prophet, the word jihad began being often used as synonymous with qital, or war.
However, even if this usage of the term jihad is regarded as proper, still, it would be only an expanded usage of the term. In terms of the actual or essential meaning of the word, jihad is a term for a peaceful action, not a violent one. It is undertaken to enlighten people intellectually and spiritually; not to kill them.
Thus, Jihad if understood correctly is an entirely peaceful action. At the individual level, to engage in jihad is to refuse to deviate from the path of God despite the desires of one’s baser self and the difficult environment one confronts. It is to face the challenges that stand in one’s path and remain steadfast on the path of Truth. At the collective level, jihad can be called a peaceful struggle.
At the very basis of this struggle is an intellectual awakening among people, leading them to positive and constructive action and refining their character. Jihad, understood in this sense, inspires people to seek to become beneficial to others, and to be concerned about their welfare. The weapon deployed in true jihad is love, not hatred and violence.
Every word has both a literal as well as a conventional meaning—one that is related to how the word is conventionally used and understood. This is the case with the word ‘jihad’, too. The word ‘jihad’ comes from the root juhd or jahd. The literal connotation of this is exertion with much effort. The word ‘jihad’ is conventionally used for various sorts of exertion or struggle, one of which is war. However, it is used only for a particular and exceptional sort of war, one which is fought in the cause of God to end religious persecution. A war that is pursued for wealth and power will not be called a Jihad. The Quran says:
“Perform jihad with this most strenuously.” (Here 'this' refers to the Quran) (25: 52)
The Quran is not a sword or a gun. It is a book of ideology. In such a case, performing jihad with the Quran would mean an ideological struggle to convey the peaceful message of Islam to people. In the light of this verse of the Quran, jihad in actual fact is another name for peaceful activism or non-violent activism.
Source: Spirit of Islam October 2014
The Palestinian Arabs are a divided nation. They are living in three regions: West Bank, Gaza and Israel. The population of Arabs in these three regions is more or less the same. The Arabs are living in peace in the two areas of West Bank and Israel. All the violence we read about in news reports is related to the region called Gaza.
Why is there this difference? The reason is that the Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted practical peace, while the Arabs of Gaza are trying to establish ideal peace. History shows that practical peace is achievable at any moment, whereas ideal peace always proves the veracity of the well-known saying: the ideal cannot be achieved.
Practical peace means peace based on the status quo. In every situation, there is a status quo. If you accept this status quo, you can establish peace instantly. But, if you want to establish ideal peace, then it will amount to changing the status quo, which would necessarily lead to confrontation and fighting. The result of this fighting culture is chain war. The defeated party seeks revenge, and this sets off a series of battles, leading to revenge after revenge. When a situation of this sort takes shape, there is no end to it. This is exactly what is happening in Gaza.
The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted the formula of practical peace, albeit under compulsion. However, the result of this has been positive, and, for a long time now, they have been living in a state of normalcy in their respective areas. In contrast to this, the Arabs of Gaza are trying to establish ideal peace. What is happening in Gaza is the price of this unrealistic policy. According to the law of nature, there are only two options available: either accept practical peace and establish normalcy, or pursue ideal peace and face constant violence as its price.
Early Islam provides a historical example of this. The Prophet of Islam started his mission in 610 AD. At that time, the Arabs followed the tribal culture, due to which there was constant conflict. Islam adopted the formula of unilateral peace, which proved effective, and very soon there was peace in Arabia. When the Prophet started his mission, the Arabs turned hostile towards him. A state of war prevailed for about eighteen years between the Prophet and his opponents. After this period, the Prophet of Islam unilaterally accepted the conditions of the other party by signing the Hudaibiya Agreement.
This brought about peace between the two parties, thus throwing open the doors to all opportunities. It was by availing these opportunities that Islam easily spread throughout Arabia. This was the demonstration of practical peace.
The history of the Hudaybiyyah Agreement shows that unilateral peace is not a matter of losing, but rather a great gain. This is because it opens the door to opportunities, and opportunity is greater than everything else.
Accept practical peace and establish normalcy, or pursue ideal peace and face constant violence as its price. In the present situation, there are examples of these two methods. The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted the formula of practical peace, so they are enjoying normalcy, whereas the Arabs of Gaza are trying to achieve ideal peace, and are consequently paying its price. This is in accordance with the law of nature. When it comes to the law of nature, you have no option other than to accept it.
The formula of “establishing peace on a unilateral basis” was never repeated in the later period of Muslim history. But it was repeated under compulsion in the thirteenth century. When the Mongols destroyed the Abbasid Empire, the Muslims were so demoralized that they were not in a position to fight. So, they accepted the status quo and within less than fifty years history changed completely. About this event Philip Hitti has remarked: “The religion of Muslims conquered where their arms had failed.” Acceptance of reality is the key to success.
Source: Spirit of Islam September 2014
Just as it is a fact that world peace is the greatest need of our time, it is also a fact that world peace cannot be achieved without the establishment of peace in Palestine. I wanted to discover the formula for peace in the light of the Islamic scriptures. This study brought me to the conclusion that according to the Quran, the master principle in controversial matters is that of reconciliation (sulh). (4:128) It means that peaceful settlement is the best. However, a peaceful settlement is not an easy task. It requires great wisdom, the spirit of give and take, unbiased thinking, a realistic approach, and well-wishing for all mankind.
Guided by this Quranic spirit, I discovered the first pointer, in the form of the law of diaspora. This law is mentioned in this verse of the Quran, ‘O my people! Enter the holy land which God has assigned to you.’ The ‘promised land’ in the Bible (Deuteronomy 1:8), is called the ‘assigned land’ (5:21) in the Quran. According to this law, any community living in diaspora enjoys the natural right to return to its original homeland. The Balfour plan, implemented in 1948, expressed exactly the same principle. But the refusal of the Arab leaders to accept it has resulted in a bloody conflict between the two groups. Now the time has finally come for a reassessment to be made by both of the parties. The Arab leaders — abandoning all kinds of violence — must accept Israel as a legitimate state, while Israel must make some kind of territorial adjustment that would be acceptable to the Arabs. It is a fact that world peace cannot be achieved without the establishment of peace in Palestine. Now the time has finally come for a reassessment to be made by both of the parties.
Source: The True Face of Islam
The Arab leaders want to establish their rule throughout the whole of Palestine, just as in the past. But this concept is based on anachronistic thinking. In ancient monarchical times, the concept of political rule was that a single individual held sway without sharing power with others. But in the age of modern democracy, the concept of power-sharing is prevalent all over the world. With this new concept, it should be entirely possible for Arab leaders to participate in the political system on the principle of democratic sharing, without exercising any independent rule of their own. This is a new opportunity that the Palestinian Arabs can avail of in the full sense, should they opt for a peaceful course of action.
A perfect kind of example exists for this kind of power-sharing. In chapter 12 of the Quran, we learn that an idolatrous king ruled Egypt during Joseph’s time. Joseph accepted a ministerial post under his kingship and continued to hold this post for a long time. This was an example of power sharing which has been approved of by the Quran.
Source: The True Face of Islam
The Palestinian movement, having reached its final stage, has assumed intensely negative proportions, i.e. suicide bombing. This suicide bombing does not take place on a battlefield. It is carried out in public places and all the people who die are innocent men, women, and children. This kind of suicide bombing is totally against the teachings of Islam. According to the Quran, ‘the killing of one person is like killing all mankind.’(The Quran, 5:32) In suicide bombing, it is the innocent who die, and killing innocent people in the eyes of God is such a heinous crime that killing one person in this way is akin to killing all human beings.
On this point, it would be appropriate to say that the Palestinian movement, having reached this last stage, has so totally deviated from the path of Islam that it can never be held deserving of divine succour.
Source: The True Face of Islam
I presented this paper at a peace conference organized by the Peres Center for Peace, Tel Aviv, on October 28, 2008 on how to achieve peace in the holy land. The theme of the conference was ‘New World, New Peace’. During my address, I explained that the Arab-Israel controversy, which started in 1948, led directly to the total disturbance of peace in the Middle East and indirectly to disturbances all over the world. This 60-year-old bloody struggle, far from solving any problems, has created grave, unsolvable problems. Now the time has finally arrived for a reassessment of the whole issue in a purely realistic manner and for a search for a new strategy that could ensure peace in the region. I also explained that, although the name of Islam has repeatedly been invoked in this campaign, there has never been any serious effort made to apply the Islamic formula to this controversial matter. I studied Islamic scriptures to discover the solution to this problem in the light of Islam, and what I have found from my study of Islam can be summed up thus: the central idea of Islamic planning is that it is based on availing existing opportunities rather than on colliding with problems. I presented this in the form of ten points, some of which are being given as follows.
What the leaders on both sides should now do is refrain from insisting on the other party agreeing to their conditions. Rather they should attach prime importance to what they must do to ensure that peace prevails in this region and how they can in consequence cause opportunities to open up for themselves. The example set by the Prophet provides us with the basic guiding principle that we should adopt in this matter.
According to the Bible, the Jews believe that Palestine is for them the ‘promised land’ (Deuteronomy 1:8). The same notion has been expressed in the Quran. The Quran tells us that the Israelites, who were living in diaspora outside Palestine during the time of the Prophet Moses, were told by Moses that it was God’s command that they should enter the Holy Land. Moses said to his people: ‘O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has assigned to you’ (The Quran, 5:21) In this verse of the Quran the words ‘assigned to you’ is not a mysterious phrase: indeed, it describes a law of nature. That is, a community in diaspora enjoys the right to return to its original home. The Biblical term ‘promised land’ has this very meaning, and the Balfour Declaration (1917) was exactly in accordance with this law of nature, as prescribed in the Quran. In this declaration, the Jews in diaspora were given permission to return to Palestine under a limited quota system. The Arab leaders should have accepted this as a legitimate decision. But they refused to accept it and showed their strong reaction to it. This was the beginning of the present Palestinian movement. To my way of thinking, this was a very unwise decision on the part of the Arabs, because this movement proved to be counterproductive.
The argument of the Arab leaders to justify their violent movement is that the Jews are their enemies, and that fighting the enemy is but natural. This argument is certainly against the teachings of the Quran. According to the injunction of the Quran, war can be waged only against an attacker, not against an enemy. The following verse of the Quran throws light in this regard:
‘Do a good deed in return for a bad deed and then you will find that your enemy has become your dearest friend.’ (The Quran, 41:34)
According to this verse of the Quran, our enemy is our potential friend. That is why, according to Islamic teaching, what we should do is to turn the potential into the actual through dialogue or peaceful effort, rather than destroy all positive opportunities by unnecessarily waging war.
If we point out to the Arab leaders the importance of peace, they will answer, ‘Yes, we want peace, but we want peace with justice.’ This way of thinking is totally unrealistic, for it is a fact that peace does not on its own bring justice. Peace only opens the door to opportunities, and the desired justice is achieved only by availing of those opportunities. We learn this principle from the ultimate outcome of the Hudaybiyyah Pact, which I referred to earlier. It must be remembered that the Prophet Muhammad followed this Hudaybiyyah principle throughout his life.
Source: The True Face of Islam
We wanted to change the mindset of the Kashmiri people, who were trying to change the political status quo in Kashmir through militancy. However, we constantly made them believe that this was an impossible game. We have to accept the reality. One example of this method is set forth in our book, which has been published in 'Subh-e-Kashmir' (Urdu), and in 'Dawn Over Kashmir' (English). Now, it is a well-established fact that the Kashmiris have almost abandoned their previous way of thinking and, by and large, there is peace in Kashmir. This change is a direct result of our mission. If any violent incident occurs in Kashmir, it is due to foreign elements.
This mission that I call Neo-Gandhism is applicable to all the people of India. Its method is based on education and not on militancy. In pre-independence India, the course resorted to was mob activism. This should now be replaced by educational activism. This method seems to be a long-term method. Such a goal can be achieved only through long-term planning. Short-term planning will be of no avail.
Neo-Gandhism is not a departure from the Gandhian ideology. In fact, it is reapplying the Gandhian ideology in a changing world. This kind of reapplication is common to the history of all systems and ideologies. In the pre-independence era, there were two parties: the Indian nation and the British occupiers. This was a 'we-they' equation; so the basic target of Gandhism was to oust the British from the Indian soil, which happened successfully on August 15, 1947.
Now the situation is completely different. Now, there is no 'they'; all are members of the Indian nation. The present situation is based on a 'we-we' equation, and not a 'we-they' equation as it was in the past.
Source: Spirit of Islam June 2013
For centuries Kashmir has been known as ‘heaven on earth’. In the past, Kashmir was ruled by a series of rulers who were not indigenous inhabitants of the land—Pathans, Mughals, Sikhs and Dogras. But throughout this period it still remained ‘heaven on earth’. People from all over the world visited Kashmir. If the Taj Mahal symbolized architectural beauty on the subcontinent, Kashmir was the symbol of the beauty of nature. This history shows that for Kashmir to make progress, it is not necessary that it should be ruled by Kashmiris. Political power is a kind of political headache. Kashmir needs constructive activities to be revived for its progress, and development, and nothing else.
The Quran mentions everything that is good for man. But it does not mention freedom or liberty. This shows that the word freedom is very deceptive. It has no real meaningfulness. A clear practical example of this can be seen in 60 Muslim countries, most of which won their political independence after a long struggle, in the course of which their people made immense sacrifices. However, in fact, these countries are not really independent in the true sense of the term. Many of them are now in the throes of civil war, where rival groups are fighting each other for power. If the Kashmiris do not realize this and stop insisting on independence, they are likely to meet the same unenviable fate. That is why they should abandon their present political struggle and, instead, concentrate on the work of positive and constructive development.
Had Kashmir treaded along the path of educational and economic advancement, today it would have been a model of progress and prosperity. But the incompetent leadership, with unrealistic dreams and empty slogans, have caused terrible damage. The time has now come for the Kashmiris to abandon the path of militancy completely and permanently, and, instead, to adopt the path of peace and progress. Only then can the dream of Kashmir as ‘heaven on earth’ come true. Unrealistic politics has played havoc with Kashmir, but now through realistic politics we can once again lead Kashmir to progress and development. Kashmiri Muslims have today become disillusioned. They are living in an atmosphere of mistrust.
It is indeed possible for the Kashmiris to start a new life at any given time, but for this, two conditions must be met. First, they must take responsibility for the unpleasant situation they are faced with today. Second, more importantly, they must come out of their delusional world and learn to live in the world of practical realities. They must understand that today it is the age of peace.
Source: Spirit of Islam December 2018
On September 10, 2014, The Times of India carried a front-page report titled: “In Kashmir, ‘occupation force’ hailed as saviour." The report said that from being perceived by many in the Kashmir valley as an “occupation force” in the 1990s, the Army is now seen as a “humanitarian agency”. The Army has certainly come a long way in this militancy-hit state, having rescued upwards of 100,000 people.
To my surprise, the same morning I received a much-awaited call from our Kashmir team member who told the same story. He affirmed that after the great havoc wreaked by the floods, normalcy was slowly being restored. He attributed this entirely to the efforts of the Indian Army and said that there was new thinking emerging among the people of Kashmir about the armed forces. In his own words, he said: “Jis army ko hamne patthar mara tha, wahi aaj apne kandhon par utha kar logon ko flood se bacha rahe hain.” (The same army which was pelted with stones is now rescuing people from the flood on their shoulders).
Sometimes blessings come in disguise. The recent flood crisis in Kashmir is an example of this old saying. The whole state of Jammu and Kashmir was almost underwater. A massive rescue and relief operation by the Indian armed forces is on in the state. It was this same Indian Army that was subjected to stone-throwing that is now dropping food packets, saving the lives of people, and extending all possible help.
For a very long time, Kashmir had been a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity. A large number of Hindus used to visit the Sufi shrines in Kashmir. There was an ideal relationship between the Hindu Pandits’ and the Muslim Kashmiris. In the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, Hindus and Muslims lived in brotherly relations and cooperated with each other in every field. Kashmir was in an ideal state of communal harmony. There was absolutely no problem between the Kashmiris and the Hindus.
But, due to misguidance from rabble-rousers, the Kashmiri people temporarily became negative towards India. This kind of negativity was totally against the spirit of Kashmir.
Now, nature, through this calamity and the help provided by India, is giving a strong message to Kashmiris: ‘See the realities and change your mindset.’ This “change” is not merely a change—it is a return to their own past.
Under the influence of their so-called leaders, Kashmiris had become negative towards India. However, India is the only country that has rushed to their rescue. A crisis reveals a person’s friends and enemies. This calamity has clearly shown that the Indian Army is a true friend and well-wisher of the Kashmiri people. This was a new experience in the recent history of Kashmir. According to my assessment, it was a message from nature. Nature is telling them: ‘Discover your real friends.’
The fact remains that, after Independence, there was a great chance for Kashmiris to develop and build a great future for themselves. But, because of misguidance from some leaders, they were living in a state of indecisiveness. In this natural calamity, there is a lesson for the Kashmiri people: ‘Decide your future without delay, so that your journey towards the future continues without any hurdles and your youth can avail of all modern opportunities.’
Source: Spirit of Islam October 2014
