Peace and Islam

In February 1998, I participated in a symposium at the American University in Washington, where I spoke on the topic of Islam and Peace. In the course of my speech, I said:

It is no exaggeration to say that Islam and violence are contradictory to each other. The concept of Islamic violence is so obviously unfounded that prima facie it stands rejected. The fact that violence is not sustainable in the present world is enough to support the belief that violence as a principle is quite alien to the scheme of things in Islam. Islam claims to be an eternal religion, and an eternal religion cannot have a principle in its scheme which is not sustainable in successive periods of human history. Any attempt to bracket violence with Islam amounts to casting doubt upon the very eternity of the Islamic religion.

This means that the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ is, in fact, as much a misnomer as the phrase ‘pacifistic terrorism’. The fact is that all Islamic teachings are based, directly or indirectly, on the principle of peace.

Peace in the Quran and Hadith

Peace is integral to the meaning of the very word ‘Islam’ itself. The root of the word ‘Islam’ is s-l-m, which is related to the Arabic word for ‘peace’. And so, Islam means a religion of peace. Imam al-Bukhari has given the title, ‘Spreading peace is a part of Islam’, to hadith no. 28, which is on the importance of peace in Islam.Likewise, the Prophet is reported to have declared that a Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands people live safely. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 8931) In other words, a Muslim, in the true sense of the word, is a person who does not harm anyone by his or her words or deeds.

Of the various names or attributes of God mentioned in the Quran one is As-Salam, or ‘The Source of Peace’. That is to say, God is Peace. Similarly, in a hadith recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet observed that God Himself is Peace. Moreover, God’s guidance is referred to in the Quran (5:16) as subul as-salaam or ‘the ways of peace’. According to Islam, heaven is the ideal abode for Man, and the Quran (10:25) refers to heaven as daar us-salaam or the ‘home of peace’. Elsewhere, the Quran (56:26) says that the inhabitants of heaven will greet each other saying, ‘Peace! Peace!’ In other words, life in heaven will be entirely peaceful.

We are told by the Quran (4:128) that ‘reconciliation is best’. This means that, in terms of consequences, reconciliation is the better option. According to the law of nature that God has devised, reconciliation leads to successes and achievements that would simply be impossible by having recourse to violence.

In a narration recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha, wife of the Prophet, is mentioned as having noted that whenever the Prophet had to choose between two courses of action, he would always choose the easier one. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 3560; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2327; Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4785; Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 1984; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 24549) This indicates that when opportunities for peaceful activism exist, one should never give preference to violent activism: peaceful activism is the easier option, while violent activism is the harder option.

For example, for a movement to attempt to overturn the status quo all at once is the harder option; an easier option is to avoid such an attempt, and, instead, to work within the existing boundaries. Taking recourse to violence in the event of a conflict is more arduous, while responding to the situation by seeking reconciliation through peaceful methods is far less so. Reacting to aggression with counter–aggression is always a tough proposition, while responding with patience, steadfastness and tolerance is the easier way. Protesting and stirring up people to solve a particular problem is patently difficult to do, whereas acting quietly and without any great hue and cry is an easier solution. Bringing about reform by radical means presents many problems, while adopting a gradual, step-by-step policy is by far the simpler approach. Acting in the heat of the moment with fiery passion and without stopping to consider the consequences is hardly a prudent course to adopt, while taking steps wisely after considering their likely results is a smoother path to take. To oppose existing rulers is a task fraught with much trouble and danger, while steering clear of the rulers and focusing instead on educating and guiding people is a much easier course. These instances illustrate what is meant in the above-quoted hadith by giving preference to easier options rather than to harder ones.

The fact is that in Islam, peace is the rule while war is the exception. The entire range of Islamic teachings and the practical life of the Prophet testify to this.

The Prophet’s Model

The Prophet Muhammad received his first Divine revelation in Makkah in the year 610 C.E.. The mission for which God had appointed him was to inculcate belief in tawhid, or the oneness of God. Now, with regard to this mission, there was a major issue that he had to deal with. And this was that the Kabah, which is in Makkah and which the Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael had built for the worship of the one God, had, in later times, been converted into a centre for polytheism. 360 idols had been installed therein.

One might think that, given this situation, the first commandment of the Quran should have been to purify the Kabah of these idols. But ignoring this problem, the Quran’s initial commandments were about the need for inner purification. (The Quran, 74:4) Had the Prophet been ordered to purify the Kabah of idols at the very outset, at a time when the Quraysh polytheists were dominant in Makkah, it would inevitably have led to conflict and even war. Therefore, after being appointed as a prophet, the Prophet continued to pray peacefully for over a period of thirteen years at the Kabah even while scores of idols remained therein. Likewise, after he shifted to Madinah, he and his Companions performed the Umrah or ‘lesser pilgrimage’ to Makkah and circumambulated the Kabah following the Treaty of Hudaybiya (628 C.E.) at a time when these idols were still there.

The Prophet acted in this way so that war and confrontation with the polytheists could be avoided and peace could be maintained. The entire life of the Prophet exemplified this peace-loving policy of his. The Quraysh of Makkah were ready to attack him, but he avoided this by quietly leaving the town and shifting to Madinah. Just before the Hudaybiya Treaty, war-like conditions prevailed, but the Prophet agreed to the Quraysh’s one-sided conditions and entered into a peace pact with them. Likewise, on the occasion of the Battle of the Trench (627 C.E.), a massive force of some 12,000 polytheists reached the outskirts of Madinah, challenging the Muslims to battle. However, the Prophet ordered a long trench to be dug around the town, thus establishing a buffer between the Muslims and their opponents. All this clearly indicates the great importance that the Prophet gave to peace.

Islam’s mission centres on tawhid, the oneness of God. The purpose of Islam is to convince human beings to worship and serve only the one God. It aims to so transform people’s minds and hearts so that they love just the one God, fear Him alone and make Him their biggest concern.

A mission of this sort that invites people to the path of God simply cannot accept violent confrontation. This is because violence or war destroys the conducive atmosphere essential to any movement that seeks to reform people’s thinking in order to bring about a spiritual revolution. The fact of the matter is that peaceful conditions invariably promote an atmosphere favourable to the mission of Islam. On the contrary, violent conditions cannot but produce an atmosphere inimical to Islam.

War, a State Action

In Islam, war is not the duty of members of the general public, whether individuals or groups. Rather, it is the task of a properly established government. Individuals do not have the right to engage in war on their own. On the contrary, war can be declared only by an established government. It is permissible for the government to call upon the general public to assist it in a war, but members of the public do not have the right to declare war on their own.

The Quran lays down as a general commandment that in the face of threats or where there is the danger of an external attack, the public should not take any action on their own. On such occasions, the only thing to do is take the matter to what the Quran (4:83) refers to as ulul-amr, or those in authority—in other words, their rulers. And it is for the latter to decide on an appropriate response.

The same point is made in a hadith mentioned in the Sahih al-Bukhari. According to this report, the rulers are like a shield. War is fought under their leadership, and they protect the people. (Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2957) This indicates that the planning and declaration of qital, or war, is entirely the prerogative of a properly established government. The general Muslim populace can, remaining under the leadership of their rulers and obeying their orders, play whatever role is required of them in this regard, but they cannot act independently.

From this Islamic principle it is clear that there is no scope in Islam for non-state actors to engage in war on their own, or what is generally called guerilla war. This is because a guerilla war is fought by independent non-state organisations, rather than by agencies of an established government. If agencies of an Islamic state seek to engage in defensive war, then, in accordance with the commandments of the Quran, they must first issue an open declaration of war. If the state has a treaty with the party it wants to wage war against, it must dissolve it. In Islam, war must be openly announced. Undeclared war is not permissible in Islam. Hence, according to Islam, proxy war is illegitimate.

All actions in Islam have certain conditions. It follows, therefore, that in Islam there are also certain necessary conditions for war. One of these conditions is that war must be limited only to, and directed only against, aggressors. In other words, a Muslim army is permitted to fight only against combatants. It is not permissible for it to attack non-combatants. The Quran lays down:

He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you on account of your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just. God only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your faith and driven you out of your homes or helped others to do so. Any of you who turn towards them in friendship will truly be transgressors. (60:8-9)

Suppose a Muslim government is embroiled in a war with another country. Even if this war abides by the necessary conditions for war that Islam lays down, it will still be illegitimate for Muslims to engage in any destructive activities against the citizens of the state with which the Muslim army is at war. In this regard, the destruction wrought on 11 September, 2001 in New York and Washington is clearly and unambiguously illegitimate according to Islam.

In the same way, even in a war which according to Islam is legitimate Muslims are not permitted to engage in suicide-bombing against their opponents. Islam does not allow for people to strap bombs to their bodies and force their way into their opponents’ military camps or enter civilian settlements and deliberately kill themselves in order to eliminate their opponents. This sort of action is definitely not martyrdom (shahaadat), and nor can it be justified by terming it a desire to attain martyrdom (istishhaad).

The Difference between Enemy and Aggressor

God has, in His wisdom and in order to test us, given human beings free will. With this God-given free will sometimes enmity develops between people. This, at times, escalates into war. However, in Islam there is a clear distinction between enmity, on the one hand, and war, on the other.

Followers of Islam do not have the right to unleash war against whomsoever they consider to be their enemies. The only thing they can do is engage their enemies in peaceful dawah, that is, to invite them to God’s path, not wage war on them. In this regard, the Quran clearly states:

Who speaks better than one who calls to God and does good works and says, ‘I am surely of those who submit’ Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend. (41:33,34)

This Quranic verse clearly tells us that we should engage in peaceful efforts and thereby make our opponent our friend, rather than branding him as an incorrigible enemy and declaring war against him.

It is true that Islam does give permission to engage in war in some situations, but this is only when all efforts to avoid war have failed and the opposing force launches an attack, creating a situation that necessitates defensive measures. In this regard, the Quran says:

Permission to fight is granted to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. (22:39)

In the same vein, elsewhere, the Quran, permitting Muslims to participate in war, clarifies that the opposing party is the one that attacked the Muslims first. This verse reads:

Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and conspired to banish the Messenger? They were the first to attack you. (9:13)

It must be clearly understood that according to Islamic teachings, war may be resorted to, not against all enemies or opponents but only against aggressors, and that, too, only if the urgent need arises. If Muslims consider some people to be their enemies or opponents, they certainly do not have permission to attack or declare war against them. With regard to such people, the one and only thing that Muslims can and should do is to engage in peaceful dawah work. Islam does not permit them to do anything other than this. While defensive war is permitted in Islam in the wake of violent aggression by others, this can be resorted to only when all efforts to avoid war have failed. This is very well exemplified in practical terms in the life of the Prophet Muhammad.

An Undesirable Aspect of War

War, it must be understood, is completely undesirable as far as Islam is concerned. Just as trade can prosper only in a climate of peace and moderation, so is the case with Islam. In this regard, a hadith contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari advises believers not to desire confrontation with their enemies. Rather, they should seek peace from God. (Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2966; Sahih Musli, Hadith No. 1742; Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 2631; Musnad Ahmad, hadith No. 19114)

War is often fought for the sake of acquiring political power. However, in Islam political power is not something for which war should be resorted to. The Quran observes that men of faith need not make the possession of power and dominance their target, for these are actually blessings of God, conferred upon deserving believers as a reward for their faith and good deeds. Thus, the Quran states:

God has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely grant them power in the land as He granted to those who were before them (24:55)

According to the Quran, God is the Ultimate Power. It is He who gives political power to whoever He wills among human beings. Likewise, He it is who takes it away from whomever He wills. This is why the holders of power keep changing. The Quran says:

Say, ‘Lord, sovereign of all sovereignty. You bestow sovereignty on whom you will and take it away from whom You please; You exalt whoever You will and abase whoever You will. All that is good lies in Your hands. You have the power to will anything. (3:26)

This Quranic truth can be expressed in a different way, as follows: Acquiring and losing political power are both governed by the law of nature. It is not that a group gets political power because of its own efforts. Nor, too, can a group lose its political power because of the conspiracy of others.

Victory Without War

In 628 C.E., the Prophet entered into a treaty—called the Treaty of Hudaybiya—with his opponents. At this time, the Prophet was based in Madinah, while Makkah was still under the control of the polytheists, who were then at war with the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet wanted to visit Makkah in order to perform the Umrah, because the Kabah was located there. This visit would have been only for the purpose of worship. However, the Makkans made this into a prestige issue for themselves. And so, they stopped the Prophet outside Makkah, at a place called Hudaybiya, and asked him to return. Things came to such a head that war seemed imminent. At this time, the Prophet was accompanied by some 1400 Muslims. If these people had insisted on going to Makkah to perform the Umrah, war would certainly have broken out. The Prophet, however, accepted the demands of the Makkan polytheists, and, signing a ten-year peace treaty with them, returned from Hudaybiya to Madinah.

The Treaty of Hudaybiya thus averted war between the two parties, being, as it were, a withdrawal from the field of confrontation. But in the first verse of chapter 48 of the Quran described it as a ‘clear victory’ in favour of the followers of Islam. By not engaging in war with their opponents, they had won a decisive victory over them. This meant that by avoiding war and, instead, by entering into a peace pact, the followers of Islam won the opportunity to prevent their resources from being wasted in war and to use them entirely on constructive activities instead. And this is exactly what happened. History tells us that within two years of the peace pact of Hudaybiya, the followers of Islam had so well established themselves that they were in a position to be victorious over Makkah without any sort of regular fighting and by using only peaceful means.

This principle of ‘victory without war’ is undoubtedly a very important one in Islam. It is based on the immutable system of nature. It is as useful to, and relevant for, individuals and groups as it is for governments. It can be expressed in the form of the following saying:

Avoid confrontation, and avail of the opportunities.

War to End War

The Quran makes the following exhortation:

Fight them until there is no more [religious] persecution, and religion belongs wholly to God: if they desist, then surely God is watching of what they do. (8:39)

This verse has two parts. Here, the same point is made, first in the form of a negation, and then as an affirmation. It means that the state of persecution or fitna should be put an end to in such a way that an environment entirely free of persecution is established. Or, in other words, the artificial conditions produced by human beings should be replaced by the natural condition laid down by God.

The persecution, or fitna, that this verse mentions relates to compulsion in religious matters, which, in ancient times, prevailed all over the world. At that time, monarchy was the norm almost everywhere. The two basic bases or loci of power were political position and ownership of land. Generally, both rested in the hands of the monarch. In this way, almost the whole sphere of human life was practically under the monarch’s control. People were even compelled to follow the monarch’s religion.

This sort of coercion was opposed to the natural scheme that God has devised. Because of this, a sort of political centralization prevailed throughout the world. Under this coercive system, people could hardly do anything without the monarch’s consent. Ordinary people simply had no freedom whatsoever. The situation was similar to that prevailing in the Soviet Union under Communism.

God wanted this unnatural system of coercion to be ended and for the whole of human life to run according to the natural conditions that He has laid down in order to test human beings—that is to say, people should be free to do what they like without the permission of the political authorities.

In the early period of Islam, the overthrow of mulukiyat or monarchical despotism and its replacement by the Caliphate was the beginning of this phenomenon. This system was first established in Arabia. At that time, there were two big empires in the region—the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. The establishment of the Caliphate and its programme of reform was a major challenge to these two powers. Hence, they wanted to quell this reformist movement. As a result of this, the Companions of the Prophet had to face stiff opposition from them. With God’s assistance, they were victorious in this confrontation, and the coercive system of what the French historian Henri Pirenne termed as ‘Absolute Imperialism’ was ended.

Ending a system of coercion that was several thousand years old and replacing it with a system based on freedom was a very revolutionary development. This development could not be completed in its initial phase itself. With God’s help, Islam, in the seventh century C.E., broke the historical continuity of this ancient coercive system. After this, this transformation assumed the form of an ongoing process that became central to human history. It continued, through various natural ups and downs, until in the 20th century it reached its culmination.

Decentralization emerged as a reality in the early 20th century. And so, political power has now become very limited, remaining restricted essentially to the form of administration. Today, the interference of political institutions in human life is minimal. In almost all spheres and aspects of life people are free to manage their lives as they like.

This enormous change in the system of human life is in favour of Islam. As with other people, it is now possible for the followers of Islam, too, to go ahead with their plans and activities for moulding and building their lives without any interference, irrespective of whether or not they possess political power. The fact is that this transformation has taken us out of the age of monarchical authoritarianism and into the age of institutions.

It has now become possible for the followers of Islam to set up all sorts of institutions on a large scale to establish their influence in all spheres of life, and even to indirectly influence political institutions. Through such institutions they can gain the sort of influence in society that in an earlier age was available through the possession of political power. For instance, by setting up educational institutions they can educate and train the future generations. Through media houses, they can help shape the intellectual climate of society. Through books and scholarship, they can spread their thoughts. Through research institutions, they can promote new thinking. Through mosques and madrasas, they can guarantee the continuance of their religion. Through setting up industries, they can improve their economic conditions. Through modern means of communications, they can link up with others at the global level to pursue their objectives. Through NGOs, they can organize their religious and cultural affairs in a more effective way. And so on.

In the present day, communities that have discovered this reality—of the power of modern institutions—have been able to achieve impressive success despite not possessing political power. Some of them have set up their own educational empires. Others have established empires—in industry, publishing, communications, finance and medicine, and so on.

I think that one important aspect of the Quranic verse ‘and religion belongs wholly to God’ (8:39) is precisely this transformation. This transformation has reduced political power to a mere political headache. And so, it is not necessary now for the followers of Islam to wage war for the sake of capturing political power. Irrespective of who wields political power, the followers of Islam can now, under all conditions, establish non-political institutions and thereby access all the desirable benefits.

This does not mean that the followers of Islam must wash their hands off politics. Rather, it means that while gaining the benefits that accrue through institutions and organizations, they can engage in peaceful political work in a limited arena. They must abstain completely from political agitation, however, and, instead, should pursue their peaceful political journey, within the possible limits. It may be, then, that God will give them the opportunity to enter into institutions of political significance.

The Strength of Peace

A hadith in the Sahih Muslim tells us that God gives in response to gentleness what He does not in response to harshness. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2593) From this we learn that peaceful activism is clearly superior to violent activism.

What this hadith relates is not something mysterious. Rather, it is an obvious, well-known and natural fact. War and violence only further exacerbate hatred and enmity between opponents. They cause much destruction of resources, besides taking precious lives. They lead entire societies to fall prey to negative thinking. Obviously, in a climate of war there is no possibility left for positive and constructive activities. In war and violence, destruction is certain. They produce no benefit whatsoever.

On the other hand, in a climate of peace, people can establish propitious and balanced relations with each other. Friendship and love can flourish. As a result of this sort of favourable atmosphere, positive and constructive activities and the use of resources for progress are possible. Such an atmosphere is conducive to positive thinking, which promotes progress in terms of thought and action.

The greatest damage wrought by war is that it blocks the available opportunities. On the other hand, the greatest benefit of peace is that it opens up opportunities to the maximum possible extent. War always brings about additional destruction, while peace inevitably leads to additional benefits. This is why Islam stresses the avoidance of war and confrontation to the maximum possible extent. It commands its followers to establish peace at all costs.

Clarification of a Misunderstanding

There are some verses in the Quran about which there is considerable misunderstanding. For instance, the verse which says, ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (2:191). On the basis of such verses, the impression has been formed that Islam is a religion of war. This, however, is a baseless view. Verses of this sort are restricted in their application and concern only to those people who had unilaterally launched a military attack on the followers of Islam. They are not a general Islamic commandment.

This point can be better understood if we keep in mind the fact that the Quran was not revealed all at once, in the form of a book. Rather, it was revealed in installments, over a period of 23 years, in accordance with prevailing conditions. If this period of 23 years is divided on the basis of peace and war, then some 20 years of this period were years of peace, while only around three years were a time of war. The Quranic verses about war were revealed in this three-year period. Besides these verses, the other verses, which were revealed over a period of 20 years, were all related to peaceful teachings—to matters such as intuitive knowledge of God, worship, morals, justice, and so on.

This way of categorizing the commandments of the Quran is a natural one. This sort of categorization can be done with regard to the scriptures of other religions, too. Take, for instance, the holy book of Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita. There are many teachings in the Gita that have to do with wisdom and morals. In addition, the Gita also talks about war. In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to go ahead and participate in war. Now, this certainly does not mean that those who believe in the Gita will be waging war all the time. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi drew his philosophy of non-violence from the Gita. This was possible because in the Gita, war is an exception, to be resorted to purely in exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, in ordinary or general life, it is the Gita’s peaceful teachings that apply, and it was these which Mahatma Gandhi drew on to develop his philosophy of non-violence.

In the same way, in the New Testament (Matthew 10:34), Jesus is said to have declared, ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I haven’t come to bring peace but a sword.’ It would be wrong to assume from these words that the religion of the Messiah was one of war and bloodshed. This is because words of this sort are simply an exception in Jesus’ teachings and are linked to a particular situation. As far as general life is concerned, the Messiah always stressed love and peace.

The same thing likewise, holds true of the Quran. When the Prophet Muhammad migrated from Makkah to Madinah, the polytheists launched aggressive attacks on him. But he repeatedly staved off these attacks through patient steadfastness and avoidance of fighting. However, there were occasions when there was no option left but to reply to these attacks. That is why, on such occasions the Prophet responded in the form of defensive fighting. It was in these circumstances that the exceptional Quranic commandments about fighting were revealed. These commandments were related to a temporary situation, and were not meant to be universally applied. Indeed, in the Quran (21:107) the Prophet is referred to as a ‘mercy to the worlds’, or rahmatul-lil-alameen.

No Terrorism in Islam

According to Islam, terrorism is not permissible or legitimate under any circumstances.

Terrorism is a form of violence undertaken by non-state actors. Using violence to attaining a certain objective, if the need so arises, is the prerogative only of a duly established government. No matter what the conditions, it is improper and impermissible for non-state actors, including both individuals and groups, to adopt violent methods. If an individual or group has grounds for complaint, there are only two legitimate courses that can be adopted. One is to seek to resolve the problem using peaceful means. The other is to leave the matter with the courts or the government so that it can be solved according to the law.

Today, the media often uses the term ‘Islamic terrorism’. This term is definitely wrong, because Islam has no link with terrorism. The actual culprit in this regard is not the media, however, but, rather, those Muslims who give the media the opportunity to report their actions as exemplifying what the media choose to characterize them as.

These days, Muslim non-state actors have triggered off violent conflicts and wars in various parts of the world. It is beyond dispute that all these wars are about Muslim worldly concerns—conflicts for the sake of power and pelf or Muslim communal or national interests. But the Muslims who are behind these violent movements have given them the name of ‘Islamic jihad’. Now, obviously, the task of the media is to report events and analyze the reasons behind them. The media then attributes these violent activities to Islam in precisely the same manner as many Muslims themselves do. Obviously, when these Muslims give their own violence an ‘Islamic’ label, the media, too, will do the same. The media cannot be expected to call it by some other name.

Today, this conduct on the part of Muslims has given Islam a bad name. As a result, the image of Islam across the world has been greatly distorted, with Islam, contrary to reality, now coming to be thought of as a religion of hatred and violence, not as a religion of peace and humanity.

There is only one way in which Islam can be rid of this bad image: and that is if Muslims stop giving their communal or national conflicts an ‘Islamic’ label. They must attribute all their actions to their community, not to Islam, so that whatever they do can be seen for what it truly is—actions linked to their community, and not Islamic or religious actions as such.