The Religion of Peace

Over the centuries, much has been written about pacifism. It still remains the subject of much debate and scholarship.

Pacifism, or the love of peace or the religion of peace, is a movement that is several centuries old. It aims at completely ending war so that human societies may live in peace. One can discern stirrings of pacifism in almost all periods of human history. These stirrings have taken different forms—sometimes being expressed in religious idiom, at other times, being articulated in terms of philosophy or ethics.

Among pacifists there are some who desire peace for its own sake. They define peace as the absence of war. Other pacifists insist that peace must go hand-in-hand with justice. They consider the two to be inseparable. According to them, peace without justice is a negative peace, while peace with justice is a positive peace.

There is no doubt that peace is the most desirable of desirable things, because for any constructive or positive work peace in society is indispensable. Without peace, no progress of any sort is possible. Peace can come about only through freedom, not through coercion. A coerced peace is a form of oppression, not true peace. Genuine peace is one that emerges from intellectual revolution. The Romans, for instance, had established peace in their Empire in a limited sense, which they called Pax Romana. In the same way, there appeared to be some sort of peace in the erstwhile Soviet Union in the 20th century—at least this is what the Communists called ‘peace’. But both this Communist ‘peace’ and the ‘peace’ of Pax Romana were forms of ‘coerced peace’. Needless to say, such ‘peace’ is not a desirable peace.

Some thinkers dream of a single world state in order to establish peace. But history testifies that it has never been possible to translate this dream into reality. The fact is that a peaceful society can be brought into being through the mental training of, and intellectual revolution in, individuals, and not through dreaming about a state that controls the whole world.

It is generally thought that religion is not of much importance in establishing peace. Some people even claim that never in history has peace been established through religion. They insist that efforts to establish a lasting peace through religious sanctions have had little effect.

But I do not agree with this interpretation of history. The fact is that this perception is based on faulty analysis. When these people think about the question of peace-building, Islam does not figure in their list. That is why they come to their conclusion on the basis of their study of religions other than Islam. This is because of the widespread misconception that Islam is a religion of violence. The reality, however, is that Islam is in the full sense of the word a religion of peace.

By ‘Islam’ I mean here the early period of Islam, which should be the basis for understanding Islam as it really is. In this period, two major developments occurred under the influence of Islam. First, the ending of obstacles to peace. And second, the establishment, both ideologically and practically, of a complete model of peace.

It is true that in the early period of Islam some battles were indeed fought. But the aim of these battles was precisely what is indicated by the phrase ‘The last war, to end all wars’.

The Prophet of Islam was born in 570 C.E. in Makkah. He passed away in 632 C.E., in Madinah. This was a time when much of the world was under monarchical rule. This system had been in existence for centuries. It had completely eliminated human freedom. The will of the monarch alone counted for everything.

To establish freedom and peace it was necessary to end this coercive system. The Prophet and his Companions engaged in war for a limited period so that this system could be ended. It was first brought to an end in Arabia. After this, the early Muslims were confronted by two major empires of the time, the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. The Muslims were victorious over both the empires, which brought an end to the coercive rule that held sway in a large part the world. The French historian Henri Pirenne asserts that had the followers of Islam not put an end to this system of what he terms ‘Absolute Imperialism’ it would never have been possible for the age of freedom and peace to dawn in the world.

What Is Jihad?

To understand what jihad is, one must first of all understand that whatever present-day Muslims are doing in the name of jihad is not jihad. Rather, these are all violent conflicts that have been unleashed by communal or nationalist emotions and that have been wrongly given the name of ‘jihad’.

Jihad is actually a name for peaceful struggle. It is not synonymous with war or qital. Sometimes, on the basis of expanded usage, the word jihad is used in the sense of qital. But in terms of their literal or dictionary meaning, the words ‘jihad’ and qital are not synonymous. To clarify this point, it is instructive to examine instances of how the word jihad is used in the Quran and Hadith.

1. The Quran says:

We will surely guide in Our ways those who strive hard for Our cause, God is surely with the righteous. (29:69)

In this verse, seeking the Truth is referred to as jihad—that is to say, efforts to find God, to acquire intuitive knowledge of Him and to seek closeness to Him. Obviously, this jihad has nothing to do with qital or confrontation.

2. The Quran says:

 [The believers…] strive hard with their wealth (49:15)

According to this verse, to spend of one’s wealth in God’s path is also an act of Jihad.

3. The Quran says:

[…] strive with the utmost strenuousness by means of this [the Quran, to convey its message to them]. (25:52)

This verse tells us to spread the teachings of the Quran through peaceful efforts.

4. According to a hadith contained in the collection by at-Tirmidhi, the Prophet declared that a mujahid is one who, in obedience to God, engages in jihad against his nafs, or lower self. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 23967)

From this we learn that struggling against the promptings of the lower self and remaining firmly established on the path of Truth is a jihad. Obviously, such a jihad is an inner struggle, fought in the depths of one’s psyche, and not a war against an external foe fought on a physical battlefield.

5. According to a hadith in the collection by Ibn Majah, the Prophet said that Haj is jihad. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2876)

From this we learn that Haj is an act of jihad. If one engages in Haj in the appropriate way desired by God, it entails great struggle.

6. According to a hadith in the Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet is said to have advised:

Fa feehima fajahid (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 3004)

This means ‘Strive in them [your parents]’. This indicates that serving one’s parents is an act of jihad.

In this way, from various Quranic verses and traditions of the Prophet we learn that jihad is essentially a peaceful action. It refers to struggling for a desirable Divine purpose within a peaceful framework. The correct translation of the word ‘jihad’ is thus ‘peaceful struggle’.

Ease in Hardship

The Quran tells us:

So, surely with every hardship there is ease; surely, with every hardship there is ease. (94:5-6)

This means that one aspect of the law of nature on the basis of which this world functions is that ease is always present along with difficulty. Along with obstacles, solutions are always present.

From this we learn the secret of maintaining peace in this world—and that is, to find a way out in the event of a difficult situation without engaging in confrontation. The cause for disruption of peace in any society is always this—that when an individual finds an obstacle in his path, he wants to destroy it in order to clear the way. This happens at the level of groups, too. This mentality is the biggest cause for the disruption of peace. That is why whenever people are faced with any difficulty, they should not consider it as an obstacle. Rather, they should be convinced that where there is difficulty, there is also ease; that where one’s journey appears to come to a halt, a new journey can also be embarked upon.

If you stand at the foot of a mountain, you will notice streams tumbling down the slope from the peak and rushing towards the plains below. Numerous boulders stand in their way, seeming to block their onward journey. But it never happens that they are able to stop the streams from moving ahead.

There is a simple explanation for this, which can be summarized in a single word: avoidance. That is to say, avoid confrontation and make your way ahead. And so, whenever a stream is faced with a boulder, then, without even a moment’s delay, it swerves to the right or the left of the boulder and creates a way for itself and moves ahead. Instead of removing the boulder out of its way, it removes itself, as it were. In this way, without halting for even a moment, it keeps up its journey uninterrupted.

There is a wonderful lesson for us in this natural phenonomenon. In this way, nature sends out a message to human beings—that instead of confronting and battling against difficulties, one should simply ignore them. Instead of trying to destroy obstacles, simply move away from them and carry on with your work. This approach can be appropriately termed ‘positive status quoism’. An examination of the life of the Prophet of Islam reveals that he always adopted this very approach. The result of this was that he succeeded in ushering in a revolutionary transformation that involved such little loss of life that it can undoubtedly be called a ‘bloodless revolution’.

This policy of ‘positive status quoism’ is the biggest guarantee of peace in the contemporary world. It would not be wrong to say that the major cause of wars is the attempt to disrupt the status quo, and that the best way to establish peace is to accept the status quo and carry on with constructive activities.

The Notion of Jihad in Islam

Jihad is an Arabic word. It simply means to make efforts. In its real sense, it is synonymous with peaceful efforts or struggle. In its expanded sense, jihad is also used for war, but in Arabic the actual word for war is qital, not jihad.

In present times, the word jihad is often used in the sense of war and violence. As a result of the way the media repeatedly uses the term jihad, Islam has come to be widely thought of as a religion of violence.

It is instructive to note in this regard that in the Quran the Prophet is referred to as rahmatul lil alameen (21:107) or a ‘mercy to the worlds’. This means that the deen or religion that he brought was a religion of mercy for the world. So, then, how is it that such a deen came to have this image of being a violent religion? Two types of misunderstanding are responsible for this notion that is contrary to reality. The first relates to not distinguishing between ideology and action. And the second relates to giving an exception the status of a general rule.

It is an accepted fact that actions should be judged in the light of the ideology that is invoked for them, rather than vice versa. The contrary—to gauge an ideology in the light of actions committed in its name—is not the proper way. For instance, the proper thing to do is to judge the actions of the member-states of the United Nations in the light of the United Nations’ Charter, rather than determining the meaning of this Charter in the light of the actions of these states. In the same way, it is necessary to see Islam and Muslims separately.

For instance, some Muslims worship graves of saintly personages. Seeing this behaviour, some people who worship idols might claim that there is no difference between their religion of polytheism and Islam. Naturally, this sort of comparison is not proper, because the worshipping of graves by some Muslims is a deviant action. It has nothing to do with the true teachings of Islam.

The same sort of logic applies in the case of jihad. Undoubtedly, jihad is a peaceful action. However, if, for instance, the violent actions of some medieval Muslim monarchs, such as Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, are labelled as ‘Islamic jihads’, or if the wars waged in the name of Islam in various parts of the world today by Muslims are termed as ‘jihads’, taking their example is obviously not the proper way to ascertain what jihad really is. Instead, the proper, scholarly way is to take the Quran and the proven teachings of the Traditions or the practice of the Prophet as the source of Islamic ideology and to gauge the actions of Muslims in the light of these sources. Those actions of theirs that are not in consonance with the Islamic notion of jihad can be safely discarded as not being legitimate from the Islamic standpoint.

The second cause for the misunderstanding of Islam as being a violent religion relates to some Quranic verses that are related to defense. There are more than 6000 verses in the Quran. Of these, hardly 40 are related to jihad in the sense of qital. That is to say, less than 1 per cent.

The Quran was revealed in installments over a period of 23 years. God revealed different parts of the Quran in accordance with conditions as they emerged. This period of 23 years can be divided into two parts. The first covered a period of 20 years, and the second lasted three years. In the 20-year period, the Quranic commandments that were revealed related to faith, sincerity, purity, worship, ethics, justice, reform, and so on. In the three-year period, certain commandments related to war were also revealed—this was a time when the opponents of the Prophet of Islam had launched a one-sided aggression, which had raised for the followers of Islam the issue of defense.

This indicates that in the Quran, the status of verses about jihad in the sense of war or qital is that of an exception, while the status of the other verses is that of a general rule.

This difference between an exception and a rule is found universally. For example, the Gita, holy book of the Hindus, contains much wisdom. In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to be ready to fight. However, if one studies the Gita as a whole, one will discover that the status of war in the Gita is that of an exception. If the exceptional verses in the Gita that are about war are alone looked at, to the exclusion of the rest of the text, and one then makes a sweeping generalization about the Gita on the basis of these verses and claims that this represents the overall teachings of the Gita, it will undoubtedly be an unscholarly approach and a major obstacle in understanding the Gita’s true import.

In the same way, it is recorded in the Bible that Jesus remarked:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

If one looks at the complete teachings of Jesus, it will be clear that the above-quoted words are an exception. They certainly are not Jesus’ general message or teachings. In this regard, then, to determine his message, one would have to examine his general utterances. To take some of Jesus’ exceptional utterances to create a general impression or image of his message is not proper.

Avoiding taking the exception as the rule is essential to a proper scholarly way of studying any text. This method is the appropriate one for studying the Gita and the Bible, and it is also one that should be used for a full understanding of the Quran.

The concept of jihad has to be determined in the light of the Quran and the Hadith. The Quran says:

We will surely guide in our ways those who strive hard for our cause, God is surely with the righteous. (29:69)

In this verse, jihad also means efforts made in the search for Truth or to acquire intuitive knowledge of God—and in this sense it is an intellectual pursuit.

Does Islam Permit Violence?

Does Islam permit violence? The answer is, ‘No!’

It is true that Islam permits fighting in defense, just as this is also permitted in every other religion and in every non-religious system. However, I consider violence to be a different sort of action from this, and from this perspective, there is no permission for violence in Islam at all. The way the word ‘violence’ is conventionally used indicates a deadly physical attack on an enemy in order to get rid of him. There is no room for this sort of notion in Islam. If someone considers another person his enemy, it does not make it legitimate for him to resort to violence against him with a view to eliminating him.

If you study the Quran, you will realize that Islam distinguishes between an enemy, on the one hand, and an aggressor, on the other. If a group engages in one-sided and unilateral violent aggression against another group, then, according to the Quran, the latter has the right to engage in defensive action against this aggression and to respond by the use of violence to the extent necessary (22:39).

However, the issue of enemies who do not engage in such aggression is entirely different. With regard to them, Islam’s teaching is precisely the same as what Jesus exhorts in the Bible:

Love your enemies. (Luke 6:27)

The Quran forbids reacting to inimical behaviour with the same sort of behaviour. In this regard, it says:

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. (41:34)

From this we learn that according to Islamic teachings, an enemy is not to be fought against. Rather, he is to be made into a friend. Every human being has a basic and intrinsic human nature, which may temporarily be obscured by enmity. And so, if one were to unilaterally reach out to one’s enemy with kindness and goodness, the latter would revert to this intrinsic human nature of his. And then, he would no longer be an enemy, but, rather, will have become a good friend.

Ponder for a while on why people engage in violence. One reason is ideological extremism. Where there is no extremism, there is no violence. By forbidding extremism, Islam cuts off the very roots of violence. According to a hadith (contained in the collections of Sunan Al-Nasai, Hadith No. 3057; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 3029; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 1851), in Islam there is no extremism, or what in Arabic is called ghulu.

Another cause for violence is anger. In Islam, anger is considered to be a grave moral failure. The Quran (42:37) describes a true believer, or momin, as one who, when he experiences anger, forgives. Clearly, if people were to act on this teaching of Islam and forgive others whenever they become angry with them, they would never become violent.

Yet another cause for violence is that many people think that it is a potent means to achieve goals. But the Quran seeks to put an end to this way of thinking. According to the Quran, violence is nothing but a pointless sort of negative reaction. It is not an effective and beneficial way to succeed in fulfilling one’s goals.

The Quran teaches us that if we have a dispute with someone, we should try our best not to let it degenerate into a confrontation that would finally turn into violence. Rather, we should try to resolve the dispute through efforts at reconciliation at the very outset itself. According to Islam, in the event of a dispute with someone, we should resolve it by adopting a conciliatory course of action, and not by confrontation. Clearly, if this Islamic approach were adopted, even if we had a dispute with someone it would not degenerate into violence.

A hadith is of great help in understanding this point more clearly. According to this tradition, contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari, God gives in response to softness what He does not give in response to harshness. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2593)

This hadith indicates something profound about the system of nature that God has established. And that is, that to achieve one’s goals, the peaceful method is always more effective. In contrast, violent methods cause destruction and in no way prove effective in pursuing positive goals.

Here it is necessary to add that Islam and Muslims are not the same thing. Islam is the name of an ideology, while Muslims are a group that claims to have adopted Islam as its religion. Hence, the behaviour of Muslims should be gauged according to Islamic teachings, rather than that their behaviour being considered representative of Islam.

If a Muslim or group of Muslims engages in violence, it is the individual action of that person or group. For such a person or group of persons it would be said, in the language of the Quran, that even though they claim to follow Islam, they have not accepted it from their hearts (49:14).

Some people complain that by equating Islam with terrorism, large sections of the media want to give Islam a bad name. But here I will say that this is not the fault of the media, because Muslims themselves are spreading violence in various parts of the world in the name of Islam, which they themselves hail as ‘jihad’. In such a situation, the role of the media is nothing other than to report the Muslims’ actions in line with the claims of Muslims themselves. Had Muslims described their wars as being fought in support of their communal or national causes instead, the media would have attributed these wars to the communal or national causes of Muslims. But when Muslims wage these wars in the name of Islam, then, quitenaturally, the media will describe them as acts of ‘Islamic violence’.

In actual fact, all the teachings of Islam are based on the principles of peace. 99 per cent of the verses of the Quran are, directly or indirectly, related to peace itself. There are also a few verses that are related to war, but the point to note here is that in Islam the status of peace is that of a general principle, and that of war an exception.

From the Militant to the Non-Militant Age

In the first half of the seventh century, when Islam emerged, almost the whole world was groaning under political coercion, ruled by a system of Absolute Imperialism. This coercive system had robbed people of almost every conceivable goodness. At that time, God commanded the end of this artificial system so that the doors of goodness could be opened to humanity.

The Quran sets forth this commandment:

Fight them until there is no more [religious] persecution, and religion belongs wholly to God. (8:39)

In this verse, ‘persecution’ or, in Arabic, fitna, means the ancient system of political coercion that, at the time when this verse was revealed, prevailed all over the world. And here the term ‘religion’, or, in Arabic, deen, means God’s creation system based on nature. This means that the artificial system of coercion should be ended and, according to God’s creation plan, the natural condition should be established wherein everyone will have freedom to act and will be able to undergo the test of life in a free environment.

Through the struggles and sacrifices of the Prophet and his Companions, the ancient coercive system was demolished, and a new system, which God wanted, emerged. This was a great change, a unique revolution that changed the face of the globe. Islam overthrew the traditional order of history.

This revolution was so vast that it could not come about all of a sudden. And so, with God’s special help, it carried on in the form of a process. This revolution of the early period of Islam was a push, as it were, that was given to history. After this, history began moving in a particular direction. The process that started with Islam in the seventh century then carried on, reaching its culmination in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Thereafter, it became impossible for the old-style coercive system to be re-established in the world. This is no mere coincidence. The fact is that because of the developments in the last two centuries, the world has witnessed enormous changes that block the possibilities of old-style empires being established anywhere. The factors that allow for such empires to be established now simply no longer exist.

One can cite several examples of deterrents that oppose the establishment of political empires in the modern world.

1. In the ancient past, when a monarch captured, through force of arms, a certain territory, the inhabitants of that territory accepted his suzerainty, considering this to be the conqueror’s right. This is why in those days, only a monarch, and not commoners, could defeat another monarch. But in today’s world, thanks to democracy, political freedom and the concept of national government, public opinion has changed so much that no external conqueror can gain the wide social acceptance that is necessary to establish stable rule.
2. In the past, the economy was based wholly on land, and land was considered the personal property of the king. But today, the Industrial Revolution has given birth to innumerable economic resources that everyone can access. And so, it has become possible for ‘ordinary’ people to acquire independent economic means outside the domain of governmental control. This economic transformation has, in turn, made the possibility of governmental coercion even less possible.
3. Likewise, today there is something that can be called a ‘media deterrent’. In modern times, the development of media and communications has made it possible for news about a local happening to be broadcast almost immediately across the rest of the world, so that people everywhere can come to know about it. This is a massive check that has made it virtually impossible to resuscitate the old-style political empires. Now, no emperor can do whatever he likes without fear of censure, unlike before.
4. In the same way, today we have what can be called a ‘universal deterrent’ in the form of the United Nations, Amnesty International and numerous human rights groups. No ruler can afford to turn a blind eye to them or to act against them for too long.

Following these momentous changes at the global level, human history entered a new phase. If the ancient period was what could be called ‘the Military Age’, the new age is a ‘Non-Military Age’. In the former period, military power was considered necessary to achieve any major success. But now the peaceful method has gained the status of being a completely successful method. Now, using this method alone, from start to finish, one can carry out efforts for any goal without needing to use violence at any stage. Relying only on peaceful means throughout, one can now reach the pinnacle of success. The fact is that the violent method has now become an anachronism. It is contrary to the spirit of the age.

Given present-day conditions, it can be confidently said that no longer does the age of jihad in the sense of qital or war still exist. Today, the time for jihad in the sense of peaceful efforts has returned to the world. This does not mean that jihad in the sense of qital has now been abrogated. It still remains as a commandment, as it was. The new situation has to do not with any abrogation of the commandment, but, rather, with the changes in the prevailing conditions. This follows from the generally accepted rule in Islamic jurisprudence, that with the change of time and space, some commandments can also change. (e.g., Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ighathatu lahfaan, vol 1, p. 330) It is clear, in this regard, that there is a basic distinction between change and abrogation in terms of their very nature.

This change that has taken place in present times is in favour of Islam, and it is one of the results of the revolution created by Islam itself. This happened so that opportunities for the dawah work could be opened up to the utmost extent. The followers of Islam now have no need to enter into any confrontation for the sake of dawah. By using peaceful methods all that Islam wants can be achieved.

A Hadith

A Companion of the Prophet reported that the Prophet once narrated in a sermon many things that would happen from his time till the Day of Judgment. In this sermon, he strongly forbade his ummah from engaging in political rebellion. He said that even if they considered their rulers to be oppressors, and even if the latter whipped them on their backs and looted their wealth, they must still obey them. After this, the Prophet spoke about rulers among his people who would mislead, adding that when the sword entered among his people (ummah), it would stay until Judgment Day. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4252)

If this hadith is studied in the light of similar traditions, one learns that the Prophet was very strongly against violent action in political matters, and advised peaceful action. This is because once violence becomes an established tradition, it becomes exceedingly difficult to eliminate it.

There are several hadith in which the Prophet clearly forbade revolt against rulers. On this basis, Islamic scholars unanimously agree that it is forbidden or haram to revolt against an established government on any pretext.

On the one hand, Islam completely forbids violent political action against rulers. Moreover, the Prophet is said to have remarked, as a hadith report (contained in the collections of at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Ahmad and al-Nasai) relates, that the best jihad is for one to speak a word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler. (Sunan Al-Nasai, hadith No. 4209; Sunan At Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2174, Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4344; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 4344; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 11143)

If one ponders on these hadith reports, one learns that even if a ruler appears to be oppressive, the maximum extent to which one is permitted to go is only to verbally express one’s opinion, but not to engage in agitational politics against him or to try to destroy him. In other words, in Islam only peaceful struggle is permitted. Violent struggle is not legitimate in Islam, no matter what the conditions. There are no grounds whatsoever for engaging in it.

Probably the greatest tragedy of later Muslim history is that, despite this clear commandment, a tradition of violent politics, wrongly labelled as ‘jihad’, emerged among later generations of Muslims. This mentality became so deep-rooted and widespread among Muslims that what was truly the religion of mercy came to be thought of as the religion of jihad in the sense of qital or war, in complete contradiction of the following Quranic statement:

And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds. (21:107)

Accordingly, the bulk of the literature produced by later generations of Muslims reflected this mentality, directly or indirectly. The commentaries on the Quran that were written in this later period also clearly indicate the deep-rootedness of this mentality by claiming that following the revelation of verses in the Quran that sanction war, the Quranic verses about patience and avoidance had been abrogated. Hadith reports were collected and compiled, and chapters about jihad were prepared in great detail. Yet, none of the books of Hadith had any chapters on dawah work. The same is true with regard to all the books of jurisprudence, or fiqh. The fiqh texts discuss jihad and related matters in very great detail, but not a single fiqh text has a chapter on dawah and related issues.

The same is true for the entire corpus of Islamic literature produced in the later period. From Ibn Taimiyah to Shah Waliullah, and from Shah Waliullah to present-day writers, almost no Muslim scholar prepared any book on the topic of dawah. Even if some book does have the title ‘Dawah and Tabligh’, it may actually be about politics or the rewards for pious deeds.

As a result of the mindset created among Muslims on the basis of this sort of literature, many Muslims regard people who engage in confrontation as heroes, while those who do not adopt this method do not gain any popularity among them. And so, our preachers and writers greatly highlighted the role of Imam Husain, but the role of his brother, Imam Hasan, was never highlighted in the same way. Salahuddin Ayyubi, who fought the Crusaders, won great fame among Muslims, but there is no mention in our history books of the men who, using peaceful methods, helped convert the Tartar marauders to Islam and turned them into servants of the faith. Today, men like Osama Bin Laden who talk about violence very easily become heroes among Muslims, but if someone talks about peace and respect for humanity, he will not be able to gain general acceptance among them.

The greatest damage caused by this mentality is that humanity in general no longer remains the concern of Muslims. Muslims have come to divide God’s servants into two categories: ‘my community’, on the one hand, and ‘other communities’, on the other, and they view the latter with prejudice. According to the dawah-oriented way of thinking, Muslims should see themselves as da‘is and others as mad‘us. On the contrary, in the way of thinking that is based on confrontation, Muslims consider others as their enemies and rivals.

Following the rise of the domination of Western powers, this latter way of thinking received a tremendous boost. Muslims began to feel that Western peoples had snatched from them their superior position. As a result of this, their enmity was further exacerbated and turned into hatred. And so, generally speaking, Muslims began to view other communities as their enemies.

Islam in the 21^st Century

One aspect of the revolution that occurred through the Prophet and his Companions in the early period of Islam culminated in that very period itself. This was the completion of the revelation of the Quran and the establishment of an ideological and practical model of the Islamic way of life. This model has been preserved for all time in the form of the Quran, the Hadith, and the reports about the lives of the Prophet’s Companions. It is, for all times, a reliable model of a divine way of life that people may seek to emulate.

A second aspect of the Islamic revolution in the early period of Islam was one that, because of its nature, required a gradual or step-by-step approach. That is why it reached its culmination after a long period of time. It entered human history in the form of a continuous process. It involved a transformation with very far-reaching historical implications. It required a process of change spread over a thousand years. This process began in Makkah and Madinah, and later reached the Caliphate capitals of Damascus and Baghdad, after which it arrived in Andalusia and then spread throughout the world.

The crux of this second aspect of the Islamic revolution was the bringing about of certain transformations in human history so that it would become easier to practice Islam than in the past. The work that earlier generations of believers had to engage in in difficult conditions was made possible for later generations of believers to do in conditions of ease.

In this regard, it is important to note that in former times, large parts of the world were under a monarchical system of political coercion. Under this system, people had no freedom of thought or action. Without freedom, neither could religious commandments be acted upon, nor could the work of dawah be done. The Islamic revolution not only demolished this coercive system at the initial level but also set in motion a new historical process. This process reached its culmination in the contemporary period in such a way that today the believers have full freedom to both practice and propagate their faith—unless, of course, through their own foolishness they place themselves in adverse conditions.

Another aspect of this revolution was the emergence of modern means of communications as a result of technological developments. In this way, it became possible to swiftly communicate the call to the Truth to every nook and cranny of the world.

In the same way, scientific discoveries have made it possible to make known the signs of God that were hidden in the cosmos and to provide evidence for God’s religion in the light of human knowledge itself.

This process reached its culmination in the 20^th century. And then it became possible for the believers to properly follow the religion of God in an environment of peace and freedom, and to engage in performing their duty of dawah, communicating the religion of God to others, without any obstruction. But, at the very same time, their incapable leaders thoroughly misguided the Muslims and got them entangled in such activities whose result could only be that the believers could not use the many modern opportunities available to them, so much so that they remained completely unaware of them.

These blunders were essentially of two kinds. One blunder was that which resulted from the political interpretation of Islam. This interpretation gave the wrong idea to Muslims that they could fully practice Islam only when they enforced all the laws of Islam. A result of this political mentality was that the Muslim public began fighting against their rulers in the hope that, after removing them, they could enforce the laws of the shariah. No good whatsoever emerged from this political innovation (bid‘ah). Rather, because of it, across the Muslim world the very same coercion and oppression that was put an end to after a long historical process was re-established as a result of the actions of Muslims themselves. The fact is that Islam desires from people the complete following of Islam, not the complete enforcement of Islam.

The second blunder was that which started off in the contemporary period in the name of jihad. Muslims had some complaints of essentially a political and economic nature against others. These complaints could have been resolved through peaceful means. But emotionally-driven Muslim leaders at once picked up weapons in the name of jihad and started violent conflicts with other communities. As a result of this so-called jihad, Muslims not only wasted the opportunities that the modern world had made available, but they also had to suffer such devastation and destruction as they had never before faced in the whole of their long history.

Because of the wrong leadership provided by Muslim leaders, Muslims lost the benefits of the 20^th century. It now remains to be seen if they will make amends for these terrible blunders of theirs, or if they will lose the benefits of the 21^st century as well, in just the same way as they lost those of the previous one.