CHAPTER 5
PEACE: THE SUMMUM BONUM
Which clauses of the Quran do you think are the most misinterpreted ones in today’s world?
The most misinterpreted aspect of the Quran is jihad. Jihad, in reality, is peaceful activism but it has been misinterpreted as violent activism. Jihad is a fact of life. What is called ‘effort’ or ‘struggle’ in English is called ‘jihad’ in Arabic. Jihad is not something mysterious nor is it synonymous with violence. It simply means making great efforts or striving for a particular purpose.
What do Muslims have to do to remove Islamophobia from people of other faiths?
I do not believe that ‘Islamophobia’ exists. The irony is that this term has not been coined by other communities – it has been so named by the Muslim community themselves. Thus, Islamophobia is simply an allegation, and not a real phenomenon.
In Islamic terms, this is a case of ‘calling others by offensive nicknames’, and is forbidden by the faith. Thus, first of all, Muslims must abandon using this term for others for the Quran reads:
Believers, let not some men among you ridicule others: it may be that the latter are better than the former: nor should some women laugh at others: it may be that the latter are better than the former: do not defame or be sarcastic to each other, or call each other by [offensive] nicknames. How bad it is to earn an evil reputation after accepting the faith! Those who do not repent are evil- doers. (Quran 49:11)
The fact is contrary to what Muslims think. Why do Muslims say that the West has Islamophobia? The reason is that Muslims give a negative interpretation to an event involving Islam and the West. However, the West does not actually mean anything negative. In this case, the responsibility goes to the Muslims, and not the West. So, in reality, if there is something, it is Muslim-o-phobia. The resentment is not towards Islam but against the un-Islamic practices of Muslims. We must contemplate and become more introspective about our actions and their effect on others. If Muslims introspect and rectify their course of action, they would no longer remain a problem-community for anyone.
What should be the approach of a Muslim towards verbal attack over social and other media?
These kind of talks on social and other media are based on vested interests and political motivations. Muslims should not retaliate on any negative remarks and should instead focus on positive dissemination of ideas. They must remain peaceful and polite and take guidance from the following verse of the Quran:
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. (Quran 41:34)
The true servants of the Gracious One are those who walk upon the earth with humility and when they are addressed by the ignorant ones, their response is, ‘Peace’. (Quran 25:63)
Was Islam spread by the sword?
Human history has witnessed several events of expansion – political, industrial, social and religious. However, political expansion has most often been misconstrued as religious expansion. In the case of Islam, there is no proof that sword or force was used to spread the religion. There were dynasties which in order to fulfil their political ambitions conquered many lands. For instance, the Battle of Chausa was fought between the Mughal emperor Humayun and the Afghan Sher Shah Suri (1539). Both the kings were of the same faith. If the purpose of conquering lands and expanding empires was to spread Islam then there should have been no reason for these two Muslim rulers to engage in military combat. This example shows that conquests by Muslim rulers and emperors in history have been for serving political ends and to expand their dynasties. These were not religiously motivated wars and battles.
Swami Vivekananda, in the book Letters of Swami Vivekananda, wrote;
It is nonsense to say that Hindus were converted to Islam by force.
Similarly, Egypt was a large country to enter within the fold of Islam. Sir Arthur Keith, while studying the phenomenon remarked:
Egyptians were conquered not by sword but by the Quran. (‘A New Theory of Human Evolution’, p. 303. ed. 1948)
Let me quote an example of how deep this misconception of forceful spread of Islam has been. I happened to correspond with a person from a different faith who hailed from Hyderabad. He was quite adamant in his belief that Islam spread through violence in India and he shared the reference of a book in this regard. It was titled, The Indian Musalmans by William Wilson Hunter. I read this book myself and found out that it actually talked about the peaceful penetration of Islam in India. I wrote back to him with the clipping and thereafter he did not revert.
History does not prove that sword was used for the religious expansion of Islam. Political expansion was a different case, specific to individuals and dynasties. Owing to this mistaken notion, political expansion is seen as an act of forced religious expansion. In reality, Islam spread on the basis of the ideology of tawhid (the oneness of God) and it were the Sufis who played a major role in the spread of Islam. The Sufis, as is well known, did not make any use of force; they were simply spiritual guides.
Often quoted in arguments are the wars and fights with the Byzantine and Persian Empire during the reign of the rightly guided caliphs. I have addressed this in great detail in my book, The Prophet of Peace (Penguin publication). Once the tribal communities started accepting Islam and pledging their allegiance to the caliphs, the then superpowers (Byzantine and Persia) felt a sense of threat and declared war on the Muslim community. In their defence, Muslims had to fight back.
In those days, the territory of the vanquished was merged with the territory of the victors. But the inhabitants of the newly merged territories were never forcefully converted to Islam. An example of this can be seen when Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second Muslim caliph) entered the city of Jerusalem. The Patriarch of the city, Sophronius, offered Umar to say his prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but Umar declined the offer. Upon being enquired, Umar said that he had declined so that later on Muslims do not claim their right on the land saying that their caliph had prayed there, and thus take away from the Christians what was rightfully theirs. In doing so, the caliph Umar demonstrated the Islamic teachings of well-wishing, co-existence and peace for all mankind.
What is Islam’s view on revenge?
Islam teaches forgiveness over revenge. According to Quranic teachings, revenge is not a solution. Revenge only increases the problem. A chapter in the Quran entitled Al-Nahl (Bees) gives practical advice on this point. It says:
If you want to retaliate, retaliate to the same degree as the injury done to you. But if you are patient, it is better to be so. (Quran 16:126)
In other words, if one has been wronged and responds with patience and forgiveness, this behaviour holds more value in the eyes of God and may even serve as atonement for one’s sins. Revenge is the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. According to Quranic teachings, there are two levels of revenge — one may be called exacting proportional revenge and the second may be described as you forget the bad experience you have received from the other.
Although revenge or retaliation is allowed as a concession to the aggrieved, there is a strict condition with this allowance — it must be equal revenge, not exceeding the others’ bad action. If we reflect on this prerequisite of exacting revenge, we will realize that revenge is not an option at all. It is so difficult that no sincere person will take this option. There is no available measurement that may tell you that your retaliation was completely equal to the action you have received from the other.
So, this option is only a hypothetical option. Any sincere person will decide not to take this option, because if during retaliation he exceeds the limit he will become an offender. The Prophet and his Companions never avenged anything. It is narrated on the authority of Hazrat Ayesha:
The Prophet never avenged for his own self. (Sahih al- Bukhari, hadith no. 6853)
Practically, there is only one option, which is forgiveness. While revenge may open a new chapter that is revenge after revenge, but forgiveness ends this chain. Forgiveness means that you have put a full stop, while revenge in this case means that you have put commas. Forgiveness in such cases is a rewardable action. Forgiveness is a highly valuable deed.
The Quran enjoins a believer to return every bad action with a good one. 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. (Quran 41:34)
This is the true spirit of Islam.
Why is there Islamophobia but no Hinduphobia or Buddhistphobia?
There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’ as well. This is a concept which only some Muslims have themselves innovated. There would have been Islamophobia if this term had been coined by the West describing their own attitude towards Islam. On the other hand, this term has been attributed to the West by the Muslim community. Thus, Islamophobia is an allegation, and not a real phenomenon.
It is a common observation that Muslims become emotional easily when it comes to controversial issues. This is why people have come to fear Muslims, while Hindu and Buddhist communities are more tolerant in comparison. It is because of people’s perception of Muslims as being intolerant that there is fear of Muslims, but not of people of other faiths.
If the Muslim community embraces peace, cultivates tolerance among themselves and avoids being over-sensitive on trivial issues then the so-called ‘Islamophobic’ perception shall also disappear.
What is wrong with Islam in the 21st century?
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 of jihad. The most important 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 abandon the violent method and work peacefully for constructive goals.
What is a peaceful life?
A peaceful life can be had if one understands that ideal peace cannot be achieved in this world. You have to adhere to practical wisdom in life and not ideal wisdom. If you take the option of following practical wisdom in every situation, you will become peaceful. Peace cannot be had if you wish to deal with situations by applying the yardstick of ideal wisdom.
Furthermore, an individual’s life can be peaceful only if he accepts the principle of unilateral peace and not bilateral peace. Peace can be achieved only on a unilateral basis. If you try to demand peace on a bilateral basis, then it would become impossible.
A man was sentenced to death for ‘insulting the Prophet Muhammad’ on Facebook. What are your views on this?
It is generally held that Islam prescribes capital punishment for those who commit blasphemy, that is, using abusive language against the Prophet of Islam. But this is quite untrue. According to Islam, blasphemy is simply a misuse of freedom and not at all a cognisable offence; the blasphemer is not liable to incur any legal punishment. This kind of law has no basis in Islamic scriptures.
If someone uses abusive language against the Prophet, Muslims must take it as a case of misunderstanding, and then try to remove this misunderstanding in peaceful ways. They are required to do so by engaging in discussion or by providing the ‘blasphemer’ with Islamic literature that gives the true image of the Prophet of Islam. This notion of killing in the name of blasphemy is itself haram or forbidden.
The basis of such rulings in countries like Pakistan is religious extremism, which is the biggest hurdle Islam faces today. In fact, the reverse of prescribing death punishments has been enjoined on the believers.
As a part of His creation plan, God has granted freedom to people and no one can take away this freedom. While exercising one’s freedom of expression, the only condition should be that one does not resort to violence of any kind.
We find many instances in the life of the Prophet of Islam where he did not punish people for acts which insulted or humiliated him. Once a person approached the Prophet and addressed him as Mudhammam, which means the condemned one, while the Prophet’s real name was Muhammad (the praiseworthy one). According to a tradition narrated by Abu Huraira, at this incident the Prophet said:
Does not it astonish you how God protects me from the Quraysh’s abusing and cursing? They abuse Mudhammam (the condemned one) and curse Mudhammam, while I am Muhammad. (Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith no. 3533)
The Prophet took no action against the person who called him by the derogatory name of Mudhammam, similarly there are verses in the Quran about gatherings where the Makkan people used to abuse the Prophet of Islam. For example:
They say, ‘He is certainly mad.’ (Quran 68:51)
They say, ‘You to whom the Reminder [the Quran] has been sent down, you are surely possessed.’ (Quran 15:6)
The Prophet did not react to such comments and also refrained others also from reacting. Islam provides for complete freedom of expression. This is the spirit that Islam instils in its adherents – to not react in the face of misuse of freedom of expression but to handle it gently and with prudence. As per another tradition, the caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab was once walking on the street one night and accidently stepped over the leg of a homeless man. The man in the dark yelled out, “Are you blind?” Umar simply replied: “I am not blind, I am Umar ibn al-Khattab”, and walked away.
It is important to understand that an insult (or blasphemy) is an imposed allegation; it is not claimed to be an insult by the doer of the action. A person who is accused of blasphemy simply voices his opinion, while it is Muslims who begin to address him as ‘blasphemer’. This is similar to referring someone with nicknames, which is discouraged in Islam:
Do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. (Quran 49:11)
A person never says he is committing blasphemy (called shatm in Arabic). It is Muslims who impose the allegation of blasphemy on the person, and in doing so they go against the above teaching of the Quran. The correct way should be to attempt to address the mind of the other person by healthy discussion and providing him with books on Islam. The option to kill does not exist.
How can we eliminate all terrorists from the world?
Can there be an everlasting peace?
Terrorism is a phenomenon that results from 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 which creates all kinds of problems in society. Since we cannot abolish this freedom, we cannot establish an ideal system. It is this fact due to which establishing a perfect society or system is simply not possible.
How do we cultivate tolerance when a group interprets the same Quran as peace and another as violence? Which interpretation should we then follow?
The issue of myriad interpretations is not unique to the Quran; it is a fact of life. No book, law or constitution has ever had a uniform or a single interpretation, simply because difference is an inherent part of life. For instance, the Gita, the holy book of the Hindus, pertains to wisdom and moral values. Yet along with this is the exhortation of Krishna to Arjun, encouraging him to fight (3:30). While some derived a violent interpretation from its text, Gandhiji, on the other hand, derived his philosophy of non-violence from the same Gita.
The law of nature in the human world does not allow uniformity to prevail. It is this disparity which ensures that there is constant brainstorming leading to development. In truth, absence of difference would lead to intellectual stagnation.
The question that arises is which interpretation should a common Muslim choose to follow? A common Muslim may choose to follow any learned scholar (alim). After listening to the advice of the scholar, he is free to take a decision. A person shall be fully accountable before God for the decision he chooses to take. In other words, before God, the result of one’s actions shall be based on one’s intent. The is alluded to in the following hadith:
The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions. (Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith no. 1)
The above tradition means that the reward for an action is based on the intention behind the action.
Why is Islamophobia spreading outrageously in the whole world?
The term ‘Islamophobia’ has come to denote prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims. In my opinion, this term is a self-styled creation of Muslims and the real fact is contrary to what Muslims think. For example, if the bereaved family members of the victims of the killings in Manchester (22 May 2017) hold complaints about Muslims or Islam, it is but natural. It is not due to Islamophobia; their complaint is in fact a reason-based complaint whereas phobia is an irrational aversion and it develops without a reason. Therefore, it is correct to say that there is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’; it exists neither in the West nor anywhere else in the world. So, what is needed is for Muslims to reform themselves—then everything, including other peoples’ negative perceptions about Muslims and Islam, will be settled. It is a two-point formula: first, Muslims must admit that this phenomenon is ‘Muslim-phobia’ and not ‘Islamophobia’ as such. Second, they must correct themselves. It is the duty of right-thinking Muslims to educate other Muslims in this regard.
Is the concept of ‘religion’ to be blamed for the chaos in the world?
The source of chaos in the world is not religion. Its source is 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 which creates all kinds of problems in society. Evil is not a part of creation. It is a result of misuse of freedom by man.
Would the world be more peaceful, without religion, borders, common culture and one language?
It is a mistake to believe that the world would be a more peaceful place if there were just one culture or one language, without religions and without borders. This will never happen because difference is part of nature; it has no existence in the external world.
There are two key aspects of human knowledge: humanities and physical sciences. Physical science does not have any differences, for instance, water shall always be H2O, and every scientist will always end up with the same conclusion through different experiments. In the subject of humanities, however, there will always be differences, as we learn from 312-page book by Dr. Alexis Carrel, wherein he has failed to find the reality of human life. That is why he titled the book, Man, The Unknown.
Psychological studies show that every man and women is different from one another. It can be seen that even in a family living together in the same house, following the same culture and speaking the same language, there can still be differences. Such differences are not a problem. Any difference causes discussion and it further leads to brainstorming.
What method of condemnation should be adopted by the Muslims to condemn violence?
Real condemnation is condemnation from the heart and not the condemnation done from stage as rhetoric. We must condemn violence in unequivocal terms and tell the perpetrators of such acts that their actions go against both Islam and reason, and we should not be afraid to do so. Mere stage activism is futile and would not yield any positive outcome. If Muslims disown and condemn from the bottom of their heart, then the outcome of every condemnation would be in the right direction. This is the only way Muslims around the world can condemn violence – by first condemning it in their hearts.
There can be no double standards in this regard. The conversation and discussions we engage in on public platforms should be the same as the view we express privately in our homes and believe in from our hearts.
There are groups that use the Prophet’s seal and name on their flags and perpetrate violence. Can this be called as an Islamic war since it has the Prophet’s seal?
Not at all. This is completely un-Islamic. Islam does not teach war, it only speaks of peace. Sometimes, an established government takes up arms in a limited sense, as a mark of defence. Full-fledged war is not allowed in Islam. The mission of Islam is to purify an individual – how is that connected to war? Islam is only peace, from the beginning to the end.
Some Muslims say, if we do not protest on small issues, even praying will become endangered. Is this right?
This is a false and baseless doubt. We need to understand the spirit of the age. There is never an obstruction to praying – if there is an obstruction, it is only to violence. As long as we understand the spirit of the age and remain peaceful, no one is going to restrict us from praying.
What was the Prophet Muhammad’s policy on confrontation?
The Prophet Muhammad’s policy was to avoid confrontation till the last possible extent. Confrontation takes place because people know only one aspect of the matter – that whenever there is difference, it should be eliminated. The focus of the Prophet was to accept the status quo and to discover and avail of opportunities of co- existence, instead of focusing on differences. This approach proved to be very successful.
Our world is a world of conflict and differences. And the biggest question facing us is – where to make a start so as to resolve these differences? The answer, in the light of the above example, is to accept the status quo in controversial matters and divert your activities to the non-confrontation field. For example, the mission of the Prophet was to convey the message of tawhid (monotheism). The Kabah built by the Prophet Abraham as a centre of tawhid. But by the seventh century AD, Makkah had been converted into a centre of idol worship, with over three hundred idols being placed in the Kabah. It would apparently have been necessary for the Prophet first of all to remove these idols from the Kabah, but this kind of beginning would inevitably have resulted in confrontation between the Prophet and the idol worshippers.
So, the Prophet resorted to a practical method. He decided to ignore to presence of the idols in the Kabah and only addressed the audience gathered to worship the idols, conveying to them the message of the Quran. Because at that time there was only one meeting place in the town of Makkah where the Prophet could find an audience – the courtyard of the Kabah. Instead of confronting with the idol worshippers, the Prophet worked towards availing the opportunity of their coming together to the fullest by preaching to them the message of Islam.
Another instance from the life of the Prophet is the case of the Hudaybiyah Treaty. This agreement was signed between the Prophet and his Makkan opponents. The treaty unilaterally favoured the Makkans. But the Prophet Muhammad still signed on the agreement only to secure a ten-year no war pact. At that time, the Makkan opponents were determined to engage Muslims in fighting and to further the provocation, when the Hudaybiyah Agreement was being written, the Prophet dictated a final sign off as follows: “This is from Muhammad, the Messenger of God.” The Makkan delegate raised objections over these words. The Prophet promptly changed the wording and ordered his scribe to write simply “Muhammad, son of Abdullah”. He did this in order to avoid any form of confrontation. The Prophet was an extremely peace-loving person and the term ‘confrontation’ was not in his dictionary. He wanted to establish peace at any cost.
A third example, is when the Prophet marched into Makkah with his followers.
A Companion of the Prophet said: “Today is a day of revenge”. At this, the Prophet replied: “No, today is a day of mercy”. (Kanz al-Ummal, hadith no. 30173)
Historians acknowledge that Makkah was conquered without any bloodshed.
Did the Prophet make any allowance to go to war?
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 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. (Quran 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. (Quran 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 an 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 defence 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.
Is the media to be blamed for social disharmony?
The media is not on a mission to create social disharmony, it is a profit-based institution of news reporting. What we often refer to as ‘negative articles’, is nothing but an outcome of the evaluation done by the media industry to offer the news that their readers ask for. The readers seek sensational news and the media supplies it. If the media industry does not sensationalize news, their newsworthiness would decrease among the followers. Hence in order to survive in the competitive environment, they resort to this modus operandi. So, the media cannot be blamed.
In such a situation, the audience should realize that the media should not become an influencer for them. If people develop the wisdom to not take the news appearing in the media on face value, rather they evaluate the sanctity and veracity of the report, this issue shall be resolved.
What is patriotism?
There is an example of this in the ‘Oath of Allegiance’ that one takes while immigrating to the United States of America or is directly applied if they are born there. The oath reads:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform non- combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
This oath primarily implies that the nation requires from its citizens to support the constitution, renounce allegiance to any foreign power, defend the country and its laws from all domestic and foreign enemies and participate in the armed forces when needed by the nation.
This, according to me, aptly summarizes what allegiance and patriotism towards a nation should be. For instance, if your country recognizes Israel as a country, then out of allegiance towards your nation you also have to recognize Israel as a country. Otherwise, your allegiance will be with those nations who do not recognize Israel, which will constitute a breach of trust between you and your nation. No nation will ever tolerate this breach of trust.
