The Arab leaders want to establish their rule throughout the whole of Palestine, just as in the past. But this concept is based on anachronistic thinking. In ancient monarchical times, the concept of political rule was that a single individual held sway without sharing power with others. But in the age of modern democracy, the concept of power-sharing is prevalent all over the world. With this new concept, it should be entirely possible for Arab leaders to participate in the political system on the principle of democratic sharing, without exercising any independent rule of their own. This is a new opportunity that the Palestinian Arabs can avail of in the full sense, should they opt for a peaceful course of action.

A perfect kind of example exists for this kind of power-sharing. In chapter 12 of the Quran, we learn that an idolatrous king ruled Egypt during Joseph’s time. Joseph accepted a ministerial post under his kingship and continued to hold this post for a long time. This was an example of power sharing which has been approved of by the Quran.

Source: The True Face of Islam

The Palestinian movement, having reached its final stage, has assumed intensely negative proportions, i.e. suicide bombing. This suicide bombing does not take place on a battlefield. It is carried out in public places and all the people who die are innocent men, women, and children. This kind of suicide bombing is totally against the teachings of Islam. According to the Quran, ‘the killing of one person is like killing all mankind.’(The Quran, 5:32) In suicide bombing, it is the innocent who die, and killing innocent people in the eyes of God is such a heinous crime that killing one person in this way is akin to killing all human beings.

On this point, it would be appropriate to say that the Palestinian movement, having reached this last stage, has so totally deviated from the path of Islam that it can never be held deserving of divine succour.

Source: The True Face of Islam

I presented this paper at a peace conference organized by the Peres Center for Peace, Tel Aviv, on October 28, 2008 on how to achieve peace in the holy land. The theme of the conference was ‘New World, New Peace’. During my address, I explained that the Arab-Israel controversy, which started in 1948, led directly to the total disturbance of peace in the Middle East and indirectly to disturbances all over the world. This 60-year-old bloody struggle, far from solving any problems, has created grave, unsolvable problems. Now the time has finally arrived for a reassessment of the whole issue in a purely realistic manner and for a search for a new strategy that could ensure peace in the region. I also explained that, although the name of Islam has repeatedly been invoked in this campaign, there has never been any serious effort made to apply the Islamic formula to this controversial matter. I studied Islamic scriptures to discover the solution to this problem in the light of Islam, and what I have found from my study of Islam can be summed up thus: the central idea of Islamic planning is that it is based on availing existing opportunities rather than on colliding with problems. I presented this in the form of ten points, some of which are being given as follows.

What the leaders on both sides should now do is refrain from insisting on the other party agreeing to their conditions. Rather they should attach prime importance to what they must do to ensure that peace prevails in this region and how they can in consequence cause opportunities to open up for themselves. The example set by the Prophet provides us with the basic guiding principle that we should adopt in this matter.

According to the Bible, the Jews believe that Palestine is for them the ‘promised land’ (Deuteronomy 1:8). The same notion has been expressed in the Quran. The Quran tells us that the Israelites, who were living in diaspora outside Palestine during the time of the Prophet Moses, were told by Moses that it was God’s command that they should enter the Holy Land. Moses said to his people: ‘O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has assigned to you’ (The Quran, 5:21) In this verse of the Quran the words ‘assigned to you’ is not a mysterious phrase: indeed, it describes a law of nature. That is, a community in diaspora enjoys the right to return to its original home. The Biblical term ‘promised land’ has this very meaning, and the Balfour Declaration (1917) was exactly in accordance with this law of nature, as prescribed in the Quran. In this declaration, the Jews in diaspora were given permission to return to Palestine under a limited quota system. The Arab leaders should have accepted this as a legitimate decision. But they refused to accept it and showed their strong reaction to it. This was the beginning of the present Palestinian movement. To my way of thinking, this was a very unwise decision on the part of the Arabs, because this movement proved to be counterproductive.

The argument of the Arab leaders to justify their violent movement is that the Jews are their enemies, and that fighting the enemy is but natural. This argument is certainly against the teachings of the Quran. According to the injunction of the Quran, war can be waged only against an attacker, not against an enemy. The following verse of the Quran throws light in this regard:

‘Do a good deed in return for a bad deed and then you will find that your enemy has become your dearest friend.’ (The Quran, 41:34)

According to this verse of the Quran, our enemy is our potential friend. That is why, according to Islamic teaching, what we should do is to turn the potential into the actual through dialogue or peaceful effort, rather than destroy all positive opportunities by unnecessarily waging war.

If we point out to the Arab leaders the importance of peace, they will answer, ‘Yes, we want peace, but we want peace with justice.’ This way of thinking is totally unrealistic, for it is a fact that peace does not on its own bring justice. Peace only opens the door to opportunities, and the desired justice is achieved only by availing of those opportunities. We learn this principle from the ultimate outcome of the Hudaybiyyah Pact, which I referred to earlier. It must be remembered that the Prophet Muhammad followed this Hudaybiyyah principle throughout his life.

Source: The True Face of Islam

We wanted to change the mindset of the Kashmiri people, who were trying to change the political status quo in Kashmir through militancy. However, we constantly made them believe that this was an impossible game. We have to accept the reality. One example of this method is set forth in our book, which has been published in 'Subh-e-Kashmir' (Urdu), and in 'Dawn Over Kashmir' (English). Now, it is a well-established fact that the Kashmiris have almost abandoned their previous way of thinking and, by and large, there is peace in Kashmir. This change is a direct result of our mission. If any violent incident occurs in Kashmir, it is due to foreign elements.

This mission that I call Neo-Gandhism is applicable to all the people of India. Its method is based on education and not on militancy. In pre-independence India, the course resorted to was mob activism. This should now be replaced by educational activism. This method seems to be a long-term method. Such a goal can be achieved only through long-term planning. Short-term planning will be of no avail.

Neo-Gandhism is not a departure from the Gandhian ideology. In fact, it is reapplying the Gandhian ideology in a changing world. This kind of reapplication is common to the history of all systems and ideologies. In the pre-independence era, there were two parties: the Indian nation and the British occupiers. This was a 'we-they' equation; so the basic target of Gandhism was to oust the British from the Indian soil, which happened successfully on August 15, 1947.

Now the situation is completely different. Now, there is no 'they'; all are members of the Indian nation. The present situation is based on a 'we-we' equation, and not a 'we-they' equation as it was in the past.

Source: Spirit of Islam June 2013

For centuries Kashmir has been known as ‘heaven on earth’. In the past, Kashmir was ruled by a series of rulers who were not indigenous inhabitants of the land—Pathans, Mughals, Sikhs and Dogras. But throughout this period it still remained ‘heaven on earth’. People from all over the world visited Kashmir. If the Taj Mahal symbolized architectural beauty on the subcontinent, Kashmir was the symbol of the beauty of nature. This history shows that for Kashmir to make progress, it is not necessary that it should be ruled by Kashmiris. Political power is a kind of political headache. Kashmir needs constructive activities to be revived for its progress, and development, and nothing else.

The Quran mentions everything that is good for man. But it does not mention freedom or liberty. This shows that the word freedom is very deceptive. It has no real meaningfulness. A clear practical example of this can be seen in 60 Muslim countries, most of which won their political independence after a long struggle, in the course of which their people made immense sacrifices. However, in fact, these countries are not really independent in the true sense of the term. Many of them are now in the throes of civil war, where rival groups are fighting each other for power. If the Kashmiris do not realize this and stop insisting on independence, they are likely to meet the same unenviable fate. That is why they should abandon their present political struggle and, instead, concentrate on the work of positive and constructive development.

Had Kashmir treaded along the path of educational and economic advancement, today it would have been a model of progress and prosperity. But the incompetent leadership, with unrealistic dreams and empty slogans, have caused terrible damage. The time has now come for the Kashmiris to abandon the path of militancy completely and permanently, and, instead, to adopt the path of peace and progress. Only then can the dream of Kashmir as ‘heaven on earth’ come true. Unrealistic politics has played havoc with Kashmir, but now through realistic politics we can once again lead Kashmir to progress and development. Kashmiri Muslims have today become disillusioned. They are living in an atmosphere of mistrust.

It is indeed possible for the Kashmiris to start a new life at any given time, but for this, two conditions must be met. First, they must take responsibility for the unpleasant situation they are faced with today. Second, more importantly, they must come out of their delusional world and learn to live in the world of practical realities. They must understand that today it is the age of peace.

Source: Spirit of Islam December 2018

On September 10, 2014, The Times of India carried a front-page report titled: “In Kashmir, ‘occupation force’ hailed as saviour." The report said that from being perceived by many in the Kashmir valley as an “occupation force” in the 1990s, the Army is now seen as a “humanitarian agency”. The Army has certainly come a long way in this militancy-hit state, having rescued upwards of 100,000 people.

To my surprise, the same morning I received a much-awaited call from our Kashmir team member who told the same story. He affirmed that after the great havoc wreaked by the floods, normalcy was slowly being restored. He attributed this entirely to the efforts of the Indian Army and said that there was new thinking emerging among the people of Kashmir about the armed forces. In his own words, he said: “Jis army ko hamne patthar mara tha, wahi aaj apne kandhon par utha kar logon ko flood se bacha rahe hain.” (The same army which was pelted with stones is now rescuing people from the flood on their shoulders).

Sometimes blessings come in disguise. The recent flood crisis in Kashmir is an example of this old saying. The whole state of Jammu and Kashmir was almost underwater. A massive rescue and relief operation by the Indian armed forces is on in the state. It was this same Indian Army that was subjected to stone-throwing that is now dropping food packets, saving the lives of people, and extending all possible help.

For a very long time, Kashmir had been a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity. A large number of Hindus used to visit the Sufi shrines in Kashmir. There was an ideal relationship between the Hindu Pandits’ and the Muslim Kashmiris. In the whole state of Jammu and Kashmir, Hindus and Muslims lived in brotherly relations and cooperated with each other in every field. Kashmir was in an ideal state of communal harmony. There was absolutely no problem between the Kashmiris and the Hindus.

But, due to misguidance from rabble-rousers, the Kashmiri people temporarily became negative towards India. This kind of negativity was totally against the spirit of Kashmir.

Now, nature, through this calamity and the help provided by India, is giving a strong message to Kashmiris: ‘See the realities and change your mindset.’ This “change” is not merely a change—it is a return to their own past.

Under the influence of their so-called leaders, Kashmiris had become negative towards India. However, India is the only country that has rushed to their rescue. A crisis reveals a person’s friends and enemies. This calamity has clearly shown that the Indian Army is a true friend and well-wisher of the Kashmiri people. This was a new experience in the recent history of Kashmir. According to my assessment, it was a message from nature. Nature is telling them: ‘Discover your real friends.’

The fact remains that, after Independence, there was a great chance for Kashmiris to develop and build a great future for themselves. But, because of misguidance from some leaders, they were living in a state of indecisiveness. In this natural calamity, there is a lesson for the Kashmiri people: ‘Decide your future without delay, so that your journey towards the future continues without any hurdles and your youth can avail of all modern opportunities.’

Source: Spirit of Islam October 2014

There is a saying that violence begins from the mind. This is true also of countering violence: countering Muslim militancy also begins from the mind. We find a model for this in how America dealt with the Communist ideology. America staunchly opposed communist Russia, but rather than drop a nuclear bomb on it, it devised and supported a literary campaign against the communist regime. Innumerable books were published in various languages and widely disseminated, which were critical of the philosophy of Communism. A great deal of careful planning had gone into challenging Communism at the ideological level. This strategy was successful, and in 1991 the USSR collapsed, after sixty-nine years of existence.

This is a good model for tackling the current so-called ‘Islamic’ terrorist movements. Terrorism in the name of Islam is based entirely on the misinterpretation of Islamic texts. One example of this misinterpretation derives from a verse of the Quran, which says: ‘All power belongs to God alone’ (12: 40). In this verse, power is used to denote the supernatural power of God. However, Muslim extremist thinkers have misinterpreted it to mean political power. Furthermore, these extremist thinkers claim that Muslims, as representatives of God, should establish God’s rule on earth. This assumption is wrong because it is based on a Quranic verse taken out of context.

Another verse in the Quran says: (5:8) ‘Follow the principle of justice [in your life]’. Misinterpretation of this verse has given it the transitive sense, instead of the original intransitive sense used in the Quran. The verb used above does not have any direct object of action, but the wrong interpretation has taken the object of action as the outside world. Thus, the verse is being taken to mean that justice should be imposed on people by force. This misinterpretation has politicised the concept of justice, although such a notion cannot be inferred from the text.

Any interpretation of the above kind is false. And this falsehood must be made manifest so that people understand with certainty that the present militancy has no sanction in Islam, and so that the extremists abandon their violence on realising that their actions are completely unIslamic. The terrorist phenomenon is based on misinterpretation of the scriptures. It can be eradicated only by universally publicising the right interpretation of Islamic texts.

In a speech on July 19, 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron, expressing his anxiety about youngsters traveling to Iraq and Syria to join the so-called ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL), said,

‘We must de-glamorise the extremist cause, especially ISIL. This isn’t a pioneering movement—it is vicious, brutal, and fundamentally abhorrent.’

It is true that present Muslim extremism is the result of the glamorisation of the self-styled concept of global Khilafat or Caliphate. The solution lies in de-glamorising this false ideology developed by extremists through a misinterpretation of Islamic sources. De-glamorisation of the Khilafat can be achieved only by de-Islamising this concept of the Khilafat based on a political interpretation of Islam. And political Islam has no basis in Islamic scriptures.

The UN has rightly adopted this dictum: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.’ To eradicate terrorism, we shall have to re-engineer the minds of terrorists along peaceful lines. No other method will be of any avail.

Source: Spirit of Islam November 2015

The responsibility for the present-day hatred and violence in the name of Islam does not lie with those Muslim youth who driven by acrimony carry out violent activities. Rather the responsibility for such action is to be borne by those so-called Islamic thinkers who, in the name of bringing about an “Islamic revolution”, gave such a way of thinking to Muslim youth whose result could be nothing but violence and hatred in the name of Islam.

The method of Islam is that of dawah or peaceful dissemination of Islamic teachings. The way of politics is contrary to dawah. While the basis of dawah is peace, politics is based on confrontation with others. Present-day Islamic thinkers gave a political interpretation to Islam, as a result of which the Islamic movement became a political movement. This culminated in all those unpleasant aspects—generally identified with politics—to be associated with Islam as well.

Those engaged in dawah consider others as potentially their friends. The case of politics is totally opposite to this, as those who are involved in politics look at others as their rivals or opponents. This is why dawah culture fosters mercy and compassion between people, while political activism leads to the spread of hatred. All kind of good finds its way in a society where people have mercy for each other, while the culture of hatred breeds animosity and violence. No virtue can ever be found alongside hatred.

Source: Spirit of Islam April 2019

The root cause of Muslim militancy is the political interpretation of Islam. According to this, it is Muslims’ bounden duty to establish the political system of Islam all over the world, even if it involves the use of force.

This wrong interpretation was a result of the distortion of Quranic teachings. For example, a verse says: “…So that men may conduct themselves with justice.” (57:25) This is an injunction to believers to adhere to justice. But this was changed to mean: ‘You have to implement justice in the world.’ This kind of misinterpretation has been done with several teachings of the Quran. The result was that Quranic teachings which are the subject of self-following have been turned into a subject of implementation on others by force.

When you take the above Quranic verse in this sense: ‘It is my duty to follow justice in my life’, it creates no problems at all. However, if you take the verse in this sense: ‘I have to enforce justice on others’, then it is bound to create a rivalry. Because there are already some people occupying the seat of power. Under the influence of this interpretation, you will make an attempt to unseat them in order to implement your so-called Islamic order. This would inevitably lead to conflict. If the first interpretation makes you see other people as your friends, the second interpretation causes you to consider others as your rivals.

Another example of this misinterpretation derives from a verse of the Quran, which says: In al-hukmu illa lillah. That is, “All power belongs to God alone.” (12:40) In this verse, hukm is used in the sense of the supernatural power of God as the Sustainer of the universe. However, some Muslim extremist thinkers misinterpreted it to mean political power. Furthermore, it is said that Muslims, as representatives of God, should establish God’s rule on earth. This assumption is wrong because it is based on a Quranic verse that has been taken out of context.

The real message of Islam was: ‘Be followers of Islam’, but because of the wrong interpretation it became: ‘Be soldiers of Islam.’ There is no Quranic verse that gives the directive to Muslims to establish Islamic rule.

Political rule is not an essential part of Islam, rather it is determined by circumstances. If Muslims are in the majority in society and are invested with authority, they can by the will of the people form political rule according to religious teachings. But if the majority in a society is not religious and does not want to be governed by religion, then Islam will accept the social will.

Source: Spirit of Islam August 2017

The spiritual target Islam sets before man is given in the Quran in these words: 'A soul at rest' (89:27). Thus the spiritual goal of Islam is to attain this state of peace in the soul.

According to the Quran, this is the ultimate stage in a man's spiritual development. When he reaches this stage of progress, he qualifies himself to be ushered into Paradise, the perfect and eternal world of the Hereafter. The Quran addresses such souls in these words: ‘O serene soul! Return to your Lord joyful, and pleasing in His sight. Join My servants and enter My paradise' (89:27-30).

In this world man has to lead his life in circumstances in which he experiences various kinds of situations: there are times of gain, times of loss; times of happiness and times of grief. Sometimes he receives good treatment at the hands of others, at other times his fate is quite otherwise.

The ideal human being of the Quran is one who undergoes all these experiences without losing his integrity. Under no circumstances is his inner peace disturbed. However, untoward the occasion, he can maintain his natural balance. Success does not make him proud. Power does not make him haughty. No bad treatment by others drives him to seek vengeance in anger. At all events, he remains serene. It is such a man who is called 'a peaceful soul' in the Quran. And it is this man who, according to the Quran, has achieved the highest spiritual state.

The realization of God joins man with his Maker. Such communion with the divine brings about a state of spiritual elevation. Having been thus raised to a higher plane of existence, man becomes of a 'sublime character,' (68:4) as it is expressed in the Quran.

Source: The True Face of Islam

In present times, numerous violent movements are being spearheaded in the name of establishing the ‘Islamic System’ or the ‘Prophetic System’. These movements, however, are simply a ruse to engage in a quest for political leadership in the name of Islam, and this is in spite of the fact that to launch and conduct a movement in order to acquire political dominance is itself not permissible in Islam.

The aim of a genuine Islamic movement is the Islamization of individuals (The Quran, 20:76), not the Islamization of the government or the state. Accordingly, for centuries the Sufis focused on the Islamization of individuals. This work continued, using peaceful methods, and never became a source for spreading hatred and violence. The Sufis always promoted peace and humanity, while the so-called ‘revolutionary Islamic’ movements of today are producing completely the opposite results.

The linking of Islam with hatred and violence is entirely the result of the misguidance of certain modern-day so-called Muslim leaders, who have been spearheading violent movements aimed at acquiring political power. Through their actions, these people have made Islam seem like a religion of hatred and violence, although, in actual fact, the Islam sent by God is a religion of peace and concern for the welfare for all. A true Muslim is one who is concerned about the welfare of humanity, not someone who is at war with humanity.

Source: Spirit of Islam September 2015

Establishing an Islamic state is not the mission given to Muslims. The Prophet of Islam never said: ‘I have been sent to establish an Islamic state.’ The Prophet’s mission was a peaceful dawah mission—inviting people to God’s path—and not a political mission.

If we read the Quran, we will not find any commandment that says: “Aqim dawlat al-islam” or ‘Establish an Islamic State.’ Why is a commandment of this kind absent in the Quran? The reason for this is given in the Hadith in these words: “Kama takunu kazalika yuammaru alaykum.” (Mishkat al-Masabih) That is, “As you are, so shall be your rulers.” It means that according to Islam, government emerges from the society. It is not imposed on the society from the outside.

Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (d. AD 634) was the first political head in Islam. But he was referred to as amir al-mominin, or leader of Muslims, rather than khalifah al-muslimin. What was the method through which Abu Bakr reached this position? After the death of the Prophet, the Sahaba or Companions of the Prophet assembled in a place called Saqifa Bani Saidah in Madinah. At this place, all the people came together and open consultations took place between the Companions. Through the consensus of the Companions, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq became the head of the state of Madinah.

According to available information, ISIS is a Sunni extremist group. In its self-proclaimed status as a ‘Caliphate’, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring most of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with Iraq, Syria and other territories in the Levant, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey. In June 2014, it had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq. The number of fighters in the group has increased to 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq. It has claimed responsibility for attacks on government and military targets and for attacks that have killed thousands of civilians.

This kind of a self-proclaimed state or caliphate has no place in Islam because it has no sanction in the Quran and Sunnah. Such a state is totally against the Islamic spirit. According to the Quran and Sunnah, no person has the right to proclaim sovereignty on his own. To declare someone as a sovereign ruler is solely the people’s domain, and not that of any particular individual. The case of ISIS is certainly a case of illegal coup, rather than an Islamically-lawful act.

Source: The True Face of Islam

Contrary to common belief, Islam does not teach extremism. It actually teaches its adherents to follow the moderate or balanced path. In the fourth chapter of the Quran the following injunction has been given: “Do not go to excess in your religion.” (4:171)

The same point has been made in a hadith. The Prophet of Islam observed: “You should restrain yourselves from committing excesses (ghulu) in religion. For it was due to their having gone to extremes in religion that the previous communities were destroyed.” (Al-Nasai, Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad, 1/215, 347)

Ghulu means extremism. The way of extremism is wrong, whatever the circumstances, for it goes against the spirit of religion. Indeed, it is proneness to extremism, which at times culminates in war and violence. Those who suffer from extremist tendencies remain dissatisfied with the path of moderation since this strikes them as being far from the ideal. That is why they so easily incline towards violence and are ever ready to open hostilities in the name of achieving their objectives.

Moderation, which is the opposite of extremism, is closely interlinked with peace. When people possess the virtue of moderation, they necessarily think in terms of peace and will engage in their struggle in a peaceful manner. Where there is moderation there is peace, and vice versa.

According to a Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad observed: That moderate action is the best of all actions. Hazrat Ali advised the people: ‘Adopt the middle path.’ (Tafsir Qurtubi, 154/2)

The middle path means the path of moderation. One instance of it can be seen in the following verse of the Quran: ‘Be neither miserly nor prodigal, for then you should either be reproached or be reduced to penury.’ (17:29)

The same point, worded differently, has been made in another verse which characterizes “the true servants of the Merciful” as “those who, when they spend, are not extravagant and not niggardly, but maintain a just balance between those extremes.” (The Quran, 25:67)

According to this verse, moderate spending means neither lavishness nor miserliness but rather a balanced expenditure, which will make life much easier to lead. In the same way, as regards optional fasts, prayers, etc., a middle path is desirable for man, as this enables him to maintain such a pattern of behaviour over a long period of time.

The middle path, to put it differently, is the non-emotional way. If a man loses his mental balance when confronted with any difficult situation in life, he goes to one extreme or the other. But if he keeps his feelings under control, he will be able to determine the proper course of action by giving it ample thought. A well-considered deed is always a moderate one. One who does not follow a moderate path will exceed all bounds both in friendship and in enmity. He will also be given to undue optimism and pessimism in respectively positive and negative situations, and will unnecessarily regard some individuals as too bad and others as too good. However, it is the verdict of nature that in this world a moderate approach in life always succeeds, while taking the path of extremes inevitably leads to failure.

Source: The True Face of Islam

The Quran teaches us not to be extremist in our religion. Its exact words are: ‘People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your religion.’ (4: 171)

We also learn from a saying of Prophet Muhammad that extremist tendencies have always been the chief reason for religious groups going astray. That is why the Prophet once observed:

‘’Sedulously refrain from extremism, for previous communities were destroyed only because of their extremist tendencies in religious matters.”

Although there are many actions which in form appear to be morally acceptable, it is to the spirit of these acts rather than their external form that Islam attaches real importance.

Ghulu, meaning extremism, is engendered in a religious community when it goes into a state of decline, and this, in fact, is a sign of its degeneration. There is a tradition of Prophet Muhammad that forewarns his followers of the rot that has set in. He said that all those evils which had arisen in previous communities would also arise in his own community on a greater scale. To make his meaning clear, he said:

“Where previous communities were divided into 72 sects Muslims will be divided into 73 sects.” (Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4597)

There are innumerable cases of ideological extremism in Islamic history. But we also find among Muslims another kind of extremism that probably never existed in previous communities. When the Prophet said that while the previous communities were divided into seventy-two sects and the Muslims would be divided into seventy-three sects, he was giving an example of this other kind of ghulu (extremism) which can be described as political extremism. No previous community had ever been crowned by such political glory as was enjoyed by the Muslims for almost a thousand years after the emergence of Islam. Political glory was not, however, a part of the Islamic creed, but a part of history. But Muslims stressed this fact of political glory to such an extent that, for all intents and purposes, it became incorporated into their religious creed. The result of this political extremism is the violent jihad we experience in the Muslim world of today.

Source: Spirit of Islam April 2016

According to a hadith report contained in the Sunan Abu Dawud, the Prophet advised the Muslims not to adopt the path of violence, or else, he said, their conditions would become even more severe (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4904). The veracity of this statement is clearly evident today in every Muslim country where people have adopted violence to attain their objectives. This has happened in Kashmir, too.

The culture of violence that has gripped Kashmir has had no beneficial consequence at all. On the contrary, the destruction that it caused has been so enormous as to be simply indescribable. It has devastated Kashmir’s economy and educational system. It has led to the death of over a hundred thousand people, with many more being injured and crippled for life. It has played havoc with moral values. The Kashmiriyat in whose name this militant movement was launched was itself destroyed. This culture of violence forced huge numbers of capable and highly educated Kashmiris to leave Kashmir and shift elsewhere. Kashmir’s tourist industry, which played a major role in the state’s economy, was decimated. In short, this movement, launched in the name of the Kashmiri people, produced no benefit whatsoever for the common Kashmiris, although it has certainly benefitted the self-styled leaders of Kashmir.

The Quran (57:23) tells us in clear words: “   […] You may not grieve for what has escaped you […]

This Quranic verse tells us of a law of Nature that God has established in this world. According to this law, every person and every community has to experience some form of loss, at some time or the other. No person or community is exempted from this law of Nature, for this is part of God’s creation plan. In other words, this is God’s law, and so it is impossible for anyone to change it.

But, along with this, there is another law of Nature—that in this world, opportunities never cease. Here, whenever one opportunity is lost, at once another one emerges. Hence, wisdom demands that we should forget our lost opportunities and, instead, should make use of the new ones that are available to us. This is precisely what the Kashmiris should do today.

Exploitative leaders thrive on fanning people’s sense of being denied or deprived. On the other hand, true leaders lead movements that are based on achievements rather than denial or deprivation. They point out to people openly-available opportunities, not closed doors, and in this way, help chart a new future for their people.

Source: Peace in Kashmir

I give here an example of how we have been able to re-engineer the minds of people on peaceful lines. In the course of a conversation I had with a Kashmiri Muslim, he said: “We have travelled a long way from October 1989 to October 2011. Formerly, we used to throw stones at the soldiers. Now, we present them with the Quran.” These words tell us of the new revolution commencing in Kashmir. It is a sign of a new beginning. When a healthy process sets in in history, it goes on uninterruptedly until it reaches its destination.

The words of the Kashmiri Muslim denote that earlier, the Muslims in the valley were living in a state of unawareness. Now they have learned to live in a state of awareness. Kashmiri Muslims at first regarded others as their rivals. Now they have come to regard them as madu. The Kashmiri Muslims never used to stop short of violence, but now they have discovered the secret of living in peace. Having adopted a culture of violence earlier, the Kashmiri Muslims have now decided to follow the culture of peace. This new decision by the Muslims of Kashmir is the beginning of a new phase for Kashmir. It is the declaration of the dawn of a bright morning following upon a dark night.

Source: The Dawn Over Kashmir

Building a peaceful society requires the re-engineering of the mind. This task can be carried out only through education—more through informal education than formal education. By informal education, I mean gaining knowledge through the media, literature, seminars and conferences, dialogue and discussion, and so on.

Here, I am not just theorizing about peace: I have experimented with it in practice. The venue of this experiment was Kashmir. I have been working towards inculcating peaceful thinking among Kashmiris since 1968, and I am still continuing with my efforts. There has been a sea change as a result of this movement, and now, in almost every house in Kashmir, the peace-promoting literature of our mission is read.

In 2011 we organized a meeting of those Kashmiris who are acquainted with our ideas. On this occasion, someone representing a group of Kashmiris said in the course of conversation: ‘We have traveled a long way from October 1989 to October 2011. Formerly, we used to throw stones at the Indian army. Now, we present them with literature about peace.’

Kashmir, which after 1947 was continually engaged in militancy, has now almost become a peaceful state. If there is any news of attack or violence from Kashmir, it is not due to the local Kashmiris but is the result rather of a proxy war conducted from outside.

The above example of bringing about ‘Peace through Education’ can be experienced everywhere. The most effective way of bringing about peace is only one—and that is, to educate people’s minds along peaceful lines.

The best way to bring about change in society is through education. In the pre-printing press age books were not available. So it was not possible to educate people on a large scale—war is a remnant of that ancient age. In those times people tried to bring about change through force, and this led to war.

Now we are living in the age of the printing press in which books exist in abundance. It is therefore possible to bring about a change in society through mass education. Those who are engaged in war for the sake of reform only show that they are unaware of this fact. If they realized this, they would throw away their guns and concentrate on education.

Source: The Age of Peace

Under the influence of certain thinkers who have interpreted Islam in political terms, a number of Muslims are obsessed with the politicized ideology of Islam. They have come to believe in the concept of establishing an Islamic system in the world; for this, they require political power but when they set out to establish this system, they see that a group is already occupying the political seat. So, they try to overthrow or unseat those who are in possession of political power.

It is this thinking that has led Muslims to perpetrate violence. But this thinking is completely un-Islamic because Islam enjoins its followers to follow its teachings at the individual level, rather than foisting them on others by force or violence. The need of the hour is to counter this problem. However, it cannot be countered by means of a gun. Modern Muslim militancy can be eradicated only by providing a counter-ideology. The issue of terrorism is an issue of ideology versus ideology and not one of ideology versus gun or ideology versus education. The right course is to re-engineer the modern Muslim mind. We should present to them the true ideology of Islam based on peace and tolerance. The real Islamic jihad is based on peace and spirituality. Therefore, the problem of Muslim militancy can be solved only by reviving the real Islam and not by taking recourse to any other means.

We have to present Islam as a religion of peace. Changing minds through this method of education will take considerable time, as it is a long-term method. Countering the problem with the gun cannot make those who are engaged in violence abandon their violent ways. Because these people are engaged in violence in the name of Islam, they can be stopped from indulging in such activities only if the true peaceful nature of Islam is shown to them.

The veracity of this method can be judged from the example of Kashmir. After Independence, militancy became widespread among Kashmiri Muslims. We, at the Centre for Peace and Spirituality, quietly disseminated peaceful literature among Kashmiris and today militancy in Kashmir has reduced considerably. The same literary campaign is required in other militancy-affected areas.

Source: Spirit of Islam January 2015

Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, is a product of the exercise of human reflection, deduction, and ijtihad, and is not itself a form of divine knowledge. The development and compilation of the corpus of fiqh began after the period of the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions, particularly at the time of the Abbasids. The ulama of that period reflected on the Quran and Hadith and developed certain terms on their own. Three key terms in this regard are dar al-islam (‘abode of Islam’), dar al-kufr (‘abode of  infidelity’) and dar al-harb (‘abode of war’). The fuqaha, scholars of fiqh, made further finer distinctions within each of these daars or ‘abodes’, but here I will consider only these three main terms.

The conditions for which the later fuqaha invented the terms dar al-islam, dar al-kufr and dar al-harb were present at the time of the Prophet at different stages of his life and in different places. Yet, these places were not referred to at the time of the Prophet by these terms. Under these circumstances, one can rightly argue that, in coining these terms, the fuqaha of the Abbasid period exceeded the bounds of legitimate ijtihad. In other words, they sought to do something for which they did not have the right. It can, therefore, be clearly stated that these terms coined by the fuqaha are an instance of erroneous ijtihad. Hence, a scholar of Islam is within his rights in rejecting this ijtihad. Since they represent a bidat—innovation in religious matters—they must be rejected, for in a hadith report the Prophet said, “Whoever innovates into this matter of our religion that which does not belong to it, it will be rejected. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2697). This means the Prophet of Islam exhorted Muslims to reject anything new that might be sought to be added in the name of religion.

From the Quran, it is evident that God does not view the world on the basis of, or in terms of, divisions between dar al-islam, dar al-kufr and dar al-harb. God regards all human beings through one, and only one, perspective. He will deal with human beings after their death by the single common criterion of deeds performed on earth. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Quran sternly forbids people from imagining that they are loved more by God than other peoples just because they belong to a certain community. (The Quran, 5:18) The Quran clearly states that in God’s eyes a person’s value is determined not on the basis of his communitarian association or race, but, rather, on the basis of his or her own actions. (The Quran, 53:39)

These statements of the Quran indicate, therefore, that the true Islamic perspective is to see the cosmos in terms of God versus humanity, rather than in terms of Muslims versus non-Muslims. The latter way of thinking is a narrow, communal one, and has no relationship with the Quran or Islam. It is against God’s creation plan, for God has made this world for all His creatures, and not just for Muslims alone. This is why, in the light of the Quran, if the concept of daar or abode is to be used, it can be said that the entire world is dar al-insan or ‘abode of humanity’.

Source: Jihad, Peace and Inter-Community Relations in Islam

The coining of such terms as Darul-Islam, Darul-Kufr and Darul-Harb is an extremely serious matter. It relates to the Muslim worldview. It is responsible for inculcating the mentality of 'the chosen people' among Muslims. It is a sign of the decline of a nation.

We learn from the Quran that God does not divide human society on the basis of such demarcations as Darul-Islam, Darul-Kufr and Darul-Harb. God sees and deals with all human beings in the same light. The Quran refutes notions of God’s 'favoured people' in the strongest of terms.

The Quran tells us that in the eyes of God, everyone’s worth is determined by their personal actions or character, rather than by their belonging to a particular race or community (The Quran, 53:39). One verse of the Quran in this regard will suffice for this purpose: “The believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans all those who believe in God and the Last day and do good deeds will be rewarded by their Lord; they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. (The Quran, 2: 62)

Muslims, Christians, Jews, and all others are equal in the eyes of God. God will judge people based upon their deeds, rather than upon their belonging to a particular community.

Determining the status of other groups in relation to Muslims is a sectarian viewpoint, which is contrary to the universal approach of Islam. It goes against the creation plan of God. God has made this world for all human beings, and not just for Muslims.

Once, when the Prophet of Islam was in Madinah, a funeral procession passed by. On seeing it, the Prophet stood up. His Companions said to him that it was the funeral of a Jew, indicating that, therefore, there was no need to stand up. The Prophet replied by asking them if the person was not a human being. This incident has been recorded by Al-Bukhari.

This act of the Prophet of Islam clearly shows that every human being is worthy of respect and honour, regardless of his religion. This Hadith clearly shows that the way of Islam is to regard everyone as one regards oneself. The sight of a human being should remind us of the Creator who has created all human beings. It should remind us of God’s miraculous powers to grant life. Thus, it must bring us to God-realization. This tradition clearly tells us of the practice of the Prophet of Islam regarding respect for all people. It is strange that none of the commentators of the Hadith have taken the main lesson from this.

Source: Spirit of Islam February 2014