Continue reading »]]> By Yoginder Sikand

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is one of India’s leading Islamic scholars. Based in New Delhi, he has authored over 100 books, and edits the monthly journal Al-Risala. He also heads the Centre for Peace and Spirituality. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the Muslim leadership in contemporary India.

What do you have to say about the Muslim leadership in present-day India? How has it been able to address the many issues and challenges that Muslims are today confronted with?

Although they form the single largest minority in India, the Indian Muslims, I regret to say, completely lack leadership. Those who are projected by the media as Muslim leaders are largely media creations. The media highlights some men who deliver fiery speeches or make sensationalist statements and then presents them as ‘Muslim leaders’. And, in this way, both Islam and Muslims get a bad name.

A real leader is one who leads people, and who is followed by the people —a person like Gandhi. Unfortunately, the Indian Muslims do not have any such leader. A true leader is one whose advice people heed. But, Indian Muslims do not have any such leader today.

Let me cite an instance to clarify what I mean. The destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was one of the biggest disasters and challenges that the Indian Muslims had to face after the Partition. Soon after the demolition of the mosque, various figures associated with the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, which presents itself as the leader of the Muslims of India, gathered in Bombay and declared that, henceforth, Muslims must observe the day of the demolition of the mosque as Babri Masjid Day every year. But, Muslims ignored their advice. So, what was the leadership that these men were able to provide?

There are several factors for the absence of Muslim leadership, but I will focus on just some of them. One reason is that Muslims have not even gone through what can be called the pre-leadership process, which requires serious political education of the community on realistic lines. This requires reaching out to the community and educating the people about practical political realities. Because this sort of education has not been even attempted, Muslim votes, even in Muslim-dominated constituencies, are easily split, as a result of which Muslim candidates are not able to be elected. There are almost 100 constituencies across India where Muslims are in sizeable numbers and where, if they vote sensibly, they can easily ensure the victory of Muslim candidates. But because Muslims are not politically educated and lack proper political consciousness, and because of the political ambitions of some of their self-styled leaders, multiple Muslim candidates stand for elections in these constituencies and they all lose. This is one of the reasons for the fact that Muslims are far less in numbers in elected assemblies than what their numbers warrant.

How should this problem be addressed?

Political awareness, educating Muslims about the importance of secularism and democracy, is really crucial. In this regard, I think the existing Muslim or Urdu media and ‘leaders’ have failed to play the role they should have. Instead of providing sensible advice and properly educating Muslims, the Muslim media and ‘leaders’ have just one job—to protest and complain—against the state, against Hindutva outfits and against other communities. This is a very negative approach. What we need is a positive approach and positive efforts, not negative reactions that cannot change things and that, in fact, make them worse.

My point, therefore, is that in order to create a positive-oriented and effective leadership, we need to create proper political consciousness among Muslims. We need to educate them so that they are able to understand that democracy and secularism are not un-Islamic or anti-Islamic. This is a wrong interpretation of Islam. In Islam, certain beliefs, such as faith in the one God and belief in the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad, are fixed and cannot change. At the same time, however, Islam allows us flexibility in political policies which must be suited to different spatio-temporal contexts. Unfortunately, some ideologues refuse to recognize this, and continue to brand secularism and democracy as ‘un-Islamic’ and hanker after the dream of establishing an Islamic state or take refuge in the memory of the times when Muslims ruled India, thus making elections only a means for Muslims to express their anger.

Islam is an eminently practical religion. God says in the Quran that He does not place a burden on people more than they can bear. In the light of this, it can safely be said that to hanker after the dream of an Islamic or Muslim state in India, where Muslims are a minority, as some ideologues do, is not just wholly impractical but also not at all in accordance with the Islamic method. It is also bound to exacerbate communal conflicts even further.

What, then, should Muslims do?

Because Islam is a practical religion, it calls for a practical and realistic form of politics to serve its higher aims. In this context, it is imperative that Muslims take a realistic and practical approach to politics, which, sadly, their ‘leaders’ lack. Muslims must be made aware of the political realities they are faced with. They need to be convinced that secularism and democracy are not un-Islamic, and that are really a boon or blessing that provide new opportunities for us, which we have failed to take advantage of. A true leader is one who discovers opportunities even in adversity and knows how to use them in a positive manner. Sadly, self-styled Muslim ‘leaders’ do not possess this skill at all.

Another reason for the absence of leadership among Muslims is their marked tendency to blame others for all their ills. Although this is not warranted by Islam at all, many Muslims today believe that it is non-Muslims who are wholly responsible for their backwardness. Hence, they consider non-Muslims as ‘enemies’ and allege that they are engaged in all sorts of conspiracies against them. This attitude leads them to look at others with hate and anger, and does no good to Muslims themselves. In this way, these Muslims spare themselves the responsibility of introspection. They absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own pathetic state of affairs.

This sort of very negative thinking has become deeply ingrained among Muslims in recent decades. One of the major causes of this was European colonialism, which decimated existing Muslim empires. The colonial invasion of Muslim lands provoked strong reactions among Muslims against the West. Instead of simply targeting the West, they should also have recognized their own weaknesses, which is what allowed the West to invade and occupy their lands in the first place. This, however, Muslims did not do. Hence, they were unable to properly appreciate the fact that the West was able to dominate Muslims because after the early centuries of Islam Muslims stopped making any contributions to science and technology. Instead of looking within and seeing where they had gone wrong and understanding how this had weakened them and allowed the West to conquer them, they focused all their energies on attacking the West for their ills. This approach laid the seeds of negative thinking, of blaming others entirely for their problems, instead of seeing where they themselves had gone wrong.

This negative thinking was never seriously addressed, and so now it has become a deep-rooted tradition. When people get into a reactive, negative mode of thinking, they cannot think positively. This, lamentably, is the present-day Muslim predicament. They do not seem to realize that by agitating constantly against others they are driving them away from Islam and further alienating them from Muslims. In this way, they are working against the divine task that has been given to the believers to undertake, ofdawah or conveying the message of Islam to others. By constantly branding others for their ills, they are also making themselves even more incapable of relating to others properly, of working together with them for common purposes and of learning positive and useful things from them. This is certainly one of the major causes of Muslim backwardness not just in India but worldwide, too.

What are your views on the Muslim religious leadership? Often, they come up with unnecessary fatwas that stir considerable controversy, being quickly highlighted and sensationalized by the media.

I am totally against the misuse of fatwas. A fatwa is a personal opinion, and it must be about a problem that directly concerns the questioner personally. If it is asked about a general social problem, it leads to what I call the phenomenon of ‘fatwa activism’, which, to my mind, is a biddat or unwanted innovation, which is impermissible in Islam. Such general social problems should be addressed by social reform, counselling, not by fatwas. Issuing fatwas against general social ills cannot cure them. What is needed, instead, is sustained social reform—through writing and activism. Often, fatwas given on such social issues simply fail to have any effect at all. Moreover, if these fatwas are incorrect, they only lead to further stigmatization of Muslims and to reinforcing unwarranted, but, at the same time, deeply-rooted, misconceptions about Islam.

Take the case of the fatwa recently issued by an Indian madrasa on working Muslim women. How many such women are going to obey the fatwa at all? Hardly any, if at all, I imagine.

To stop this misuse of fatwas, we need to address the issue of general Muslim educational and intellectual backwardness. The only way out of this predicament is for Muslims to take to modern education. If that happens, all this would automatically stop. In this regard, it is heartening to note that growing numbers of young Muslims are indeed going in for modern education, though I must state that the standards of Muslim schools remain woefully low.

Another point that must be kept in mind is that simply having a madrasa degree or a certificate of having gone through a mufti training course does not qualify one to issue fatwa. The ulema are described in a report attributed to the Prophet Muhammad as the ‘heirs of the prophets’ (waris-e anbiya). This is undoubtedly true, but it does not mean that any and every person who has studied in a madrasa is an ‘heir of the prophets’. Rather, that noble status is reserved for those who are truly ulema or ulema-e haq, who know both the Quran and the Hadith and also have a thorough knowledge of the situation prevailing in their societies. On the other hand are the ‘scholars’ who have neither the deep knowledge of Islam nor the spirit of the age, and whose wrong interpretations of Islam can cause great strife and damage the image of Islam.

I think it is imperative for us to realize that the time for fatwa activism is now over. What we need now is dawah activism, which is something that I have been engaged in for several decades. As Muslims, our principle task isdawah, which entails relating with love and concern to people of other faiths as well as to present before others the true teachings of the Quran. In this regard, I regret to say that certain totally unwarranted interpretations of Islam and fatwas constitute the major challenge to dawah work. They create among non-Muslims the image that Muslims are misfits who are simply unable to properly adjust to this modern age, who are ignorant of this world, and who believe that violence and agitation are the only means to have their voices heard.

You just mentioned the need for modern education. What has been the attitude of Muslim leaders towards this issue?

As I said, it is heartening to note that increasing numbers of Muslim boys and girls are going in for higher modern education today. This must be at the core of the agenda of Muslim organizations. They must also ensure that the quality of the education that Muslim schools provide is excellent, which is not actually the case presently.

At the same time, I would also insist that Muslims seek to stand on merit, rather than on artificial crutches like reservations. Look at institutions like the Jamia Millia Islamia and the Aligarh Muslim University, which Muslim organizations insist must cater essentially to Muslims, for, as some Muslims argue, where else could Muslims go? This sort of thinking is self-defeating and can only dampen the pursuit of merit and excellence and further Muslim intellectual backwardness. Islam stresses merit but self-styled Muslim leaders demand reservations and other crutches. This is the age of competition and we must realize this.

To put it mildly, you do not enjoy much popularity among most Muslims. Some of them even brand you, if I may be permitted to say this, as an ‘agent’—of the West, Israel or the BJP. What do you have to say about this?

It is not true to say that all or most Muslims are opposed to my way of thinking. My books and my magazine, Al-Risala, are widely read among Muslims. My television programmes also have a large number of viewers, Muslims as well as others.

It is true that some Islamist ideologues do not agree with me. But, the fact of the matter is that even many of these critics do not find fault with my works on the Quran, the Hadith and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, what they find problematic is my approach to political and community-related issues.

Personally, I do not agree entirely with your approach on various political issues, such as Kashmir and Palestine. But, as you were saying…

Let me finish. My position on these and other political issues is not something that I have devised on my own. Rather, it is inspired by my understanding of Islam, which stresses realism and a realistic approach to such conflicts. So, for instance, I maintain that if the Arabs had accepted the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinians would not be in such a pathetic position today and the West Asian crisis would not have assumed such catastrophic proportions. Likewise, my position on the Babri Masjid was that Muslims must not agitate on the streets but should let the courts decide the matter. Similarly, I have consistently maintained that the Kashmiris must accept the Line of Control as a permanent international border.

So, as I was saying, while my writings on the Quran, the Prophet, and Islam in general are widely appreciated among Muslims, including among my critics, my position on these political or communal conflicts are what my critics do not like. They want me to lambast the RSS, America, and the Jews, which I do not do because the correct Islamic position is to blame oneself instead of others for one’s own problems. The Quran clearly spells out that whatever ill befalls a person is because of man’s own doings. Thus, it says:

‘Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned’ (42: 30).

This is a clear Islamic principle. Elsewhere, the Quran talks about the damage that Muslims suffered in the battles of Uhud and Hunayn, wherein the aggressors were the pagan Quraish, but here, too, it says that the losses the Muslims had to face were because of their own mistakes—in Uhud because of their own differences (3:152) and in Hunayn because of their pride (9:25) . Here the Quran does not place the blame for the Muslims’ losses on the pagan Quraish even though the latter were the ones who had started the fighting. This clearly indicates a central Islamic principle—that one must constantly introspect and, instead of blaming others for one’s weaknesses, one must recognize one’s own faults and seek to rectify them.

That is why I constantly appeal to Muslims to search within, to see where they have gone wrong instead of constantly blaming others for their miseries. But, when, in accordance with this Islamic principle, I do so, I am met with angry outpourings from many Muslims, who, out of anger and communal pride, falsely brand me as an agent of the West or of Israel or the RSS or whatever and of being funded by them.

This is not at all the correct Islamic approach. The fact of the matter is that their attitude to such political and communal issues and even their own interpretation of Islam is deeply moulded by narrow communal prejudice, which is a contradiction of true Islam. I cannot at all agree with some Muslims who go to the extent of branding non-Muslims as ‘unclean’ and ‘enemies of Islam’, because this is simply not permissible in Islam, if it is understood in its right perspective. Such so-called Muslims are themselves an enemy of Islam and Islamic dawah while claiming to champion these causes.

Despite the criticism that I face, I refuse to play the blame game and to brand non-Muslims as enemies and the cause of the miseries of the Muslims. This is simply because Islam does not permit me to do so. According to Islam, the prime responsibility of Muslims is to engage indawah, inviting others to Islam, the path of God. This requires that we, in our capacity of dais should treat others not as enemies but as madu’ or recipients of the Islamic dawah. For that we need to relate to them with love, sincerity and concern, not with hatred.

(Maulana Wahiduddin Khan can be contacted on info@cpsglobal.org. Many of his writings can be accessed on cpsglobal.org andalrisala.org.
—
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)

source: http://twocircles.net/2010may25/maulana_wahiduddin_khan_muslim_leadership_contemporary_india.html

Continue reading »]]> by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
In its declaration the United Nations held the year 1995 as the year of tolerance. Now we have come close to the end of the year. Tolerance is a permanent human requirement. In this respect the subject of today’s discussion is very important.

All the great religions of the world can be broadly divided into two categories: Aryan religions and Semitic religions. So far as I have studied I have found that tolerance has been given equal importance in both these types of religions. Religion makes a man a spiritually developed human being. One who has elevated his spirituality can not afford intolerance. The behavior of a truly religious person is always one of tolerance.

So far as I have studied the difference between the two types of religions is that of rationale of tolerance instead of tolerance itself. The philosophic ground of tolerance in the Aryan religions is derived from their belief that truth is an all-pervading reality. According to this concept, the psychology of a religious person is that ‘If I am in the right, you too, according to your own tradition are in the right.” That is to say, tolerance in Aryan religions is based on the concept of manyness of reality.

The philosophic base of tolerance in Semitic religions is different from this, as these religions believe in the principle of oneness of reality. However, so far as the question of human respect is concerned, Semitic religions lay equal emphasis on this value. That is to say, the difference in this respect in both the branches of religions is one of philosophy not of practice.

To put it differently the basis of tolerance in Aryan religions is on mutual recognition, while its basis in Semitic religions is on mutual respect. This difference is only one of philosophic explanation. So far as practical behavior is concerned, there is no difference in either religions in this respect.

To sum it up, the spirit of tolerance is the essence of all religions. The man produced by religion can never be divested of the spirit of tolerance. Intolerance appears to be directed at others, but it is akin to killing man’s own religious personality. Then how can a sincere person be willing to kill himself by his own hands.

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/tolerance/tolerance.htm

Continue reading »]]> Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

So far as Islam is concerned, it is an entirely tolerant religion. Islam desires peace to prevail in the world. The Qur’an calls the way of Islam ‘the paths of Peace’ (5:16). The state of peace can never prevail in a society if a tolerant attitude is lacking in the people. Tolerance is the only basis for peace; in a society where tolerance is absent, peace likewise will be non-existent.

Peace is the religion of the universe. Peace should, therefore, be the religion of man too, so that, in the words of Bible, the will of the Lord may be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

In a similar vein, the Qur’an tells us that: “The sun is not allowed to overtake the moon, nor does the night outpace the day. Each in its own orbit runs” (36:40).

When God created heaven and the earth, He so ordered things that each part might perform its function peacefully without clashing with any other part. For billions of years, therefore, the entire universe has been fulfilling its function in total harmony with His divine plan.The universe is following this path of peace—which is known in science as the law of nature as it is imposed upon it by God, whereas man has to adopt this path of peace of his own free will. This has been expressed in the Qur’an in these words: “Are they seeking a religion other than God’s, when every soul in heaven and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion? To Him they shall all return” (3:83).

Peace is no external factor to be artificially imposed upon man. Peace is inherent in nature itself. The system of nature set up by God already rests on the basis of peace. If this system is not disrupted, it will continue to stay the course set for it by the Almighty. But the only way to keep humanity on the path of peace is to rid it of corruption. That is why the Qur’an enjoins: “And do not corrupt the land after it has been set in order” (7:85).

In order to preserve the peace, established by nature, from disruption, two important injunctions have been laid down by Islam. One, at the individual level, stresses the exercise of patience, and the other, at the social level, forbids taking the offensive.

1. Negative reaction on the part of the individual is the greatest factor responsible for disrupting peace in daily life. It repeatedly happens that in social life one experiences bitterness on account of others. On such occasions, if one reacts negatively, the matter will escalate to the point of a head-on collision. That is why Islam repeatedly enjoins us to tread the path of patience. The Qur’an says: Surely the patient will be paid their wages in full without measure (39:10).The reason for the rewards for patience being so great is that patience is the key factor in maintaining the desired system of God. In the words of the Qur’an the patient man is the helper of God (61:14).
2. The other injunction, designed to maintain peace in human society, forbids the waging of an offensive war. No one in Islam enjoys the right to wage war against another. There are no grounds on which this could be considered justifiable.There is only one kind of war permitted in Islam and that is a defensive war. If a nation, by deviating from the principles of nature, wages war against another nation, defense in such circumstances, subject to certain conditions, is temporarily allowed.

To sum up, Islam is a religion of peace. The Arabic root of Islam, ‘silm’, means peace. The Qur’an says: ‘…and God calls to the home of peace’ (10:25).

Peace is basic to all religions. Let us all strive then to establish peace in the world, for that is the bedrock on which all human progress rests.

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/tolerance/tolrntrlgn.htm

Continue reading »]]> Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Non-violence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. Non-violence is action in the full sense of the word. Rather it is more forceful an action than that of violence. It is a fact that non-violent activism is more powerful and effective than violent activism.

Non-violent activism is not limited in its sphere. It is a course of action which may be followed in all matters.

Whenever individuals, groups or communities are faced with a problem, one way to solve it is by resorting to violence. The better way is to attempt to solve the problem by peaceful means, avoiding violence and confrontation. Peaceful means may take various forms. In fact, it is the nature of the problem which will determine which of these peaceful methods is applicable to the given situation.

Islam is a religion which teaches non-violence. According to the Qur’an, God does not love fasad, violence. What is meant here by fasad is clearly expressed in verse 205 of the second Surah. Basically, fasad is that action which results in disruption of the social system, causing huge losses in terms of lives and property.

Conversely, we can say with certainty that God loves non-violence. He abhors violent activity being indulged in human society, as a result of which people have to pay the price with their possessions and lives. This is supported by other statements in the Qur’an. For instance, we are told in the Qur’an that peace is one of God’s names (59:23). Those who seek to please God are assured by verse 5 of the sixteenth surah that they will be guided by Him to “the paths of peace.” Paradise, which is the final destination of the society of God’s choice, is referred to in the Qur’an as “the home of peace” (89:30), etc.

The entire spirit of the Qur’an is in consonance with this concept. For instance, the Qur’an attaches great importance to patience. In fact, patience is set above all other Islamic virtues with the exceptional promise of reward beyond measure. (39:10)

Patience implies a peaceful response or reaction, whereas impatience implies a violent response. The word Sabr exactly expresses the notion of non-violence as it is understood in modern times. That patient action is non-violent action has been clearly expressed in the Qur’an. According to one tradition, the Prophet of Islam observed: God grants to rifq (gentleness) what he does not grant to unf (violence). (Sunan, Abu Dawood, 4/255)

The word rifq has been used in this hadith as an antithesis to unf. These terms convey exactly what is meant by violence and non-violence in present times. This hadith clearly indicates the superiority of the non-violent method.

God grants on non-violence what He does not grant to violence is no simple matter. It has very wide and deep implications. It embodies an eternal law of nature. By the very law of nature all bad things are associated with violence, while all good things are associated with non-violence.

Violent activities breed hatred in society, while non-violent activities elicit love. Violence is the way of destruction while non-violence is the way of construction. In an atmosphere of violence, it is enmity which flourishes, while in an atmosphere of non-violence, it is friendship which flourishes. The method of violence gives way to negative values while the method of non-violence is marked by positive values. The method of violence embroils people in problems, while the method of non-violence leads people to the exploiting of opportunities. In short, violence is death, non-violence is life.

Both the Qur’an and the hadith have attached great importance to jihad. What is jihad? Jihad means struggle, to struggle one’s utmost. It must be appreciated at the outset that this word is used for non-violent struggle as opposed to violent struggle. One clear proof of this is the verse of the Qur’an (25:52) which says: Perform jihad with this (i.e. the word of the Qur’an) most strenuously.

The Qur’an is not a sword or a gun. It is a book of ideology. In such a case performing jihad with the Qur’an would mean an ideological struggle to conquer peoples’ hearts and minds through Islam’s superior philosophy.

In the light of this verse of the Qur’an, jihad in actual fact is another name for peaceful activism or non-violent activism. Where qital is violent activism, jihad is non-violent activism.

Peaceful Beginning

When the Qur’an began to be revealed, the first verse of the revelation conveyed the injunction: ‘Read!’ (Iqra) (96:1). By perusing this verse we learn about the initiation of Islamic action. It begins from the point where there is hope of continuing the movement along peaceful lines, and not from that point where there are chances of its being marred by violence.

When the command of ‘Iqra’ was revealed, there were many options available in Mecca as starting points for a movement. For instance, one possible starting point was to launch a movement to purify the Kabah of the 360 idols installed in it. But, by pursuing such a course the Islamic movement would certainly have had to face a violent reaction from the Quraysh. An alternative starting point could have been an attempt to secure a seat in the Dar-al-Nadwa (Mecca’s parliament). At that time almost the whole of Arabia was under the direct or indirect influence of the Roman and Sasanid empires. If the freeing of Arabia from this influence had been made the starting point, this would also have been met with an immediate violent reaction on the part of the Quraysh.

Leaving aside these options, the path followed was that of reading the Qur’an, an activity that could be with certainty continued along peaceful lines: no violent reaction would ensue from engaging in such an activity.

The Prophet of Islam followed this principle throughout his life. His policy was that of adopting non-violent methods in preference to violent methods. It is this policy which was referred to by Aishah, the Prophet’s wife, in these words: Whenever the Prophet had to opt for one of two ways, he almost always opted for the easier one. (Fathul Bari 6/654)

What are the advantages of non-violent activism over violent activism? They are briefly stated as under:

1. According to the Qur’an there are two faculties in every human being which are mutually antipathetic. One is the ego, and the other is the conscience called respectively nafs ammara and nafs lawwama. (The Qur’an, 12:53; 75:26) What the violent method invariably does is to awaken the ego which necessarily results in a breakdown of social equilibrium. On the other hand, non-violent activism awakens the conscience. From this results an awakening in people of introspection and self-appraisal. And according to the Qur’an, the miraculous outcome of this is that “he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend.” (41:34)
2. A great advantage of the non-violent method is that, by following it, no part of one’s time is wasted. The opportunities available in any given situation may then be exploited to the fullest extent—as happened after the no-war pact of Hudaybiya. This peace treaty enabled the energies of the believers to be utilized in peaceful constructive activities instead of being dissipated in a futile armed encounter. One great harm done by violent activism is the breaking of social traditions in the launching of militant movements. Conversely, the great benefit that accrues from non-violent activism is that it can be initiated and prolonged with no damage to tradition.

Generally speaking, attempts to improve or replace existing systems by violent activism are counter-productive. One coup d’état is often the signal for a series of coups and counter-coups, none of which benefit the common man. The truly desirable revolution is that which permits gradual and beneficial changes. And this can be achieved only on the basis of non-violence.

Success Through the Non-violence Method

All the great successes of the first phase of Islam as well as the succeeding periods were achieved by non-violent methods. Listed below are some examples of these successes.

1. Of the 23 year period of prophethood, the initial 13 years were spent by the Prophet in Mecca. The Prophet fully adopted the way of pacifism or non-violence during this time. There were many such issues in Mecca at that time which could have been the subject of clash and confrontation. But, sedulously avoiding all such issues, the Prophet of Islam strictly limited his sphere to peaceful propagation of the word of God. This resulted in Dawah work being performed in full force throughout this period. One of the great gains during these 13 years of dawah work was the entry into the Islamic fold of men of the highest moral caliber who were responsible for forming the history of Islam, for instance, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali, etc.
2. In Mecca when the Quraysh leaders were set to wage war against the Prophet, even then, instead of opting for the way of reaction and retaliation, what the Prophet did was to secretly migrate to Medina.

Migration, by its very nature, was a clear example of non-violent activism. This peaceful strategy enabled the Prophet and his followers, about two hundred in number, to form a powerful center of Islam in Medina. Had they adopted the path of confrontation instead of peaceful migration, the history of Islam might have been buried right there in Mecca shortly after its inception.
3. After the emigration, his antagonists took the unilateral decision to wage war against him. Consequently such bloody encounters as those of Badr and Uhud took place. Then the Prophet made a 10-year peace treaty known in history as Sulh al-Hudaybiya, by accepting all the conditions of his opponents. This has been called a ‘clear victory’ in the Qur’an. It is this peace treaty, paving the way for peaceful constructive activities which ultimately made possible the conquest of Mecca and the whole of Arabia.
4. By the end of the pious caliphate, a bloody encounter took place between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayya. This stopped the advance of Islam for a period of ten years. What set this process in motion once again was the voluntary withdrawal of Hasan ibn Ali (d. 50 A.H.) from the battlefield. This was undeniably a practical form of non-violent activism. This peaceful move on the part of Hasan ibn Ali re-opened to Islam the locked doors of progress.
5. During the last days of the Abbasid caliphate Mongol tribes attacked the Muslim world and right from Samarkand to Aleppo destroyed the entire Muslim world. The history of Islam had apparently come to a standstill. At that moment the spirit of dawah work was born within the Muslims. As a result, the majority of the Mongols converted to Islam. And that miracle took place which has been described by an orientalist in these words: “The religion of Muslims has conquered where their arms had failed.”
6. Islamic history took a crucial turn when, in the years succeeding the pious caliphate, rot had set in the system of the government, and the caliphate had turned into monarchy. At that juncture, many factors emerged which would result in clash and confrontation between the ruler and the ruled. But, following the guidance of the Prophet, the Muslims totally avoided political confrontation. This history beginning with the Umayyad caliphate, continued for several centuries. This was possible because the tabieen (companions of the Prophet’s companions) and their succeeding generations, consisting of traditionalists, jurists, ulema, Sufis and other great religious scholars, all scrupulously avoided any clash or confrontation with the rulers.

It was during this period that peaceful dawah work was started in various countries and the disciplines of hadith, fiqh and other Islamic sciences came into existence on a large scale after a long period of great ideological struggle. All the precious books which adorn our libraries, all the classical literature of Islam are the result of these peaceful activities.

For instance, the hadith as a source of shariah is second only to the Qur’an in Islam. These traditions now exist in the form of printed books. These books are so precious that, without them, it would not have been possible to develop Islam into a complete system as it exists today. During the Umayyads and Abbasids, when the political system had begun to deteriorate, where were these tens of thousands of traditions. All of them existed in the memory of the religious scholars, whose names are mentioned in the books as chains in the link of authorities who have handed this legacy down to us. Had they adopted the principle of violent activism and clashed with the ‘oppressive’ rulers, they would all have been slaughtered by them and the entire legacy of traditions instead of finding a place on the pages of books, would have been buried along with them in the graveyards. It is by the miracle of having adopted non-violence instead of violence that the precious sources of our traditions have survived in book form and, till today, adorn our libraries.

Political Revolt Unlawful

Despite the blatant perversion in the Muslim rulers after the pious caliphate, the Muslim ulema did not lead an insurrection against these corrupt individuals. For about a period of one thousand years they remained detached in this matter and continued to engage all their efforts in non-material fields. This was not a matter of accident but in obedience to the injunctions of the shariah.

As we know, in the books of hadith detailed traditions have been set down in the chapters titled ‘kitabul fitan’. The Prophet of Islam observed in plain words that in later times perversions would set in the rulers, they would become tyrannical and unjust, but that Muslims should not wield their swords against them. They should rather move to the mountains with their goats and camels.

By ‘goats and camels’ are meant the opportunities in non-political fields which exist, even when the political institutions are corrupted. This injunction given by the Prophet meant that the Muslims should avail of such opportunities by avoiding clash and confrontation in the political field. In short, by ignoring the political problem, they should avail of the non-political opportunities.

These injunctions of the Prophet of Islam were so clear that the Muslim ulema of later times formed a consensus to make insurrection against the rulers unlawful.

Imam An-Nawawi, commenting upon some traditions as set forth by Sahih Muslim (Kitab Al-Imarah) observes: “You should not come into conflict with the rulers in matters of their power. Even if you find them going against express Islamic injunctions, you should attempt to make the truth clear to them solely through words of wisdom and advice. So far as revolt and war against them in order to unseat them is concerned, that is totally unlawful according to the consensus of the ulema, even when the rulers are zalim and fasiq (tyrants and evil).” (Sahih Muslim, Bisharh An-Nawawi, 12/229)

This command of the Prophet, as clearly expressed above, was based on extremely important considerations. In actual fact, in the early phase of Islam (as well as in the later phase) dawah and reform works had to be performed, without which the history of Islam would not have been complete. If the ulema of the Muslim community had tried to pose a threat to the political institutions, certainly all this constructive work would have been left undone. That is why the Prophet of Islam expressly prohibited any clash with political institutions. This avoidance of strife guaranteed that non-political constructive work would continue to be performed without any break.

In every society there are always two systems side by side, one political and the other non-political. The latter is established through various non-political institutions. According to the scheme of Islam, non-political institutions established at the social level have always to remain stable. In this way there is a continuing endeavor—even when the political institutions have become corrupt, or keep changing—to keep Islam firmly established at the level of the non-political system.

The Command of War in Islam

It is a fact that certain verses in the Qur’an convey the command to do battle (qital) (22:39). What the special circumstances are which justify the issuance of and compliance with this command we learn from our study of the Qur’an.

1. The first point to be noted is that aggression or the launching of an offensive by the believers is not totally forbidden. It is permissible, but with certain provisos. We are clearly commanded in the Qur’an: Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not be aggressive. (2:190)
2. Only defensive war is permitted in Islam. Such a war is one in which aggression is committed by some other party so that the believers have to fight in self-defense. Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Qur’an says: “They were the first to attack you.” (9:13)

Furthermore, even in the case of the offensive being launched by an opposing group, the believers are not supposed to retaliate immediately. Rather in the beginning all efforts are to be made to avert war, and only when avoidance has become impossible is battle to be resorted to inevitably in defense.

3. According to the Qur’an there was one form of war which was time- bound strictly in relation to its purpose. This was to put an end to fitna ‘Fight against them until fitna is no more.’ (2:193) In this verse fitna signifies that coercive system which had reached the extremes of religious persecution. In ancient times this coercive political system prevailed all over the world. This absolutism had closed all the doors of progress, both spiritual and material. At that time God commanded the believers to break this coercive system in order to usher in freedom, so that all doors of spiritual and material progress might be opened to man.

This mission was undertaken and brought to a successful conclusion at the internal level within Arabia during the life of the Prophet. Later, during the pious caliphate, the Sasanid and Byzantine empires were dismantled with special divine succor. Consequently, intellectual oppression at the international level was replaced by intellectual freedom.

In this connection those traditions are worth noting which are enshrined in Sahih al-Bukhari. When, after the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, political conflict ensued between Abdullah ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads, Abdullah ibn Umar, the seniormost companion of the Prophet held himself aloof from the battle. People approached him and, quoting the verse of qital-e-fitna, asked him why he was not joining in the battle. Abdullah ibn Umar replied that ‘fitna’ as mentioned in the Qur’an did not refer to political infighting, but rather to the religious coercive system, that had already been put to an end by them. (Fathul Bari, 8/60)

From this we learn that the war against fitna was a war of limited duration, meant to be engaged in only until its specific purpose had been served.

Invoking the Quranic exhortation to do battle against fitna in order to validate acts of war which had quite other aims was improper. This verse could be cited only if the same state of affairs as existed at the time of its revelation, were to prevail once again.

The biographers of the Prophet of Islam have put the number of Ghazwa (battle) at more than 80. This gives the impression that the Prophet of Islam in his 23-year prophetic career waged about four battles in a year. But this impression is entirely baseless. The truth is that the Prophet of Islam in his entire prophetic life, engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as Ghazwa were in actual fact examples of avoidance of war and not instances of involvement in battle.

For instance, in the books of seerah, the incident of Al-Ahzab is called a Ghazwa (battle), whereas the truth is that on this occasion the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Medina with all intentions of waging war, but the Prophet and his companions dug a deep trench between them, thus successfully preventing a battle from taking place. The same is the case with all the other incidents called Ghazwa. The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to get him embroiled in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort to some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation.

There were only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle—Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. But the events tell us that on all these occasions, war had become inevitable, so that the Prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defense. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning from noon and ending with the setting of the sun. Thus it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half. That is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year prophetic career, except for one and a half days.

The Islamic method, being based totally on the principle of non-violence, it is unlawful for believers to initiate hostilities. Except in cases where self-defense has become inevitable, the Qur’an in no circumstance gives permission for violence.

The Modern Age and Non-Violence

The greatest problem facing Islam today is, as I see it, that Muslims have almost totally forgotten the sunnah (Prophet’s way) of non-violence. In latter times when the Ottoman and Mughal empires disintegrated and problems like those besetting Palestine have had to be confronted by the faithful, Muslims all over the world have fallen a prey to negative reaction on a colossal scale; they have failed to remember that the policy of Islam is not that of violence but of non-violence. It is the result of this deviation, that despite almost a 100-years of bloody wars, Muslims have achieved no positive gain. Rather whatever they already had has been lost by them.

According to Imam Malik, later generations of this Ummah (Muslim community) settled matters at issue in the same way that earlier generations had done, i.e. non-violent methods. Similarly, Muslims of modern times must likewise resort only to non-violent methods. Just as no gain could accrue from violent methods earlier, no gain can accrue from violent methods today.

The state of affairs of Muslims in modern times resembles that which prevailed at the time of Hudaybiya. Today once again — only on a far larger scale — this hamiyat al-jahiliya prejudices prevailing in pre-Islamic Arabia (48:28) is being displayed by the other party. In the first phase of Islam its solution lay in Muslims sedulously avoiding an equivalent display of prejudice, and in holding firmly kalema at-taqwa they became entitled to the succor of God and were granted a clear victory (48:26).

At the time of the Hudaybiya peace treaty, the Quraysh, who had secured the leadership of Arabia, were bent on waging war. The Kaaba was in their possession. They had expelled the Prophet and his companions from their home town. They had taken possession of Muslims’ homes and other properties, and spared no effort in disseminating negative propaganda against Islam.

Given this state of affairs, there were only two options before the believers. One was to attempt to put an end to tyranny and launch an outright war on the other party in the name of securing their rights. The result of such a move would certainly have been further loss in terms of lives and property.

The second option was to remain patient in the face of immediate loss, be it political or material, and, in spite of the losses avail of whatever opportunities are already available. The Prophet of Islam and his companions chose this second course. The result was that in just a few years time the entire history of Arabia was altered for the better by an Islamic revolution.

The same state of affairs is widespread in modern times. Although today Muslims have suffered great losses, political and material, at the hands of other nations, there still exist a great number of opportunities only for self-betterment and for dawah work on a far larger scale. If availed of wisely, we can rewrite the history of Islam in magnificent terms.

The Manifestation of Religion

The aim of the revolution brought about by the Prophet and his companions in the seventh century is stated in the Qur’an to be izhar-e-deen. (Izhar in Arabic means dominance/ascendancy. Here izhar-e-deen signifies intellectual and ideological dominance, not political dominance. This means that in intellectual and ideological respects, God’s religion assumes ascendancy over all other ideologies and religions.)

Izhar-e-deen was not an incident of short duration, but an ongoing assertion of the eternal dominance of Islam. Its implication was that in the world of ideology, such a revolution would be brought about as would establish the supremacy of Islam forever. Its purpose was to unravel all the veils of superstition which clouded human judgement, and to lay bare the scientific proofs hidden in nature, so that the truth of monotheism could be brought to light for all humanity. As the Qur’an puts it, ‘They desire to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths: but Allah seeks only to perfect His light, however much the infidels may abhor it.’ (9:32, 33)

Granting ideological ascendancy to God’s religion was a matter of considerable complexity, amounting to the writing of history afresh. For although God’s unassailable truth had always existed, it had become obscured by false and misguided ideas, because thinking, the arts and learning in general, had all become fettered by superstition and idolatry. This had led to a veil being thrown over true religion, which was the only proper vehicle for God’s truth. The coercive systems of the monarchies which prevailed all over the world at that time were responsible for perpetuating this state of affairs, for any intellectual freedom, particularly the freedom of religion, would have been a challenge to their supreme authority. Under such systems, there could be only such social development as suited individual rulers, and there could be no scientific development whatsoever.

Systems of governance which depended on religious persecution had, therefore, to be overthrown, so that a propitious atmosphere could be created for the performance of dawah of the true religion. This was carried into effect with resounding success by the Prophet and his companions, and all arguments were rallied in support of God’s true religion, so that all other religions would be divested of their former influence. This abolition of oppressive systems and the freeing of people’s minds from superstition naturally led to free scientific inquiry, a process which Islam has continued to foster over the centuries without interruption, and which has culminated in the unparalleled scientific achievements of the present day.

The technological advance which have been made possible by this scientific revolution have in turn provided Islam with an improved means of propagating Islam, namely modern communications. By making use of the media, those engaged in dawah work can spread the word of God much further and much faster than ever before. According to a hadith, a time was to come when God’s word would enter all the homes in the world. (Musnad, Ahmad). This was indirectly a prediction of the advent of our modern age of communications.

In ancient times, the study of religion could be done only as something sacred and as a matter of dogma. That is why established and unestablished religions had not, academically been distinguished from one another. In modern times, thanks to the influence of the scientific revolution, the study of religions can be done as objectively and as critically as any other matter which comes under scientific scrutiny. Such critical study has proved, purely academically, that historically there is only one reliable religion, and that is Islam. All other religions are lacking in this historical credibility. Prior to this, the dayees of Islam could resort only to traditional arguments in support of their faith, but it has become possible to measure up Islamic realities by the highest standards of human knowledge and to establish its authenticity by purely logical arguments. Indeed, in latter times, the sciences themselves have borne out the divine truths of Islam.

Yet, despite modern developments, our own times are constantly regarded as being fraught with problems for Islam. Muslims, lacking in understanding and awareness, forget that the modern age has never ceased to be the age of Islam. They fail to appreciate that Islam’s potential remains undiminished, and that it is for believers to convert that potential into an immediate reality. They should take into account the fact that, in the wake of the scientific revolution, which is itself the direct outcome of the Islamic revolution, it has become possible to begin a serious and beneficial dialogue between Islam and non-Islam, the result of which will necessarily be in favor of Islam. Now, this being so, the need of the hour is for Muslims to put an end unilaterally to all violent activities against madu (addressee) nations, so that a normal, amicable relationship may be allowed to grow between dayee and madu.

A Great Opportunity

1. Since direct argument cannot be applied to religious beliefs pertaining to the unseen world, these can be supported only by indirect or inferential argument. Educated people had therefore come to believe that religious realities belonged only to the domain of dogma, and that they were not academic or scientific realities. But after the breaking up of the atom the science of logic has undergone a change, and it has been accepted that inferential argument too, in its nature, is as valid and reliable as direct argument. It has subsequently become possible for religious realities to be established on an academic level, i.e. exactly on the same level as material or non-religious theories.

2. In ancient times when man observed the world, it appeared to him that in nature there existed things which were very different from one another. This observation of appearance produced the mentality of idolatry. People began to think that in view of the great diversity of things in existence, their Creator too would perforce take many and varied shapes. But scientific study has shown that this variety is only that of appearance. Otherwise, all things in nature are different expressions of the same matter. In this way shirk(idolatry) came to be seen as an intellectually untenable practice, while monotheism gained the solid support of logic.

3. According to a statement of the Qur’an, the signs of God lay hidden in the earth and the heavens. The study of science has made it manifest to all men that the universe is a great storehouse of divine arguments. “We will show them Our signs in all the regions of the earth and in their own souls, until they clearly see that this is the Truth.” (41:53)

4. After the new discoveries of science, many such things have come to the knowledge of man as have rendered it possible to prove with new arguments those events which are of important religious significance. For instance, carbon 14 dating has made it possible to determine the exact age of the mummy of Ramses II, thereby providing scientific proof for the statement of the Qur’an that the body of Pharaoh was saved by God, so that it might become “a sign to all posterity.” (10:92)

Islam in the Present Age

Now the question arises as to whether an Islam which teaches non-violence can be of relevance in the present age, and assume a superior position once again in new situations.

The answer is entirely in the positive. The truth is that Islam’s being a peaceful religion shows that it is an eternal religion. Had it been a religion of violence, it would not have been eternal. For in modern times, the way of violence has been totally rejected by contemporary thinking. Now only that system is worthy of consideration and acceptance the teachings of which are based on peace and non-violence.

Modern thinking, for example, has rejected communism. One of the major reasons was that communism had to be sustained by violence. And under no circumstances is violence acceptable to the modern mind. Nazism and Fascism too have been rejected on similar grounds. Modern man, therefore, disapproves of religious and non-religious extremism, because they lead man, willy nilly, to violence.

But Islam is a religion of nature. It has held violence as inadmissible from the outset. Islam has been an upholder of peace, not violence, from day one.

In the past, Islam played a great role in the development of humanity, as a result of which human history entered a new age of progress and development. The time has come today for Islam to play a great constructive role, leading human history once again into a new age of progress.

What is called scientific or technical progress is the result of the discovery of some of the great secrets of nature. But if nature and its mysteries have always existed in our world, why has there been such a long delay in their discovery? Why could not the scientific advancement of the last few hundred years have been made thousands of years ago?The reason was that in ancient times scientific inquiry was anathema to men of religion, to the point where religious persecution had become an inseparable obstacle to the progress of science. Since ancient times, religion and science (divine knowledge and human knowledge) were linked with one another. What Islam did was separate religion (which had become, in essence, a set of irrational beliefs) from scientific research and investigation. For instance, eclipses of the sun and moon had been linked with human destiny. The Prophet of Islam declared that eclipses had nothing to do with the lot of human beings. These were astronomical events, not events pertaining to the fate of mankind. (Fathul Bari, 2/611)

The incident of the pollination of dates is recorded in the books of hadith. The Prophet of Islam observed that in worldly matters such as these, “you should act according to your experience, as you know these matters better.” (Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh An-Nawawi, 15/117)This meant delinking religion and science from one another. In this way scientific research acquired an atmosphere of freedom for its functioning. For the first time in human history science (human knowledge) could be developed freely without the intervention of religion. And advancing gradually, culminated in the attainment of the modern age.

But, today man is again facing an even greater problem. That is, despite the extraordinary progress made in the field of science and technology, human beings are confronted with the problem of not knowing the limit of freedom.

Modern man aspired to freedom as the highest good, but once having reached this goal, he was unable to set reasonable limits to freedom. In consequence, unrestrained freedom descended into anarchy and lawlessness. This is the actual cause of many of the problems which are emerging in modern times in western society. Now man requires an ideology which delimits his freedom, drawing the line between desirable and undesirable freedom. And it is only Islam which can provide him with such an ideology.

Now is the time for this ideology to be presented to man, who is ready and waiting to accept it.

After the fall of communism (1991), much of the world was and still is, faced with an ideological vacuum. This vacuum can be filled by Islam alone. In the present world the developed countries have become economic or military superpowers, but the place is vacant for an ideological superpower, and that, potentially belongs to Islam.There is only one obstacle in converting a great potential into a reality in favor of Islam. And that is the repeated recourse to violence by Muslim movements in modern times. Such action has presented Islam before the world in the guise of a violent religion. For this reason the man of today shies away from Islam. He fails to study Islam objectively. If this barrier could be removed and Islam once again brought before the world as a non-violent religion, or as a peaceful social system, then once again humanity would accept it, recognizing it to be the voice of its own nature.

Modern man is in need of a new religion or a new system, based on peace. It should be free from superstitious beliefs, and should provide the answers to deep psychological questions, on our flawed existence. Its principles should not clash with scientific realities, and it should be supported by a victorious history.

Today no religion but Islam can lay such positive claims to acceptance, for it is Islam and Islam alone which fulfills all these conditions. Individually, there are many men and women today who, after having studied Islam, have acknowledged these unique qualities in Islam. Some have acknowledged them in theory while others have gone ahead and accepted Islam in practice.

Dawah Activism

Islamic activism in respect of its method is based on non-violence and in respect of its target is based on dawah. Dawah, in fact, is another name for a peaceful struggle for the propagation of Islam. It would be true to say that Islamic activism in fact is dawah activism.

The task of dawah is no simple one. It enjoys the status of a key factor. If this task is fully performed, all other objectives will be automatically achieved. Here are certain references from the Qur’an in this connection.

1. Through dawah the believers receive God’s protection against the mischief of the opponents.
2. Through dawah even the direst of enemies turns into a dearest friend. (41:34)
3. Dawah proves Islam’s ideological superiority. And without doubt nothing is greater than the superiority of ideology. (10:32)
4. Through dawah a positive mentality is inculcated within the ummah. This is called ‘honest counsel’ in the Qur’an. (7:68)
5. The mission of dawah is performed by human beings but the conducive conditions for it are provided by God. Just as the farming is to be done by the farmer while the rains come from God. In modern times favorable conditions have been fully provided to man. Now the believers’ duty is to refrain from expending their energies in futile activities. They must exert their entire energy in dawah work. All the best results will ensue from this act.
6. The Prophet of Islam along with about two hundred of his companions left Mecca when the Meccan leaders had made it impossible for them to stay there. The Meccans had even decided to kill the Prophet. But the first speech the Prophet made on reaching Medina had no taste of bitterness, neither did it contain any mention of vengeance on or violence against the Quraysh.

On reaching Medina first priority was given to the task of entering into peace treaties with the tribes in and around Medina, for instance with the Banu Khuza‘a, etc. According to their pact neither would they fight against the Muslims nor would the Muslims fight against them. Most of the tribes in Arabia joined in these truce agreements.But the Quraysh did not desist from aggression, and even engaged in certain military forays against the Muslims. But, finally, in the sixth year of Hijrah, the Prophet succeeded in making a peace treaty with the Quraysh as well at a place called Hudaybiya, albeit on acceptance of all the conditions laid down by the Quraysh.

Muslims Displaced

It is an incontrovertible fact that Muslims have not been able to join the mainstream in modern times. At all places and in every department they are leading their lives as if driven into a corner. This is undoubtedly an extremely critical problem, for it has relegated Muslims to second class positions all over the world.

To me, the greatest reason for this is the violent attitude of the Muslims. Today’s Muslims are easily provoked and become violent at anything which is against their way of thinking, or even not to their liking. It is true that not all Muslims become involved in acts of violence. Yet all Muslims would be regarded involved in this matter. This is because that section, of Muslims—in fact, the majority—who are not personally involved, neither disown those members of their community who are engaged in violence, nor even condemn them. In such a case, according to the Islamic shariah itself if the involved Muslims are directly responsible, the uninvolved Muslims are also indirectly responsible.

It is Muslims’ religious and secular leaders who are actually responsible for this violent approach on the part of Muslims today. In modern times when Muslims have had to undergo the experience of defeat, almost all the religious, secular scholars (ulama) and intellectuals follow one single line, that of awakening the spirit of jihad (in the sense of qital) among Muslims. The entire Muslim world reverberates with such slogans as ‘Jihad is our way and Jihad is the only solution to our problems!’

The entire world has witnessed a great number of large and small movements in violent response to the problems faced by Muslims.If you go to Palestine, you will hear the youth singing a song no doubt taught to them by their elders:

Let’s make war, let’s make war,For war is the way to success.

In modern times the violent approach of our ulema, intellectuals, and leaders of movements, is the sole reason for the present violent mentality among Muslims all over the world. It is as a result of this mentality that, if anyone writes a book against Islam, Muslims are prepared to kill the writer. If any procession raises anti-Muslim slogans, Muslims start stoning the procession instead of killing the evil by observing silence, which, as Umar Faruq advocated, would be the best strategy in this case. If there is any monetary or territorial controversy with any nation, they immediately take up arms against it, rather than adopt a peaceful strategy to solve the problem.

This violent mentality of Muslims is responsible for having alienated them from their neighbors everywhere. Their conduct clearly shows that they no longer cherish the ideal of universal brotherhood. Everywhere they are looked upon with aversion and dread. One can even see notices on walls which say ‘Beware of Muslims’, instead of ‘Beware of dogs.’ And if these words are not inscribed on walls, they are certainly inscribed on the hearts and minds of the people. The resulting dissociation has left Muslims a backward group in modern times. Even in advanced countries like America they remain backward as a community in comparison with other immigrant groups.

The only way to alleviate the tragic plight of Muslims is to bring them back to non-violent Islam, by helping to understand that their violent version of Islam is not the true one.

As soon as Muslims take to the path of non-violent Islam, they will be able to become equal partners with other communities. They will have joined the universal mainstream, and will consequently be able to participate in all activities, in all institutions. People instead of dreading them, will welcome them. They will become a part of the universal brotherhood. Their issues will be looked upon with justice. Their equal partnership will be certain in all institutions ranging from the social to the educational.

Peaceful interaction will give Muslims the kind of intellectual stimulation and variety of experience which they must have if they are to tread the path of progress.

Interaction will also facilitate the task of dawah on a large scale. The natural result of this vast interaction of Muslims and non-Muslims will be that everywhere dialogue on Islam will be started, formally as well as informally. In modern times, because of the extremist and violent attitude of Muslims, serious dialogue between Islam and non-Islam has almost come to an end. Now when peaceful interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims takes place in a normal atmosphere, serious dialogue will ensue on its own. The beginning of serious dialogue between Islam and non-Islam is, without doubt, a very great success from the point of view of dawah.

The Qur’an describes Sulh Al-Hudaybiya, in the early period of Islam as a ‘clear victory’. It was a ‘clear victory’ in the sense that it established peace between the believers in tawhid and believers in shirk, thus making it possible for a serious dialogue to be held between the two on religious matters.

In modern times if Muslims abandon the path of violence and fully adopt the path of non-violence, this will be for Muslims like reviving the sunnah of Hudaybiya. And they will start receiving those great benefits which Islam and Muslims had gained after the event of Hudaybiya in the first phase.

Peace and Justice

One great problem for Muslims is that peace does not necessarily guarantee them justice. This has caused Muslims to become violent and to neglect opportunities for dawah. In modern times Muslims want a peace which brings them justice. But according to the law of nature, this kind of peace can never be achieved, that is why Muslims the world over are in a state of physical and mental unrest. Distressed in their minds, they have become violent in their thinking and in their actions.

The truth is that peace does not automatically produce justice. Peace in actual fact simply opens up opportunities for the achievement of justice. At the time of Hudaybiya the Prophet of Islam had not found justice. He had achieved peace but only by delinking it from justice. The Prophet had made this peace not to exact justice but to receive the opportunities. And great opportunities for dawah action did open up with the establishment of peace. The Prophet exploited these opportunities in full measure. Therefore, in just a few years’ time the Prophet not only ensured justice, but set Islam upon a much more solid footing.

The Muslims of the present day have to understand this secret of nature. Only then will it be possible for them first to find peace, then ultimately their desired goal of justice.

Conclusion

In October 1997, I met a 36-year old European, Leon Zippo Hayes, who was born in the city of Christchurch in New Zealand. After having studied Islam, he has changed his religion. His Islamic name is Khalilur Rahman. Passing through Muslim countries he is going to perform Hajj by land.

During the conversation he said that in modern times Muslims are engaged in bloody war at many places, at some places with others and at other places among themselves. This had led him (like many others) to conclude that perhaps Islam was a religion of violence. Later, he studied the Qur’an with the help of translations, and when he reached this verse in the Qur’an: ‘Whoever killed a human being should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind (5:32),’ he said that he was so moved that he could not believe that it was in the Qur’an.This incident is broadly indicative of the thinking of non-Muslims on Islam. On seeing the actions of Muslims, people today find it hard to believe that Islam may be a religion of peace. But if Muslims stop engaging in violent activities and give people the opportunity to appreciate Islam in its original form, then certainly a great number of people would realise as they never had before that Islam was a peaceful religion and they would rush to it, saying that it was exactly the religion which their souls had been seeking all along.

(This paper was presented at the Symposium on Islam and Peace sponsored by Non-Violence International and The Mohammed Said Farsi Chair of Islamic Peace at the American University Washington D.C.)

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/papers/nonviolence.htm

Continue reading »]]> By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

On January 1st, 1995, the United Nations proclaimed 1995 as the “Year of Tolerance,” saying that the ability to be tolerant of the actions, beliefs and opinions of others is a major factor in promoting world peace. The statement issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO) on this occasion, emphasizes that amidst the resurgence of ethnic conflicts, discrimination against minorities and xenophobia directed against refugees and asylum-seekers, tolerance is the only way forward. It is said, racism and religious fanaticism in many countries had led to many forms of discrimination and the intimidation of those who held contrary views. Violence against and intimidation of authors, journalists and others who exercise their freedom of expression, were also on the increase along with political movements which seek to make particular groups responsible for social ills such as crime and unemployment. Intolerance is one of the greatest challenges we face on the threshold to the 21st century, said the UNESCO Statement. Intolerance is both an ethnic and political problem. It is a rejection of the differences between individuals and between cultures. When intolerance becomes organized or institutionalized, it destroys democratic principles and poses a threat to world peace. —The Hindustan Times, January 1, 1995.

This proclamation of the UN is most apt and timely. The prime need of the world today is indeed tolerance.

One of the stark realities of life is that divergence of views does exist between man and man, and that it impinges at all levels. Be it at the level of a family or a society, a community or a country, differences are bound to exist everywhere. Now the question is how best unity can be forged or harmony brought about in the face of human differences.

Some people hold that the removal of all differences is the sine qua non for bringing about unity. But, this view is untenable, for the simple reason that, it is not practicable. You may not like the thorns which essentially accompany roses, but it is not possible for you to pluck out all the thorns and destroy them completely. For, if you pluck out one, another will grow in its place. Even if you run a bulldozer over all rosebushes, new plants will grow in their place bearing roses which are ineluctably accompanied by thorns. In the present scheme of things, roses can be had only by tolerating the existence of thorns. Similarly, a peaceful society can be created only by creating and fostering the spirit of tolerance towards diversities. In this world, unity is achievable only by learning to unite in spite of differences, rather than insisting on unity without differences. For total eradication of differences is an impossibility. The secret of attaining peace in life is tolerance of disturbance of the peace.

There is nothing wrong in diversity of opinions. In fact, this is a positive quality which has many advantages. The beauty of the garden of life is actually enhanced if the flower of unity is accompanied by the thorn of diversity.A

n advantage flowing from this attitude is that it builds character. If you are well-mannered towards those whose views are similar to yours, you may be said to exhibit a fairly good character. But, if you behave properly with those holding divergent views from you or who criticize you, then you deserve to be credited with having an excellent character.

In the same way, a society whose members hold identical views and never have any controversial discussions, will soon find itself in the doldrums. The intellectual development of the members of this society will be frozen, because personal evolution takes place only where the interaction of divergent thinking provides the requisite mental stimuli.

The adoption of a policy of tolerance in the midst of controversy and in the face opposition is not a negative step. It is undoubtedly a positive course of action.

Divergence of views plays an important role in the development of the human psyche. It is only after running the intellectual gauntlet that a developed personality emerges. If, in a human society, this process ceases to operate, the development of character will come to a standstill.

Nobody in this world is perfect. If a man is endowed with some good qualities, he may be lacking in others. This is one of the reasons for differences cropping up between people. But, for life as a whole, this disparateness is actually a great blessing: the good points of one man may compensate for the shortcomings of another, just as one set of talents in one man may complement a different set in another. If people could only learn to tolerate others’ differences, their very forbearance would become a great enabling factor in collective human development.

After 1947, when the first Government of Independent India was formed, two important leaders were included in it. One was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the other was Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. Pandit Nehru’s westernized ideas were in great contrast to the orientalism of Sardar Patel. And this caused frequent differences of opinion between these two leaders. But this proved to be a boon for the nation, because with Pandit Nehru’s abilities compensating for the shortcomings of Sardar Patel, and vice versa, the end result was one of an efficacious complementarity. The above is a good example of the difference between the respective natures and opinions of individuals essential for human development in general.

The habit of tolerance prevents a man from wasting his time and talent on unnecessary matters. When negatively affected by another’s unpalatable behavior, your mental equilibrium is upset, whereas when emotionally untouched by such behavior, your mind will fully retain its equilibrium and, without wasting a single moment, you will continue to carry out your duties in the normal way. The policy of tolerance or forbearance enhances your efficacy, while intolerant behavior reduces it.

Tolerance is not an act of compulsion. It is a positive principle of life, expressing the noble side of a man’s character. The existence of tolerant human beings in a society is just like the blooming of flowers in a garden.

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/tolerance/tolerance3.htm

Continue reading »]]> By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

According to Voltaire,
“Tolerance is a law of nature stamped on the heart of all men.”
Nothing could be truer than this statement; tolerance is, indeed, a permanent law of nature. But it is not something which has to be externally imposed, for the human desire for tolerance is limitless. Just as truth and honesty are virtues, so is tolerance a virtue. And just as no one ever needs to ask for how long one should remain truthful and honest, so does one think of tolerance as having an eternal value. The way of tolerance should be unquestioningly adopted at all times as possessing superior merit.

A man who is intolerant is not a human being in the full sense of the expression. To become enraged at antagonism is surely a sign of weakness. Of course, there are many who do not want to recognize the principle of tolerance as being eternal, for, in conditions of adversity, the temptation to retaliate becomes too strong. The feelings of anger which accompany negative reaction must somehow be vented, and those who think and act in this way are keen to retain the illusion that, in hitting back, they are not doing anything unlawful.Such thinking is quite wrong. In reality, when a man is enraged at anything which goes against his will, tolerance as a priority becomes paramount. Many men strive to become supermen. But the true superman is one who, in really trying situations, can demonstrate his super-tolerance. Just any act of antagonism does not give us the license to be intolerant. Rather, such occasions call for greater tolerance than in normal circumstances. In everyday matter, where there is none of the stress and strain of opposition, no one has difficulty in being tolerant. It is only in extraordinary situations, fraught with conflict, that the truly tolerant man will prove his mettle.

On January 1st, 1995, the United Nations proclaimed 1995 as the “Year of Tolerance,” saying that the ability to be tolerant of the actions, beliefs and opinions of others is a major factor in promoting world peace. The statement issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO) on this occasion, emphasizes that amidst the resurgence of ethnic conflicts, discrimination against minorities and xenophobia directed against refugees and asylum-seekers, tolerance is the only way forward. It pointed out that racism and religious fanaticism in many countries had led to many forms of discrimination and the intimidation of those who held contrary views. Violence against and intimidation of authors, journalists and others who exercise their freedom of expression, were also on the increase along with political movements which seek to make particular groups responsible for social ills such as crime and unemployment. Intolerance is one of the greatest challenges we face on the threshold to the 21st century, said the UNESCO Statement. Intolerance is both an ethnic and political problem. It is a rejection of the differences between individuals and between cultures. When intolerance becomes organized or institutionalized, it destroys democratic principles and poses a threat to world peace. (The Hindustan Times, January 1, 1995)

This proclamation of the UN is most apt and timely. The prime need of the world today is indeed tolerance.

One of the stark realities of life is that divergence of views does exist between man and man, and that it impinges at all levels. Be it at the level of a family or a society, a community or a country, differences are bound to exist everywhere. Now the question is how best unity can be forged or harmony brought about in the face of human differences.

Some people hold that the removal of all differences is the sine qua non for bringing about unity. But, this view is untenable, for the simple reason that, it is not practicable. You may not like the thorns which essentially accompany roses, but it is not possible for you to pluck out all the thorns and destroy them completely. For, if you pluck out one, another will grow in its place. Even if you run a bulldozer over all rosebushes, new plants will grow in their place bearing roses which are ineluctably accompanied by thorns. In the present scheme of things, roses can be had only by tolerating the existence of thorns. Similarly, a peaceful society can be created only by creating and fostering the spirit of tolerance towards diversities. In this world, unity is achievable only by learning to unite in spite of differences, rather than insisting on unity without differences. For total eradication of differences is an impossibility. The secret of attaining peace in life is tolerance of disturbance of the peace.There is nothing wrong in diversity of opinions. In fact, this is a positive quality which has many advantages. The beauty of the garden of life is actually enhanced if the flower of unity is accompanied by the thorn of diversity.An advantage flowing from this attitude is that it builds character. If you are well-mannered towards those whose views are similar to yours, you may be said to exhibit a fairly good character. But, if you behave properly with those holding divergent views from you or who criticize you, then you deserve to be credited with having an excellent character.

In the same way, a society whose members hold identical views and never have any controversial discussions, will soon find itself in the doldrums. The

intellectual development of the members of this society will be frozen, because personal evolution takes place only where the interaction of divergent thinking provides the requisite mental stimuli.

The adoption of a policy of tolerance in the midst of controversy and in the face of opposition is not a negative step. It is undoubtedly a positive course of action.

Divergence of views plays an important role in the development of the human psyche. It is only after running the intellectual gauntlet that a developed personality emerges. If, in a human society, this process ceases to operate, the development of character will come to a standstill.

Nobody in this world is perfect. If a man is endowed with some good qualities, he may be lacking in others. This is one of the reasons for differences cropping up between people. But, for life as a whole, this disparateness is actually a great blessing: the good points of one man may compensate for the shortcomings of another, just as one set of talents in one man may complement a different set in another. If people could only learn to tolerate others’ differences, their very forbearance would become a great enabling factor in collective human development.

After 1947, when the first government of independent India was formed, two important leaders were included in it. One was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the other was Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. Pandit Nehru’s westernized ideas were in great contrast to the orientalism of Sardar Patel. And this caused frequent differences of opinion between these two leaders. But this proved to be a boon for the nation, because with Pandit Nehru’s abilities compensating for the shortcomings of Sardar Patel, and vice versa, the end result was one of an efficacious complementarity. The above is a good example of the difference between the respective natures and opinions of individuals essential for human development in general.

The habit of tolerance prevents a man from wasting his time and talent on unnecessary matters. When negatively affected by another’s unpalatable behavior, your mental equilibrium is upset, whereas when emotionally untouched by such behavior, your mind will fully retain its equilibrium and, without wasting a single moment, you will continue to carry out your duties in the normal way. The policy of tolerance or forbearance enhances your efficacy, while intolerant behavior reduces it.

Tolerance is not an act of compulsion. It is a positive principle of life, expressing the noble side of a man’s character. The existence of tolerant human beings in a society is just like the blooming of flowers in a garden.

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/tolerance/tolerance2.htm

Continue reading »]]> SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ISLAM
by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

A gathering of intellectuals was convened at the Law College of Ranchi on December 14, 1991, under the persidentship of Mr. Justice Satishwar Rao. On that occasion I addressed the meeting on the topic of ‘Social Justice in Islam.’ The text of my address, including some later additions, is as follows.

Social Justice means equality in law, or justice for all. Prior to the advent of Islam. This kind of social justice was almost unknown either in theory or in practice. It was left to Islam then to establish equal justice for the first time in human history. This reversal of the old order is so established a fact that every non-Muslim thinkers have acknowledged it. For instance, Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) writes in one of this letters.

‘If ever any religion approached to this equality in any appreciable manner, it is Islam and Islam alone.’ (p. 379).

The contribution of Islam in this respect can be placed under three headings: first, the formulation of a complete ideology of human equality and justice; second the giving of powerful incentive to adopt this ideology; and third, the establishment of a living example of equality and justice in all walks life.

THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL JUSTICE

In ancient times the concept of human inequality, which was prevalent everywhere, gave rise to social injustice in every society.

For example, the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, regarded certain classes of individuals as natural slaves. Although there were other thinkers who did not subscribe to this view, slavery continued to be widespread in Rome and Greece, and indeed, throughout the entire world of antiquity.

In modern times, this concept has been further strengthened by Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to which mankind was regarded as having achieved differing levels of development, the apex being white European civilization.

The superstitious concept of racial differences, handed down to us from ancient times, paved the way for social discrimination. And such discrimination found an academic basis in modern times in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which purported to show that in the evolutionary process, some groups had made distinctive progress while many other groups had been left far behind. That is to say that certain groups attained a superior level, while others remained in a primitive condition.

Thanks to this theory of evolution, the European nations came to regard other nations as being inferior to them–hence the concept of ‘the white man’s burden’ according to which the white races considered themselves invested with the natural right to subjugate the rest of the world in order to civilize it. This was the logic behind the colonialism of modem times. These concepts, in some measure, are still extant.

The world of today can be broadly divided into two parts–the traditional and the scientific. The former appears undeveloped and the latter developed. But from the standpoint of social justice, there is no difference, because in both, beliefs which form a permanent obstacle to social justice still persist.

The traditional world is influenced to a large extent by believers in Karma, the theory that anyone born today necessarily shoulders the burden of his past deeds. As they see it, that is a law of nature, as such, has to be submitted to unquestioningly. A belief of this nature obviously stifles any possible incentive for social justice. In the light of such a belief ‘injustice’ simply becomes ‘nature’s verdict.’ The human being has to suffer in this world for his misdeeds in his previous life cycle. Given this state of affairs, it is just not possible for anyone to alleviate human suffering. That being so, how can there be any motivation to act out of a sense of justice?

The scientific world is likewise under the influence of this concept of human inequality, but for another reason–the general acceptance gained by the theory of evolution. The concept of the biological evolution of life seeks to explain the differences in the existing species, advancing the theory that in the process of evolution some have gone forward while others have been left behind. For instance, Darwin claims that the female of the human species remained at a primitive stage in the evolutionary process while ‘man has ultimately become superior to woman’. By the same token, the blacks of Africa, the pygmies and other dwarfish races have been ‘left behind.’ Because of this theory, the scientific world cannot be sympathetic to the supposedly backward, or under evolved races.

The theory has been advanced that if people suffer a variety of afflictions, it is ‘their own fault.’ That is to say that those who are made to feel inferior in the treatment they receive from others are, in fact, suffering the consequences of their own shortcomings. It is as if they were fated to be the victims of injustice; the perpetrators are not, therefore, to be blamed.

With the advent of Islam, all such ideas based on an inherent inequality lost ground. In different ways, and with great persistence Islam presented to the world the concept that, in spite of outward differences, all human beings are equal. All are entitled to equal social status and equal rights. No one is inferior or superior. Here are two references from the Qur’an and Hadith respectively.

Men, we have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most righteous of you. Allah is wise and all knowing (49:13).

According to this verse of the Qur’an, the differences of color and race found among human beings is for the purpose, not of discrimination, but of identification. Men in essence are equal. What really distinguishes one man from another is character. His superiority can therefore bespoken of only in terms of the degree to which a man is honorable. The truly honorable man is one who is God–fearing and who recognizes and fulfils the rights of God and his fellow men.

On the occasion of the final pilgrimage, the Prophet delivered his last sermon while sitting oh his camel. One of the things he said is recorded in these words:

‘O people, listen carefully, your Lord is one Lord, there is no doubt about it. Your ancestor, is one ancestor, there is no doubt about it. Listen well to my words: no Arab has any superiority over a non–Arab, and no non—Arab is superior to an Arab. No black is superior to a brown or red, and no red superior to any black. If there is any superiority in anyone it is due to his God–fearing qualities. Have I conveyed the message?’ the Prophet asked the people. The people answered from all corners, ‘Indeed so! God be witness.’ Then the Prophet said: ‘Let him that is present tell it unto him that is absent.’(Al-Jamili Ahkam al-Qur’an, 16:342)

This declaration was made by the Prophet in the final year of his life at a time when the whole of Arabia had been conquered. As such, it wasnot the declaration of a reformer, but of a ruler of the time. His definition of human equality was not just listened to as a theory, but was immediately put into practice–nay, enforced in society.

In his declaration, the Prophet told the people that just as there is one Creator of this world so all the human beings in this world were born of one man and woman. All human beings were thus equal, being each other’s brothers and sisters. They might differ in respect of appearance, but as to honor, status and the right to legal justice, there was no difference between them.

So far as human status is concerned, Islam clearly states that if people have been placed on different rungs of the social ladder, this is not a matter of having been favored with or deprived of social distinction but of their being under divine trial. God has created man in this world in order to test him. Worldly goods and position (or the lack of them) are used by God as instruments of this test. They are like examination papers set by the Almighty. Opulence and penury are both intended to be states in which man is tested. He should, therefore, stop suffering from inferiority or superiority complexes, and should consider instead whether he is going to pass or fail this test.

THE INCENTIVE FOR EQUAL JUSTICE

Modern psychological and biological research on race has clearlyupheld the teachings of Islam, so that from the academic point of view,other theories stand refuted. Molecular biology, too, has opened a whole new field of research in modern times. A team of genetic experts in the USA, convinced by the evidence they already had that all of humanity had common ancestor, have attempted to trace that single progenitor across the millennia. Placed in this perspective, all differences of color, physiognomy, physique, etc. are purely relative, and do not necessarily constitute different racial characteristics. All modern research points to human beings as members of one Great Family, all bound together by the same biological brotherhood. (Newsweek, January 11, 1988).

A number of books and research papers have lately been published on this subject. The Race Question in Modern Science by J. Comas published by UNESCO in 1956) has a chapter on ‘Racial Myths’ which is worth studying. In spite of these academic findings, no great material changes have occurred. Those nations who had come to consider themselves superior are still acting under this misapprehension, while nations consider inferior are still subjected to injustice in new and varied forms. The reason is that to attain social reform, theory by itself is not sufficient. Along with it, a powerful incentive is essential. And this is exactly what is provided by the Qur’an.

As well as enjoining justice, (16:90) the Qur’an holds out the promise of reward for one’s deeds. It also informs us that a complete record is constantly being made of human actions. After death, everyone will find himself standing in God’s court, where he will receive his just deserts. No perpetrator of cruelty will escape God’s punishment. That time has to come when man will suffer the consequences of his deeds. ‘On that day mankind will come, divided in terms of vice and virtue, into groups to be shown their labors. Whoever does an atom’s weight of good shall see it and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it also.’ (99:6-8)

This concept of accountability alerts man to the necessity of being extremely punctilious in his dealings with others. He then sees how essential it is to be just to everyone, if he is to save his own self. He avoids wronging others so that he may not be punished by God. In the absence of any concept of accountability, social justice figures in our lives as a need felt by others, not by ourselves. But once werecognized that there is such a thing as accountability, social justice becomes a prime necessity for everyone, including ourselves. And who can neglect his own needs?

The concept of accountability is such a strong check that it restrains one not just from oppression, but from even any semblance of it. Once when the Prophet was at home with his wife, Umm Salmah, he called the maidservant, who took some time in coming. Seeing signs of anger onProphet’s face, Umm Salmah went to the window and looked outside where she saw the maid at play. When the latter came in, the Prophet happened to have a misvak ( a stick used for cleaning the teeth) in his hand. ‘If it wasn’t for the fear of retribution on the Day of Judgement,’ he told the maid, ‘I would have hit you with this misvak.’

In ancient times the beating of slaves was considered a natural right. But the mentality created by Islam put a stop to this practice, whatever the faults of the slaves. This was because the Muslims were afraid lest they beheld accountable for this act in the eyes of God.

The Prophet once came across Abu Masood Ansari beating his slave. “You should know, Abu Masood “, he said, ‘that God has more power over you than you have over this slave.’ Abu Masood trembled hearing these words of the Prophet. ‘Messenger of God,’ he said, “I am freeing this slave for God’s sake,” ‘If you had not acted thus, the flames of Hell would have engulfed you,” the Prophet told him.

This incident shows that Islam, by obliterating outward differences, brings all men on the same footing. Abu Masood had at first considered himself to be on a different footing from his slave in a purely material sense where he was respectable and powerful, the slave was lowly and weak. But when the Prophet reminded him that in the eyes of God he stood on exactly the same ground as his slave, he immediately humbled himself.

Material differences in standing bring about social injustice. When these differences are obliterated, social inequality will, of necessity, disappear.

It is undeniable that all incidents of oppression and social injustice are the result of inequality between man and man. Some are powerful,others are weak. Some are rich, others are poor. Now what happens is that the powerful and the wealthy come to regard themselves as being superior to the weak and the poor. They imagine they can oppress others with impunity, their elevated positions being enough to safeguard them from any attempt at retaliation.

But Islam tells us that every man’s fate is the concern of God. All moral issues are finally to be judged in the divine court. God being infinitely more powerful than all of the powerful men in the world. He will pronounce His verdict and enforce it with absolute justice towards one and all. At that time no mortal creature will be able to escape God’s verdict.

In this way, human affairs are no longer matters to be settled amongst men. They become matters to be settled between man and God. On the one side stands God, and on the other side stands all of humanity.

So, when faced with God, no one is powerful. Everyone feels himself in the same state of humility as he had supposed was the state of other human beings ‘weaker than himself.

When this consciousness is created in a man, he dare not, whatever the circumstances, be unjust to others. This undoubtedly gives him the greatest incentive to bring about social justice.

In an atheistic society where people do not believe in God, such a check is not possible. Where there is no belief in God, human affairs must be settled between man and man. And in that situation there can be no conviction that all men are equal, for the differences between them will remain all too obvious. In the absence of a divine overlord, such differences can never be leveled out, and if their effects are to be negated, it can only be done by taking matters between man and man and turning them into matters between man and God. Everyone should have the conviction that there is a God above all men, that all issues must finally be settled by Him, and that no one may challenge His verdict.

There are other religions besides Islam which have the concept of God. But, owing to human interpolations in their scriptures, their particular concept of God has, for all practical purposes, become ineffective. For instance, in Christianity, God’s son atoned for the sins of humanity by his crucifixion. In Judaism salvation is granted in advance to its adherents as their birthright. In Hinduism, the monistic concept of God serves no practical purpose.

In terms of Islamic Monotheism, God is a separate being, and all human beings are His creatures and His servants. Such a belief arouses in man the feeling of humility. Contrary to the Hindu concept, God in Islam is the sole supreme Being: man has no part in that divinity. In Hinduism, man is a part of God–a concept which produces the opposite feeling of superiority. While Islamic monotheism awakens in man the consciousness of his being God’s servant, Hinduism encourages man to say, ‘I am God.’ The former creates the psychology of humility, unlike the latter which fosters pride. When the members of a society are flawed by pride, it is well-nigh impossible to bring about an atmosphere of social justice.

FAILURE OF MODERN INSTITUTIONS

Amnesty International, an organization known as a watchdog of human rights, set up its headquarters in London thirty years ago. Thirty

years is a long time for such an organization to have been functioning, but, in all that time, it has not been able to serve humanity in anyway except for publishing reports in the newspapers.

It is significant that on the completion of thirty years in December, 1991, the organization did not see fit to hold any celebrations. Asked why this was so, a representative of the organization, a Ms France Scinto, replied that there really wasn’t anything to celebrate.

Every year on December 10, the United nations celebrates the Day of Human Rights. This year the statement issued by Javier Peres de Cuellar, the UN Secretary General, lamented the blind use of force and the barbaric treatment meted out to people notwithstanding the universal Declaration of Human Rights which had been issued under the auspices of the United Nations.

What is the reason for the failure of these institutions to establish peace and justice? It can be explained by the fact that peace and justice in human life cannot be established solely on the basis of appeals and statements in the newspapers. What is required is an ideology which enshrines correct human values, and which might properly serve as the basis for an intellectual revolution. Those reformed along these lines should in turn reform the social institutions, and wherever the reins of government fall into their hands, they should establish peace and justice in society by constitutional means.

Only once in the course of history have all these conditions been fully met. That was when the Prophet and his Companions succeeded in establishing a system based fairly and squarely on peace and justice. Neither his predecessors nor his successors ever attained such a resounding success.

AN EXAMPLE OF EQUAL JUSTICE

Islam’s third great contribution to social justice was the example it itself set in according to the same honor and respect to all human beings, whether they were weak or strong, kings or commoners, be it in family circles, social life, positions of power or in the government, by the same token, no one could escape punishment for his sins.

The history of Islam abounds in examples of justice for all. Here only a few incidents are mentioned in brief.

1. In ancient times, it was unthinkable for a girl of noble birth

or even of any free person, to be married to a slave. The Prophet, wishing to break with this tradition, decided to arrange a marriage between his own first cousin, Zaynab bint Jahash (d. 20 AH), who belonged to the Banu Hashim, the most respectable clan of the Quraysh tribe, and Zayd ibn Haritha, a black Negro slave. This most extraordinary event served as an important example of Islamic justice.

2. The Ka’aba, the most holy place of worship, was considered

sacrosanct in all its parts. Therefore, when the call to prayer had to be made from its roof, it was only a person of noble birth who could ascend it. A man of lowly birth performing this religious duty was not be countenanced. After the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet broke with this tradition by asking a Negro slave, Bilal ibn Rubah to go up on to the roof of the Ka’aba and give the call to prayer (Azan).

This was a unique event, not only in Arab history but also in

world history of ancient times. Had Islam not become dominant, people would certainly have killed Bilal for his ‘arrogance’. They did, however, voice strong reactions against this act, which is an indication of how shocking it had appeared to them. For example, Utaba ibn Usyad of Mecca thanked God that his father was no more and could not, therefore, witness this horrible sight on that day. Harith ibn Hisham asked, ‘couldn’t Muhammad have found someone other than this Black crow?’ (AL-Jame Lil Ahkam AL-Qur’an, 16/341).

3. Ali ibn abi Talib, the fourth caliph, lost his coat of armor. One day he saw a Christian of Kufa selling the same coat of armor. This case was brought to the then Qazi Shurayh bin al Alharith. Ali went to his court like a commoner where he was asked by the Qazi to produce two witnesses. Ali then brought forward his son Hasan and his slave Qambar. The Qazi rejected the evidence of his son on the grounds that the evidence of a son in support of his father is not acceptable. Thus the reigning Caliph lost his case. However, the Christian was so greatly impressed at the display of such equality in the court of Islam between the king and commoner, that he himself admitted that Ali was right. The coat of armor did belong to him (Azmath-e-Sahaba, pp. 32-33).

4. Once during the caliphate of Umar Faruq, the second Caliph, Amr

ibn al-Aas, who was the then governor of Egypt, arranged a horse race in which his own son was also to participate. His son’s horse lost, however to a young, native Copt. The son, Muhammed ibn Amr, was enraged and lashed the Copt boy with a whip, saying, ‘Take that! That will teach you to beat the son of a nobleman!’ The Copt came to Medina and complained to the Caliph, who took it upon himself to institute an inquiry. When he found that the Copt had been beaten unjustly, he immediately sent an emissary to Egypt to summon the governor and his son before him forthwith. When they arrived, he handed the Copt a whip to flog them, just as he himself had been flogged.

In the presence of the governor, the Copt started whipped his son, stopping only when he was satisfied that the punishment had been severe enough. Then the Caliph addressed himself to the governor: ” O Amr, since when have you enslaved people who were born free? (Azmat-e-Sahaba, pp.40 – 41)

5. Palestine was conquered during the Caliphate of Umar Faruq.

To sign certain agreements with the conquered nation, he had to travel to Palestine. When he left Medina, he was wearing rough clothes and had only one servant and one camel. He said to his servant, ‘If I mount the camel and you go on foot, it will not be fair to you. And if you mount the camel while I go on foot, that will not be fair to me. And if we both sit on the camel’s back, that will be an injustice to the camel. So, it would be better if all three of us took turns.’

So taking it by turns, Umar Faruq would ride and the servant would walk, and vice versa, and then both would take a turn of walking so that the camel should be spared. Travelling in this manner, they reached the gates of Palestine, where the inhabitants gaped at the sight of the Caliph going on foot while his servant rode the camel, for it was the latter’s turn to ride

as they approached their destination. In fact, many Palestinians failed to make out who was the Caliph and who was the servant. (Taamir ki Taraf, pp..56-57).

Through its intellectual revolution and the practical examples it set, Islam thus created a history which had an impact on almost the whole of the inhabited world of that time. This revolution was so powerful that its effects could still be felt one thousand years later.

After the Prophet, the period of Sahaba (The Prophet’s companions) and of Tabiin, (the companions of the Prophet’s companions) is known as the golden age of Islam. But the effects of the Islamic revolution lasted far beyond this period, continuing to leave its imprint on human society in various forms across the centuries. Even Muslim kings dared challenge it. Many examples of their submission to Islam can be cited. An incident relating to Jehangir, the Mughal emperor, has been very effectively portrayed by Maulana Shibli Nomani in the form of a poem entitled, ‘Adl-e-Jahangiri.’

Jahangir’s Queen, Noor Jahan, once inadvertently killed a poor man. It happened at some hunt, when a washerman, straying into her line of fire, was hit and mortally wounded. When he died, the matter was brought to court, where the Qazi passed the death sentence on the Queen. Neither the king nor the Queen dared refuse the Qazi’s sentence. Finally, the issue was resolved only when the washerman’s wife pronounced herself willing to accept the blood-money, as is provided for under Islamic law. (If the victim’s next-of-kin refuses to accept the blood-money, the culprit is sentenced to death-murder for murder).

Now let us take an example of conduct which is the very opposite in spirit. The British ruler, James 1, (1566-1625) a contemporary of the Indian ruler, Jahangir (1569-1627), claimed that he was above the law and could exercise his judgement independently. The then British chief Justice, Sir Edward Cook, (I552-1634) differed with him on this issues, so that when John Beat, a British merchant, once refused to pay tax on imported currants(an order given personally by James 1) because no law to this effect had been passed by parliament, Sir Edward took the side of Beat. Enraged, the King exclaimed, ‘Am I subject to the law? To say so, is treason!’ Justice Cook did not waver from his standpoint. As a result he was removed from his post by the King. It is a matter of historical record that legal differences with the king eventually broke his judicial career.

When the case of the King and Justice Cook came to the British privy Council, the then Attorney General, Francis Bacon, upholding the legalsupremacy of the king said: ‘Judges should be lions, but yet lions under the throne.’ (1/92).

According to time-honored legal traditions in Britain, there were two kinds of law: common law and legal prerogative. For the public there was one set of laws and for the king and nobles quite another. The King was above the law. His word, in fact, was law. It was not until the advent of Islam that this division was abolished and the same set of laws was enforced for all. The rule of the King had perforce to give pride of place to the law of the land.

THE IMPACT ON HISTORY

Shortly before his death on the eve of his last pilgrimage, the Prophet of Islam gave a sermon which came to be known as the sermon of the Final pilgrimage. One of the historic declarations made in this sermon was: ‘Everything pertaining to paganism now lies beneath my feet.” ‘With these words, the Prophet announced the advent of a new age, an age freed by him of all superstition and ushered in with the special succor of God.

This historic change was first wrought within Arabia, then it spread beyond its frontiers, ultimately making itself felt throughout the entire world. This resulted in the eradication of the division in society between free men and slaves and the inception of the rule of law all over the world. It also caused all such philosophies as sanctioned injustice and social inequality to lose in influence. Now, any philosophy based on human inequality finds no ground on which to flourish.

One example of this in modem times is provided by Hitler, according to whom the German race was superior to all others. Firm in this belief, he put forward the idea that it was their birthright to assert their supremacy over all other nations. ‘He regarded inequality between races and individuals as part of an unchangeable natural order and exalted the Aryan race as the sole creative element of mankind.’ (8/967).

But what a fate awaited Hitler! His popularity in Europe rapidly waned and he was finally deserted even by his own minions in his own country. In utter frustration, he committed suicide in a bunker in Berlin, thus annihilating not only himself but the Nazi movement which he had set in motion.

The influence of the social revolution brought about by the Prophet is still alive, not only in Muslim countries, but indirectly throughout the entire inhabited world. On the question of social justice, or equal justice researchers have acknowledged that if ever any system has truly attained this end, it is Islam. One such acknowledgement by Swami Vivekanand, has been mentioned above. Now the question arises as to how Islam, managed to succeed in this when other religions or systems failed. There are two important reasons for this. One is that Islam gives us a complete ideology in favor of human equality. The other is that it provides humanity with a historical example of that ideologyput into practice.

These are the points on which other religions have failed. To make this point clear, I shall cite here two examples from Hinduism and Christianity.

Hinduism as has been explained above, divides humanity as a matter basic belief into two parts. Its very philosophy demands a high position for one group and a low position for another. The existence of this belief makes it impossible to mete out equal treatment to both groups. Those who live by this system can never regard themselves as being equal to those who appear inferior to them by birth.

Here it is pertinent to mention the Backward Classes Commission set up by the President of India in 1953, with Kaka Sahab Kalelkar as its chairman. After making a survey which was completed in 1955, it presented a 262 page report which was published in 1956 by the Government press.

This report (available in the Delhi Public Library, Delhi) stated that the caste system of India was of a very different nature from the class system prevalent elsewhere. In India, this system is not traceable purely to economic causes as is generally the case in other countries. Its roots, on the contrary, go much deeper, being enshrined in the system of beliefs. According to the report, ‘it is the peculiarity of India that it recognized the social differences inherent in human nature and gave them an institutional and mystical form with a religious and spiritual background.’

What the Kalelkar Commission states is borne out by the facts. It is indisputable that social differences in India have been traced to qualities inherent in human nature. Given this belief, they are an inevitable and natural reality. In a society where, of necessity, such a concept exists, the ideas of obliterating these differences and of having equal justice cannot have any general appeal.

A similar obstacle to equality is condoned even by Christianity.

Here I should like to refer to a report prepared by a team of five Christian journalists and published in the Sunday Review (Times of India) of December 22, 1991. According to this report, the number of converts to Christianity from low castes is more than fifty percent, these being known as Dalit Christians. ‘Those who came over from the backward Hindu strata, still find themselves bogged down in discrimination by the Church.’

Dalit Christians are prevented from burying their dead in grave yards along with upper caste Christians. They cannot marry into upper caste Christian families. In many churches they have separate seating arrangements. They are discriminated against in educational institutions run by Christians themselves. The caste prejudice extends even to the Christian clergy. This is specially true to the Catholic Church whose priests are almost totally drawn from the upper or middle classes. In Kerala, where Christianity has thrived for 2,000 years, caste is evident on a social level. The caste factor surfaces time and again, causing intense anguish to members of the Dalit Christian communities.

When Dr. Casimir Gnanadickan, Catholic Archbishop of Madras was asked about this, he admitted that a strong caste system existed with the Church set-up. ‘I agree, it was a retrograde step. But sometimes the power of faith cannot break reality.’

It is true that Christianity does not teach human inequality or social injustice. But what is lacking in Christianity is a powerful,historical example of human equality. The mission of Christ did not reach beyond the invitation to faith. It did not reach the stage of practical revolution. That is why, in the first phase of Christianity no such example of human equality could be set. In the absence of telling precedents, belief alone is not sufficient to bring about any practical change.

The Islamic system is totally different from those of Hinduism and Christianity. In it, there exists a complete ideology in favor of human equality, while alongside it there exists a perfect, practical example. On both counts, the first phase of Islam set the course of Islamic history for all eternity. And Islamic history will continue forever in the same direction, for there is no influence powerful enough in the world to alter its course.

source: http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/papers/justice.htm