In his chapter entitled ‘The Betrayal of Tradition’ in ‘With God on Our Side’, Aftab Malik stresses that violence was “neither systematic nor justified by Islamic doctrine”. He quotes Bernard Lewis who confirms that violence was rare and atypical; no one was obliged to make a choice between faith and death as happened in the reconquered Spain and there were no subjection to “any major territorial or occupational restrictions” (p. 144).
The long history of Islam is rich with examples of peaceful co-existence where a variety of faiths, races, communities, intellectual trends and other life choices lived side by side and used the power of the word; rather than the tip of the sword to settle differences. From the early days of Islam where in the heat of the Meccan desert Bilal, the believing slave was tortured and his only response was a confirmation of his faith and perseverance, ‘Ahadun, Ahad’ meaning ‘I only worship the One, the Only One’ up until the last hundred years or so, this tradition of non-violence was the defining feature of Islamic history.
In his chapter entitled ‘The Betrayal of Tradition’ in ‘With God on Our Side’, Aftab Malik stresses that violence was “neither systematic nor justified by Islamic doctrine”. He quotes Bernard Lewis who confirms that violence was rare and atypical; no one was obliged to make a choice between faith and death as happened in the reconquered Spain and there were no subjection to “any major territorial or occupational restrictions” (p. 144).
The long history of Islam is rich with examples of peaceful co-existence where a variety of faiths, races, communities, intellectual trends and other life choices lived side by side and used the power of the word; rather than the tip of the sword to settle differences. From the early days of Islam where in the heat of the Meccan desert Bilal, the believing slave was tortured and his only response was a confirmation of his faith and perseverance, ‘Ahadun, Ahad’ meaning ‘I only worship the One, the Only One’ up until the last hundred years or so, this tradition of non-violence was the defining feature of Islamic history.
In the sixth year after the Hijrah (corresponds to March 627), the Prophet ﷺ marched towards Makkah to perform the ‘Umrah ritual but Quraish adversely refused to give him access to the Holy Mosque; something which is counted an offence by the measures of those days since the Holy Mosque was, customarily, accessible to every peaceful pilgrim. This tactic of Quraish was essentially to prove supremacy and possibly trigger military action on the side of the Prophet ﷺ. Sticking to his non-violent ways, the Prophet ﷺ refused to engage in any military activity and accepted a peace agreement which dictated very unfair terms on Muslims. The Quraishi negotiator Suhayl b. ‘Amr refused to acknowledge in the written text of the agreement that Muhammad ﷺ is a Prophet; he formatted the articles of the agreement on his own terms which obviously angered many Muslims who saw it extremely unfair; yet the Prophet ﷺ accepted them and said, “By God, If they offer any plan for peace I will accept it”.
In the agreement, Quraish insisted on denying the Prophet access to the Holy Mosque that year and preventing any new Muslim from joining him in Madinah. Such terms could have easily been refused but the Prophet ﷺ agreed to them as they steer clear of any possibility of military or violent action.
What is even more interesting is that the camels brought as offerings in that ‘Umrah -which is of a considerable financial value- were slaughtered and distributed to the poor residents of Makkah- members of the adversaries.
Disagreement: What Is the Way Forward?
One of the essential themes of religion is its teaching that, “we are not necessarily set against one another in a win-or-lose competition”. The Qur’anic verses, “Who speaks better than someone who calls people to God, does what is right and says, ‘I am one of those devoted to God’? Good and evil cannot be equal. [Prophet] repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend, but only those who are steadfast in patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness, will attain to such goodness.” (44: 33-35) resonate with the words of Avot deRabbi Nathan, “Who is a hero? One who turns an enemy into a friend.”
These sacred words formulated the course of action that was adopted at times of difference and disagreement; a tradition of higher moral course of resorting to a better, humane response. Abu Sufyan b. Harb- a long standing enemy of the Prophet ﷺ - became a friend when all his enmity was met with forgiveness and patience. The verses above highlight the source to which we can recourse at times of facing disagreement, unfairness and enmity; that is knowledge, moral discipline and spiritual empowerment. These formulate the locus of Islamic tradition. Violence breeds on competition for resources and claims of owning the truth. Religions (Islam included) teach the complete opposite. The responsibility of choice given to humans, the understanding that man is the honoured creation of God, that man’s role on earth is to build not to destroy are themes that are repeatedly highlighted in religious traditions and stressed throughout the Qur’an.
So Where Does Violence Come From?
Surprisingly, violence is a stranger to the history of humanity, and interestingly a modern phenomena. This is not the view of one but many academics one being Bruce Lawrence who calls it, “as modern as the media and as novel as ideology” Khaled Abou El-Fadl rightly highlights “the predominance of the theology of power in modern Islam” and blames this theology as “the direct contributor to the emergence of highly radicalised Islamic groups”. He acknowledges that, “far from being authentic expressions of inherited Islamic paradigms or a natural growth of the classical tradition, these groups and their impulsive and reactive modes of thinking are a by-product of colonialism and modernity” and they “reduce Islam to a single dynamic_ the dynamic of power. They tend to define Islam as an ideology of nationalistic defiance to the “other”.” Here, “Instead of being a moral vision given to humanity, Islam becomes constructed into a nationalistic cause that is often the antithesis of the West” and a “perpetual state of emergency, where expedience trumps principle and illegitimate means are consistently justified by invoking higher ends.”
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks notes that “groupishness” of the modern society where trust between strangers is missed, is behind this violence; and suggests that, “the early religions created moral communities, thus solving the problem of trust between strangers. They sanctified the social order.” When Quraysh intensified their persecution for the Prophet and the emerging Muslims and dealt violently with their faith, Muslims were permitted to relocate to Abyssinia where a Christian king - who is just and rules fairly between people- is in command. Muslims were commanded to involve fully and integrate in this society and treat it their own. What, I argue, they were being taught was to emerge in a social order; to come out of the tribalist system where order-if any- was quite minimal to a larger scene where humans are trained to live side by side in harmony within a frame of equal rights and responsibilities. This was not possible within the framework of a tribe - a group- which sees itself a centre of the world/ideology.
Muslims were given an opportunity of living within a social order that has a respected central authority, a multiplicity of view and defining feature of getting to know one another and participate in common good. These were the initial tools that they picked up in Abyssinia and carried later with them when they went to Madinah. In Madinah, the Prophet ﷺ established a civil society functioning on equal rights and opportunities, harmony between faiths and affiliations, central authority in politics and religion and cooperation in common projects. These terms were not strange anymore to the Abyssinian returnees; they were already familiarised with them thanks to the earlier experience they witnessed. They were trained- in a presentation to the King- to speak openly and fearlessly about their beliefs without offending anyone or compromising anything. It is in contexts like these that violence plummets and it was from those days that a tradition of non-violent engagement with the larger society started. Muslims saw that ‘order’, ‘rules’ and ‘getting to know one another’ in society are mirrors of how the universe works. It was not just a tradition of a society; rather, a universal one. In this tradition, violence is named by its real namesake, “Anarchy”. Islam, which in essence, means harmony and submission stresses ‘harmony’ and ‘submission’ to order as the way the universe, the society and humanity can move forward. The opposite image will be;
Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf;
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce, an universal prey,
And last eats up himself
I conclude with the oft-quoted words of the Qur’an for reflection:“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another.” (49:13)
Bibliography:
Malik, Aftab Ahmed With God on Our Side, Amal Press, Bristol 2005
Sacks, Jonathan The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilisations, Continuum 2007 p.39
See Gray, John Al-Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern, Faber & Faber 2003
Lawrence, Bruce Defenders of God, I.B. Tauris 1990
Abou El-Fadl, Khaled Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age 2017
Sacks, Jonathan Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence, London 2015
The long history of Islam is rich with examples of peaceful co-existence where a variety of faiths, races, communities, intellectual trends and other life choices lived side by side and used the power of the word; rather than the tip of the sword to settle differences. From the early days of Islam where in the heat of the Meccan desert Bilal, the believing slave was tortured and his only response was a confirmation of his faith and perseverance, ‘Ahadun, Ahad’ meaning ‘I only worship the One, the Only One’ up until the last hundred years or so, this tradition of non-violence was the defining feature of Islamic history.
In the sixth year after the Hijrah (corresponds to March 627), the Prophet ﷺ marched towards Makkah to perform the ‘Umrah ritual but Quraish adversely refused to give him access to the Holy Mosque; something which is counted an offence by the measures of those days since the Holy Mosque was, customarily, accessible to every peaceful pilgrim. This tactic of Quraish was essentially to prove supremacy and possibly trigger military action on the side of the Prophet ﷺ. Sticking to his non-violent ways, the Prophet ﷺ refused to engage in any military activity and accepted a peace agreement which dictated very unfair terms on Muslims. The Quraishi negotiator Suhayl b. ‘Amr refused to acknowledge in the written text of the agreement that Muhammad ﷺ is a Prophet; he formatted the articles of the agreement on his own terms which obviously angered many Muslims who saw it extremely unfair; yet the Prophet ﷺ accepted them and said, “By God, If they offer any plan for peace I will accept it”.
In the agreement, Quraish insisted on denying the Prophet access to the Holy Mosque that year and preventing any new Muslim from joining him in Madinah. Such terms could have easily been refused but the Prophet ﷺ agreed to them as they steer clear of any possibility of military or violent action.
What is even more interesting is that the camels brought as offerings in that ‘Umrah -which is of a considerable financial value- were slaughtered and distributed to the poor residents of Makkah- members of the adversaries.
Disagreement: What Is the Way Forward?
One of the essential themes of religion is its teaching that, “we are not necessarily set against one another in a win-or-lose competition”. The Qur’anic verses, “Who speaks better than someone who calls people to God, does what is right and says, ‘I am one of those devoted to God’? Good and evil cannot be equal. [Prophet] repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend, but only those who are steadfast in patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness, will attain to such goodness.” (44: 33-35) resonate with the words of Avot deRabbi Nathan, “Who is a hero? One who turns an enemy into a friend.”
These sacred words formulated the course of action that was adopted at times of difference and disagreement; a tradition of higher moral course of resorting to a better, humane response. Abu Sufyan b. Harb- a long standing enemy of the Prophet ﷺ - became a friend when all his enmity was met with forgiveness and patience. The verses above highlight the source to which we can recourse at times of facing disagreement, unfairness and enmity; that is knowledge, moral discipline and spiritual empowerment. These formulate the locus of Islamic tradition. Violence breeds on competition for resources and claims of owning the truth. Religions (Islam included) teach the complete opposite. The responsibility of choice given to humans, the understanding that man is the honoured creation of God, that man’s role on earth is to build not to destroy are themes that are repeatedly highlighted in religious traditions and stressed throughout the Qur’an.
So Where Does Violence Come From?
Surprisingly, violence is a stranger to the history of humanity, and interestingly a modern phenomena. This is not the view of one but many academics one being Bruce Lawrence who calls it, “as modern as the media and as novel as ideology” Khaled Abou El-Fadl rightly highlights “the predominance of the theology of power in modern Islam” and blames this theology as “the direct contributor to the emergence of highly radicalised Islamic groups”. He acknowledges that, “far from being authentic expressions of inherited Islamic paradigms or a natural growth of the classical tradition, these groups and their impulsive and reactive modes of thinking are a by-product of colonialism and modernity” and they “reduce Islam to a single dynamic_ the dynamic of power. They tend to define Islam as an ideology of nationalistic defiance to the “other”.” Here, “Instead of being a moral vision given to humanity, Islam becomes constructed into a nationalistic cause that is often the antithesis of the West” and a “perpetual state of emergency, where expedience trumps principle and illegitimate means are consistently justified by invoking higher ends.”
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks notes that “groupishness” of the modern society where trust between strangers is missed, is behind this violence; and suggests that, “the early religions created moral communities, thus solving the problem of trust between strangers. They sanctified the social order.” When Quraysh intensified their persecution for the Prophet and the emerging Muslims and dealt violently with their faith, Muslims were permitted to relocate to Abyssinia where a Christian king - who is just and rules fairly between people- is in command. Muslims were commanded to involve fully and integrate in this society and treat it their own. What, I argue, they were being taught was to emerge in a social order; to come out of the tribalist system where order-if any- was quite minimal to a larger scene where humans are trained to live side by side in harmony within a frame of equal rights and responsibilities. This was not possible within the framework of a tribe - a group- which sees itself a centre of the world/ideology.
Muslims were given an opportunity of living within a social order that has a respected central authority, a multiplicity of view and defining feature of getting to know one another and participate in common good. These were the initial tools that they picked up in Abyssinia and carried later with them when they went to Madinah. In Madinah, the Prophet ﷺ established a civil society functioning on equal rights and opportunities, harmony between faiths and affiliations, central authority in politics and religion and cooperation in common projects. These terms were not strange anymore to the Abyssinian returnees; they were already familiarised with them thanks to the earlier experience they witnessed. They were trained- in a presentation to the King- to speak openly and fearlessly about their beliefs without offending anyone or compromising anything. It is in contexts like these that violence plummets and it was from those days that a tradition of non-violent engagement with the larger society started. Muslims saw that ‘order’, ‘rules’ and ‘getting to know one another’ in society are mirrors of how the universe works. It was not just a tradition of a society; rather, a universal one. In this tradition, violence is named by its real namesake, “Anarchy”. Islam, which in essence, means harmony and submission stresses ‘harmony’ and ‘submission’ to order as the way the universe, the society and humanity can move forward. The opposite image will be;
Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf;
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce, an universal prey,
And last eats up himself
I conclude with the oft-quoted words of the Qur’an for reflection:“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another.” (49:13)
Bibliography:
Malik, Aftab Ahmed With God on Our Side, Amal Press, Bristol 2005
Sacks, Jonathan The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilisations, Continuum 2007 p.39
See Gray, John Al-Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern, Faber & Faber 2003
Lawrence, Bruce Defenders of God, I.B. Tauris 1990
Abou El-Fadl, Khaled Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age 2017
Sacks, Jonathan Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence, London 2015
RSS Feed