The Quran refers to everything that relates to what is good for human beings. But there is no mention of freedom in the sense of political freedom. This shows that ‘freedom’ is simply a deceptive term. It does not have any real meaningfulness. A clear practical proof of this is that today there are some 60 Muslim countries that, after immense sacrifices, won freedom from European colonial rule. But, in reality, these countries are not free. What happened in these Muslim countries was that the fight against an external foe later transformed into civil war. This might well happen with the Kashmiris, too. Either they keep up their socalled war of independence, which is bound to degenerate from being an externally-directed war into a devastating civil war, or else they end their present political conflict and focus all their energies on construction and progress.

In July 2001, I spent a week in Switzerland, attending an international conference. There was an 80 year-old Kashmiri lady in our team, who, when taken to various places of interest by the organisers, was so overwhelmed by the beauty of Switzerland that she exclaimed, ‘Our Kashmir was once as beautiful as this, but today it is devastated!’

Who destroyed Kashmir? No Government was responsible for this. The only people to blame were those foolish leaders who, with their emotionally-driven rhetoric, inflamed the Kashmiri youth and pushed them on to the destructive path of militancy. If these leaders had instead set these youth on the path of education and constructive work, perhaps Kashmir would have been even better than Switzerland today. But the inept guidance of these incapable leaders so terribly damaged Kashmir that even an entire century will not suffice to make amends for it.

It is indispensable now for the Kashmiri people to completely abandon militancy and forever. They must adopt the way of peaceful construction. If the people of Kashmir were to do this wholeheartedly and sincerely, it would open a new and glorious chapter in Kashmir’s history

the what they called the ‘Prophetic System’ or Nizam-e Mustafa. These people took the name of Islam, but they really had no assets, as it were, other than mere wishful thinking and emotionalism. They were driven by romantic emotions, and drove others, too, all the while imagining that they were moving in the direction of Islam. But the fact is that, leave alone benefitting Islam, their movement did not benefit even the Kashmiris in worldly terms. This world is a world of practical realities. Here it is not possible to gain positive results from emotional politics.

It is because of the failure of these movements that after 1989, the Kashmiri movement took to the path of violence. The violent and destructive movement that emerged among the Kashmiris was a result of their frustration. To begin with, they followed their foolish leaders on a completely pointless course. And then, when in accordance with the law of nature these movements proved useless, they became frustrated and agitated and launched an armed struggle.

The proper way now for the Kashmiris is to reassess their entire history. Admitting their past mistakes, they should make new plans for their future. It is a fact that the Kashmiris have lost their ‘first chance’. And so, now the only possible way out for them is to understand, in a very conscious way, what their ‘second chance’ is, and to willingly use it, and in the right way.

For the Kashmiris to embark on building their lives once again, they need to focus, in particular, on three things: education, economic development and dawah.

The Kashmiris should abstain completely from politics and the gun. They must focus particularly on education, setting up educational institutions across the state. For at least 25 years, they should relinquish all other projects and concentrate on the education of their children.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir has great potential for trade and industry. Till now, the Kashmiri Muslims have taken very little advantage of this potential. They must now focus on trade and industry.

should have been very careful and wise in their utterances, so that when General Musharraf returned to Islamabad, he would not be greeted with black flags. But because of the inflexible attitude of our leaders and their unrealistic utterances, all talk of reconciliation suddenly and dramatically evaporated. How something that started off on a very positive note ended up on a disappointing note was widely discussed in the media, and I do not need to deal with it here.

Resolving a conflict requires great wisdom as well as full consideration for the other party. When it comes to one’s personal interests, everyone knows how important this is. But when it comes to the question of national interests, people quickly forget this, and behave as if this were an alien idea.

The Work to Be Done

The history of the last few hundred years in Kashmir can be divided into three major periods. In the first period, the people of Kashmir were influenced by Sufis. The arrival of Sufis in Kashmir benefitted the Kashmiris in that they received the gift of Islam through them. The vast majority of Kashmiris converted to Islam. But for many Kashmiris, Islam became synonymous with culture. Most Kashmiris were wedded to the graves and shrines (dargahs) of the Sufis. They took to reciting particular types of litanies with great care, as if this itself was Islam in its totality. A negative fall-out of this shrine-based understanding of Islam or ‘cultural Islam’ was that no true, deeper understanding of Islam developed that could have enabled the people to see things in a proper and far-sighted manner. This unawareness made the Kashmiris vulnerable to negative politics that bore no relation to authentic Islam. Neither did such politics provide the Kashmiris with any worldly benefit.

Islam provides Man with a spiritual centre. It teaches Man the appropriate method of worship. It provides Man with a Divine

lose their flexibility and their willingness to accept adjustments. This is because with regard to jihad they believe that even if by following their present policy they obtain nothing, still their success lies in giving up their lives by doing whatever they are doing. In dying in the course of what they think is a jihad they believe that they will directly reach heaven.

Developments show that secularist quarters in Pakistan are ready to adopt a policy of adjustment with India on the Kashmir question. But the Islamist camp in Pakistan is vociferously opposed to this. They have made this issue so emotionally-laden that many Pakistanis have now come to believe that whether or not they are able to reach and conquer Srinagar, they will certainly reach heaven by fighting for this cause! In this way, the Pakistani Islamist groups have become a major obstacle in the way of Pakistan adopting a policy of adjustment on Kashmir, although history tells us that such a policy has always been the sole means of success for any people or nation.

Now take the case of India. Fundamentalists in India are playing the same sort of negative role as Pakistani Islamists. Religious fundamentalism promotes among its advocates an extreme sense of self-righteousness. A consequence of this mentality is that people who are infected by it develop tendencies towards extremism and fanaticism. Such people are concerned only about themselves and care nothing at all about others. They think of themselves as right in all matters, and of others as always and inevitably wrong. They think that they alone, and no one else, deserve consideration.

After Independence, the fundamentalist lobby in India became very active. As an example of the negative results of their stance, I would like to cite the outcome of General Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India in July 2011 at the invitation of the Government of India.

The Pakistani President met Indian leaders in Delhi and Agra, and, to begin with, this programme of meetings seemed to give cause for hope. But later, a certain bitterness crept in, so that the

When General Pervez Musharraf arrived in India, he spoke, to begin with, in such a manner that it appeared that he had come to India with the intention of reconciliation. For instance, in a speech at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, he said that no military solution of the Kashmir conflict was possible. Similarly, at a press conference in Agra, he spoke about ‘acceptance of reality’. He also said that he had come to India with an open mind. Yet, later, without entering into any realistic reconciliation, he returned to Pakistan.

As far as I can gauge, General Musharraf apprehended fierce emotional reaction on the part of the Pakistani public, and that is why he could not enter into any reconciliation with India and returned home. According to one commentator, ‘General Pervez Musharraf knew that the emotionally-charged people of Pakistan, who cannot tolerate defeat by India even on the cricket pitch, would definitely not tolerate political defeat by India in Kashmir.’

The Pakistani President must have known that if he entered into a compromise with India on Kashmir, the Pakistani public would have considered it their political defeat and he would have become the target of their ire. But, on the other hand, not compromising and reconciling with India on Kashmir would have only further worsened Pakistan’s woeful economic conditions, which would have led to the Pakistani public becoming even more disillusioned with General Musharraf.

In such a situation, the Pakistani President had to choose between two evils, one of which would ruin his political career. It was for him to decide which of the two was a lesser evil, and then choose it over the greater evil.

In my opinion, accepting the Indian position on Kashmir would have been opting for the ‘lesser evil’ from the point of view of Pakistan, because it would have been tantamount simply to Pakistan acknowledging something that it had already lost. In return for this, Pakistan would have been rewarded with the opening of doors of progress that have so far been closed

articles about your impending trip, which were published in Urdu, Hindi and English newspapers in India […]

If you permit me, I would like to say that with regard to Kashmir, Pakistan should adopt a policy that is expressed in the English saying, ‘Politics is the art of the possible.’

I have, as a well-wisher, been pondering on the Kashmir problem ever since its inception. I started writing on this subject in 1968, for the Urdu, Hindi and English press. Based on an impartial analysis of the problem, my firm opinion is that with regard to Kashmir, Pakistan has only two possible options. The first is that in this matter Pakistan should adopt a de-linking policy. That is to say, it should set aside the Kashmir issue to be resolved through dialogue and establish normal relations with India in all other spheres. And the second is that it should accept the geographical status quo in Jammu and Kashmir as the accepted international border and thereby end this problem, once and for all. Besides these, no practical solution is possible. The only alternative is enormous devastation.

There is another very important aspect of this issue. You know that in present times, militancy has emerged in different parts of the world in the name of jihad. And prominent among these places is Kashmir. This militancy has produced no benefit at all. On the contrary, it has caused devastating damage, in that it has caused Islam to earn the image of being a violent religion. This bad name that has been given to it has stopped the progress of Islam that had been carrying on continuously for the last 1000 years.

If you enter into a peace treaty with India, it will not benefit just Pakistan alone. Rather, because of it, a new, healthy process will be set in motion in the entire Muslim world. After this, the present violent tendencies will give way to a dawah-oriented outlook.

Present-day commentators see Pakistan as a possible ‘nuclear flashpoint’. But if you act with courage and enter into a

By 1956, Nehru had publicly offered a settlement of Kashmir with Pakistan over the ceasefire line (now converted into the Line of Control). On 23 May 1964, Nehru asked Sheikh Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan in Rawalpindi in an effort to solve the Kashmir imbroglio [...] the Pakistani leader agreed to a summit with Nehru, which was to be held in June 1964. This message was urgently telegraphed to Nehru on May 26. But just as Nehru’s consent reached Karachi, the world also learnt that Nehru had died in his sleep. And with that a major opportunity for a peaceful solution [of the] Kashmir [conflict] was also lost.

If Pakistan were to accept the status quo in Kashmir as a permanent solution, it would not have any negative consequences at all for Pakistan, nor, in broader terms, for Muslims as a whole. In such a situation, despite being separate from Pakistan, Kashmir would still retain its status of a Muslim-majority region. Furthermore, it is an uncontestable fact that the Muslims who live in India are in a better position than the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Another point to be noted is that for Pakistan to reconcile with India is no ordinary matter. If it does so, it would be able to end its on-going conflict with its powerful neighbour. To end a running conflict with a neighbour is tantamount to opening the doors to every kind of progress. How ending a conflict with an enemy paves the way for progress is illustrated by the example of modern Japan. During the Second World War, Japan and the USA were enemies, but after the war, Japan reconciled with America. This reconciliation enabled Japan to emerge as an economic super-power.

Pakistan’s present policy has become the cause of Islam being given a bad name. In line with this policy, Pakistan had sought to make hatred against India a means of promoting national unity. But this wrong policy did not succeed in uniting the people of

Pakistanis left Pakistan and shifted elsewhere. During my visits to America, I have asked many Pakistanis who had settled in America why they left their country and came to America. Almost all of them replied that in America they had opportunities to work, unlike in Pakistan.

The unrealistic policies of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir have proven to be an obstacle blocking the path to Pakistan’s further development. It is a fact that Pakistan has been left far behind in the field of progress. The only way for it to overcome this backwardness is to stop fighting against problems, and, instead, to adopt a policy of making use of available opportunities. In the present circumstances, what the Pakistani leaders must do is agree to accept the status quo in Kashmir. In other words, the Line of Control in Kashmir should be accepted as the agreed frontier between India and Pakistan, with certain necessary adjustments. In this regard, by accepting the geographical and political status quo that has come to prevail between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, the Kashmir conflict can be resolved forever. I have been consistently and continuously advocating this solution since 1968.

Pakistan must abandon its emotional-driven policy with regard to Kashmir and in its place adopt a realistic policy. It must come to an agreement with India on Kashmir so that peace may be established in Pakistan and the country can focus on its internal development.

Ever since 1947, Pakistan’s politics have centered on one question—and that is, to change the political status quo in Kashmir. But it has been conclusively and fully proven that this is an enormously destructive policy, which will not produce any positive results. It did not have any positive consequences in the past. This is how it is at present as well. And, it will be the same in the future, too.

For Pakistan to take a revolutionary step of the sort I have suggested would certainly not be easy. But if, mustering courage, it does take this decision, it would gain miraculous results. Its

Moving Towards A Solution

The choice that Pakistan faces today is not between democracy and military rule. Rather, it is between either remaining in the impasse in which it finds itself, thereby wiping itself off the roadmap of the global community, or extricating itself from this impasse and moving ahead.

In the history of a country, it can sometimes happen that its progress comes to a complete standstill. At such times, it becomes imperative for it to take a bold decision so that its progress may resume. This sort of decision is often unpopular and against people’s sentiments. Such bold decisions are often taken by military rulers. Generally, democratically elected rulers do not take such bold decisions because they come to power after being elected by the people. They hesitate to take any revolutionary decision that is not in accordance with popular sentiments.

To make this point, let me cite two instances. One of these is from Muslim history—the instance of Salahuddin Ayyubi (d. 1193 C.E.). What is considered to have been his great achievement was his protecting the Muslim world from the Crusaders. But how did Salahuddin gain the powerful status that enabled him to play this great role? He was a military officer under the Sultan of Egypt, Nuruddin Zangi. When the Sultan died, Salahuddin snatched his throne, although the Sultan had sons of his own. In this way, Salahuddin became the Sultan. Muslim historians generally regard this seizing of the throne by Salahuddin as legitimate because, although from the legal point of view it seemed to be wrong, from the point of view of its results, it proved to be of enormous political benefit. It was this that made it possible for Salahuddin to later play his great role in protecting Islam and Muslims.

Another instance is that of the French President Charles de Gaulle (d. 1970). He was a General in the French Army, but later seized political power and became the country’s President. On the face of it, this was an anti-democratic action, but by doing so

only have been enjoyed by those who were part of the governing apparatus.

Singapore and Japan illustrate this point very clearly. They are, in terms of size, small countries, and yet they are enjoying the benefits of global possibilities and potentialities. The Kashmiris, too, can avail of these in the same way, but only if they make wise use of them.

Victory for Both

It sometimes happens that two individuals or groups quarrel over a piece of land. A part of the land is grabbed by one group, and the rest by the other. It may happen that both groups fight each other to grab each other’s bit of land, and in the process both groups are devastated. But another way is for the parties to agree that each can keep the bit of land that he has, end their quarrel and get busy developing their bits of land. This way to solve a dispute is what is called a ‘win-win solution’.

This, to my mind, is the best and most practicable formula to solve the conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. At present, both India and Pakistan control parts of Jammu and Kashmir. If, on the basis of the ‘win-win solution’ principle, the two agree to be satisfied with whatever part of the state they presently control, and, abandoning the path of conflict, they focus on developing their respective parts of the state, it would definitely be greatly beneficial for both countries. Both countries could embark on the path of progress that has been blocked for a very long time.

It is true that the portion of Kashmir under Pakistani control is relatively small in size. But experience tells us that in this world the size of a territory is only of relative importance. What is really important is the wise use of a territory’s resources. Numerous countries, such as Taiwan and Singapore, for instance, are very

The Politics of the Possible

In life, one is sometimes given a second chance, but one must know how to make use of it. For instance, the first chance, as it were, that India got after it won its independence was to emerge on the world map as a united country. But this was not to be its fate, and so the leaders of the country availed of the other opportunities that they had before them. Pakistan faced a similar situation, too. The Pakistani leaders dreamt that East and West Pakistan would jointly form a large country, but in 1971-72, when Bangladesh was created, they lost this first chance. Thereafter, the Pakistani leaders tried to use the other available opportunities to build their country.

The same holds true, in different ways, in the case of every other country. Each country has, in some way or the other, lost its first chance. But, availing of the second chance—other available opportunities—they have been able to gain a new lease of life.

This holds true for Kashmir, too. The leaders of Kashmir had a political dream for their land prior to 1947—this was, in a sense, their first chance. But they lost this chance with the Partition in 1947. And so, now the proper and possible way out for the Kashmiris is to use their second chance—the existing opportunities—to build a new Kashmir.

Some of the leaders of Kashmir dreamt of an independent country. This did not seem impossible to them. But the decisive developments in the conditions after 1947 rendered the emergence of an independent Kashmir on the map of the Indian subcontinent impossible. Now, what is possible, given the existing conditions, is that Kashmir should be part of India under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Till now, Kashmiri leaders have been engaged in the politics of the impossible. Now, recognizing practical realities, they must engage in the politics of the possible.

The only proper advice for the Kashmiris is that they must forget the past and learn to live in the present. They must seek

Just as there are certain conditions to be observed in Islam for offering prayer, so also are there certain conditions for jihad in the path of God. The war in Kashmir does not fulfill these conditions. A jihad requires a regular amir, or leader. It also requires a Muslim territory that can serve as its headquarters. Also, necessary prior preparations must be made for jihad. Jihad, moreover, is not fought for land, power, or wealth, but for establishing God’s Word. And so on.

The fact is that the Kashmiris’ war does not fulfill a single one of these conditions. The present war in Kashmir can be called either a guerilla war or a proxy war, but neither of these has any relation whatsoever with Islam. Guerilla war is un-Islamic because in Islam, leading jihad is the task of the ruler, not of members of the general public. Proxy war is un-Islamic because a government that engages in such a war does not openly announce it, while an open announcement of war is a necessary condition for an Islamic war.

If this reality is kept in mind, the ongoing futile war in Kashmir conveys this message to the Kashmiris:

You must, without a single moment’s delay, end your war because this war will cause your destruction, both in this world and in the Hereafter. You are bound to face devastation in this world because you are fighting without the necessary preparations. And your devastation in the Hereafter will be because, in the name of jihad, you are fighting a war that, according to Islamic principles, is simply not a jihad.

A movement for political independence is not an Islamic movement. Rather, it is wholly a communal or nationalist movement. There appears to be no harm if such a movement is launched in the name of nationalism, but if such a movement is carried on in the name of Islamic jihad, it will certainly be a wrongful movement.

Not a single prophet launched any movement in the name of

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

Peace and Justice

You can live in a state of perpetual peace, but definitely not in a state of perpetual war. But perhaps the leaders of Kashmir have no knowledge of this well-tested fact of history. They have kept up with their completely pointless war, which has now assumed the form of suicide bombing. Little do they know that the Japanese resorted to suicide bombing on an even more massive scale in the Second World War but that this tactic completely failed. Not a single ruler in history, no matter how powerful, has been able to maintain a state of perpetual war. How, then, can the weak people of Kashmir hope to keep up their pointless war forever? What is bound to finally happen is that the Kashmiri militants will one day tire of fighting and will be compelled to call off their war. But the right way would be for the Kashmiris to adopt a wise policy and end this devastating war on the basis of their own decision.

Once, in a conversation with an educated Kashmiri Muslim, I said that what Kashmir needs most today is peace. He replied that the Kashmiris, too, want peace, but, he added, it should be peace with justice. Peace that did not go along with justice, he argued, was beneficial only for oppressors but not for the oppressed.

My answer was that this was the gravest misunderstanding—a misunderstanding shared by all the Muslim leaders throughout the world. Peace, I said, is defined as the absence of war. This is a correct definition. Peace can never be established along with justice. Instead, when peace is established, it creates opportunities,

who take to the path of armed confrontation against an existing government have necessarily to suffer for it. It is simply impossible in this world for a certain group to make a mistake and then have the price paid for it by some other group.

Kashmiri and Pakistani ideologues have brought out numerous writings with such titles as The Wounded Kashmir, The Wounded Valley and so on. These writings which talk about how the Kashmiris are being oppressed by the Indian Army, are quickly disseminated across the world. Yet, in practical terms, they have no positive result or benefit at all. All these kinds of reports are simply pointless screaming and complaining.

The responsibility for the fact that all this demanding and demonstrating of theirs has proved absolutely ineffective must be shouldered entirely by the Kashmiris themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. There is a great lesson for these Kashmiris in the story of the Queen of Sheba in the Quran, as mentioned above. The policy adopted by the Queen was a wise one in that it avoided the possibility of destruction and oppression by the army. But in contrast, because of their unwise approach, the Kashmiris simply invited the Indian Army to make them a target. What the Queen of Sheba did was just the opposite—she avoided confrontation. This, in one sentence, is the summary of the entire Kashmir story.

The way to find a solution to the vexed Kashmir problem is for the Kashmiris themselves to recognise their mistakes, and, learning a lesson from the example of the Queen of Sheba as described in the Quran, to prepare an appropriate plan of action to reconstruct their lives. There is simply no alternative solution.

What Wisdom Demands

According to a hadith report contained in the Sunan Abu Dawud, the Prophet advised Muslims not to adopt the path of violence, or else, he said, their conditions would become even more

their self-styled ‘Kashmir movement’ was not at all proper or acceptable on any count. Nor was there any meaning in Kashmiri independence. It would spell nothing but disaster. But the men passionately supported the ‘movement’, claiming that very soon it would gain a ‘glorious success’. Then, they wrote in my diary the following words:

The Kashmir that will emerge after separation from India will, God willing, be an Islamic Kashmir.

After this, I said to the men, ‘What you claim is nothing but baseless wishful thinking. You people will very soon come to know how unrealistic your views are.’ Then, in front of them I wrote the following words in my diary:

Suppose Kashmir separates from India, the independent Kashmir or Pakistani Kashmir that will emerge will be a devastated Kashmir. The choice for the Kashmiris is not between Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir, but, rather, between Indian Kashmir and a devastated Kashmir.

Many years have passed since this incident took place. The developments over these many years fully prove that what the two so-called Kashmiri mujahids claimed was nothing but false and baseless wishful thinking. On the other hand, whatever I, with God’s grace, had said on that occasion has become an undeniable reality. Events over the years have proven that in today’s circumstances, Kashmir’s welfare lies not in the creation of an independent Kashmir or in becoming part of Pakistan. On all counts, Kashmir’s welfare lies in being part of India and for the Kashmiris to abandon their confrontational approach and adopt the path of peaceful construction and progress.

Those in Kashmir who are engaged in what they think to be a jihad movement call themselves ‘lovers of Islam’ (or what is called in Urdu islam pasand). My advice to these people is to become realistic (or haqiqat pasand) before becoming islam pasand. The

and four Ministers of West Punjab, Lord Mountbatten conveyed a message from Patel, the strongman of India, asking Liaqat to abide by the rules regarding the future of the princely States previously agreed upon between the Congress and the Muslim League: that they would accede to either India or Pakistan on the basis of the majority of their inhabitants and their contiguity to [either India or Pakistan]. Patel had said that Pakistan could take Kashmir and let go Hyderabad Deccan, which had a majority Hindu population and was nowhere near Pakistan, by sea or land. After delivering this message, Lord Mountbatten went to rest in the Lahore Government House.

I, being overall in charge of the Kashmir operations, went to Liaqat Ali Khan. I suggested to him that as the Indian Army had entered Kashmir and we would be unable to annex Kashmir with the help of the tribesmen, or even with our inadequate armed forces, we should make haste to accept Patel’s proposal. Nawabzada [Liaqat Ali Khan] turned round to me and said, ‘Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad to give up Hyderabad State, which is much larger than the Punjab, for the sake of the rocks of Kashmir?’

I was stunned by the Prime Minister’s reaction and his ignorance of our geography and his lack of wisdom. I thought he was living in a fool’s paradise and did not understand the importance of Kashmir to Pakistan, while hoping to get Hyderabad, which at best was only quixotic, wishful thinking. It was not connected with Pakistan anywhere. In protest, I resigned from the position I was holding in the Kashmir operations.

If one accepts what Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan said as true, it is clear evidence that the conflict over Kashmir was created entirely and solely by the Muslim leadership and no one else.

themselves, rather than of the oppression or conspiracies of others.

In this regard, the record of the injudiciousness of Muslim leaders is a long one. I will allude to just one aspect of this here. In 1947, when India was partitioned, Pakistani leaders adopted a completely unrealistic stance and staked their claim to two Hindu-majority Indian princely states: Junagadh and Hyderabad. Had the Pakistani leaders adopted a realistic approach and not claimed Junagadh and Hyderabad (which Pakistan was definitely not going to get in any case), the question of Kashmir would never have turned into a serious conflict. It could then have very easily been solved in favour of Pakistan. But the two-pronged thrust of the Pakistani leadership, in trying to seize Hyderabad and Junagadh and also Kashmir, resulted in Pakistan getting not even one of them!

Let me cite some facts to confirm this point. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali was the Prime Minister of Pakistan for a short period in the mid-1950s. Prior to this, he had been a minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. In his voluminous book Emergence of Pakistan, he relates that shortly after the Partition, the Muslim ruler of the princely state of Junagadh declared his state’s accession to Pakistan, even though Junagadh had a Hindu majority. India did not accept this accession and, by force, took over the state and incorporated it into India. After this, a meeting was held in Delhi, attended by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, from the Indian side, and Liaqat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, from the Pakistani side.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ali writes:

Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan, was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaqat Ali Khan dwelt on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim

you that if in the journey of life you face a hurdle, you should not seek to hurl yourself against it to carry on ahead. Rather, what you must do is to carefully avoid the hurdle and continue with your journey. This is the secret for success in life. It applies in the same way to communities as it does to individuals. The only way to progress is to ignore the hurdles one comes up against, and, instead, to focus on, and make use of, all available opportunities to build one’s life.’

Personally, I do not regard the military or political presence of India in Kashmir as a hurdle for the Kashmiris. In the present democratic age, politics is simply a headache and an army is only a guard on the frontiers. Before 1989, the Indian Army in Kashmir was only stationed along the borders of Kashmir. Indian soldiers did not enter Kashmiri localities. But when in October 1989 Kashmiri activists picked up guns and took to the path of violence, the Indian Army entered Kashmiri settlements in order to combat the uprising, because the militants were based there.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the Kashmiri Muslims consider the presence of Indian soldiers in Kashmir to be an obstacle in their path, the only sensible way for them to succeed and progress is what nature tells them in its own language— ‘Ignore the problems and avail of the existing opportunities.’

This is not a principle that one should follow out of compulsion. Rather, it should be voluntarily adhered to. Nor does it apply only to the Kashmir case. In fact, it is a universal principle. It applies to all individuals and groups. It applies just as much to Muslim-majority countries as it does to countries where Muslims are a minority.

Unwise Methods

A basic principle for a successful life in this world is that if we have a dispute with someone over something, we must start by willingly accepting whatever concessions or advantages we are able to get.

‘Then, it is your fault!’ quipped the old man.

‘Yes,’ replied the young man. ‘Now I’ve learnt that one should use a good, strong lock to keep one’s shop safe.’

‘Is this something to learn only after making a mistake? When you decided to become a shopkeeper, you should have known, from the very first day itself, that you should use a strong lock for your shop!’ the old man said.

In matters like one’s shop or other such personal affairs, I wrote, it is possible that if you make a mistake, you can correct yourself. But it is entirely different when it comes to national questions. In personal matters, after once suffering a loss it is possible to again turn the situation in your favour through hard work. But in national affairs, the moment you lose the handle that controls the power to make decisions, the problem becomes very complicated, and naturally very difficult to resolve.

I further remarked that leadership of a nation is only for those who can envision the future in the present. People whose vision is limited only to the present and the past, and who see the future only when it turns into a reality and bombards them, simply cannot lead a country—although, through their unwise actions, they can certainly entangle it in enormous problems.

I have continuously repeated this line in various other articles that I have been writing on the Kashmir issue over the last many years. If all that I have written on the subject were put together, it would form a voluminous book.

It is with God’s grace that thousands of Kashmiris have benefitted from these efforts I have made. Many of them have cleansed themselves of their militant mentality and are engaged in positive work. I keep receiving letters and telephone calls from Kashmiris in this regard.

Every political movement is attributed to a community or the general public, but, in actual fact, it is movement of and for its leaders. A few leaders incite people through their writings and speeches and then extract the price of their leadership in the name of the people. Such a situation greatly increases the leaders’

in this, and that it is definitely good for them from every angle. India is a big country. It enjoys freedom and democracy. It is home to almost 200 million of their Muslim co-religionists. Most of the bigger Islamic institutions in the Indian Subcontinent are located in India. All across India are scattered the memories of a thousand and more years of Muslim presence in the region, which continue to provide a sense of determination to the country’s Muslims. Above all, India provides enormous opportunities for dawah. A hadith report (contained in the collections by Imam alNasai and Imam Ahmad) gives the good news of salvation in the Hereafter for this task of dawah.

Once when I was in Karachi for a few days, I met a Muslim industrialist who told me that Muslims in India were in a better position than Pakistanis. When I asked him why, he answered, ‘Pakistan is a small country. If we manufacture something here, we have a very small potential market for it. In contrast, India is a vast country. If you produce something there, you have a huge market you can sell it in.’

What this Pakistani industrialist said to me has become a fact of life. In the 21st century, the Muslims of India have emerged as the most progressive Muslim community in the whole of South Asia. This is no exaggeration, and one can easily prove it by a comparative study.

If the Muslims of Kashmir were to willingly and wholeheartedly join India, they would find that many opportunities for great progress would be opened up to them. The possibilities that they would enjoy in India to progress economically, educationally and in other ways are not available anywhere else in the region.

Moreover, even in terms of politics the Kashmiri Muslims have great opportunities to progress in India. Some time ago, an article I wrote was published in various Urdu, Hindi and English papers. Therein I stressed that if the Muslims of Kashmir were to abandon their policy of confrontation and wholeheartedly accept India and become part of it, it is quite possible that one day in the future, democratic India’s first Muslim Prime Minister

Islam divides rights into two: huquq Allah (‘rights of God’), and huquq ul-ibaad (‘rights of God’s creatures’). The former refers to the responsibilities that a person should fulfill in relation to God. If he errs with regard to the ‘rights of God’, to atone for this it is enough for him to ask for forgiveness from God.

But the issue of huquq ul-ibaad is very serious. If a person errs in a matter related to the ‘rights of God’s creatures’—say, by committing an offence against another human being—then he cannot atone for it only by asking forgiveness from God. Along with asking God for forgiveness, it is incumbent on him to also ask forgiveness from the concerned person and to compensate for the damage he has inflicted on him or her.

Hijacking undoubtedly involves a violation of the ‘rights of God’s creatures’. It is a form of oppression against fellow humans. It is incumbent on hijackers to atone for their crimes, otherwise they would be considered to be unpardonable criminals in God’s eyes, even if they perform various Islamic acts of worship.

haraam in Islam. Islam does not allow for innocent people to be harmed, no matter on what grounds.

It is clear from the Hudaybiya Treaty that the Prophet entered into that if an opposing party takes a Muslim as hostage, it is still impermissible for Muslims to take their men as hostages. This is because this would be tantamount to taking revenge on an innocent person. And oppressing an innocent person in order to extract or express revenge is not permissible in the Islamic shariah.

Sometimes, hijackers kill innocent passengers in pursuing their criminal goals. This is undoubtedly a terrible crime. In the Quran, God says:

Whoever killed a human being—except as a punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land—shall be regarded as having killed all mankind ( 5:32 )

Those who slaughter innocent passengers or cause them any distress despite this Divine declaration have no fear of God. And people who are bereft of the fear of God are definitely also bereft of faith.

Obviously, passengers travelling on an airplane are innocent. They have no prior dispute or conflict with the hijackers. And so, to hijack a plane and torment, and even kill, innocent passengers—all these are completely forbidden, or haraam, in Islam.

It is completely forbidden in Islam to deceive anyone, no matter for what purpose. Hijacking is a form of complete deception. Hijackers deceive other people at every stage of their operation. They procure false passports and may use fake currency; they deceive airport staff and smuggle on board dangerous weapons; they cheat the security staff. All these actions entail lying and deception, which are very serious crimes in Islam.

Islam simply does not permit deception, and so, it is completely un-Islamic to pursue one’s aims by deceiving others, so much so that if a Muslim country has to go to war with another country,

for the judge. Finally, he ruled that the child should be sliced into two, and that each woman should get a part of the child’s body.

When the judge gave his verdict, it made no impact on the woman who falsely claimed to be the child’s mother. But the real mother burst out screaming: ‘Don’t kill the child!’ Give it to this other woman, if you want!’

This is the true test of love. Those who have true love for their country must raise their voices, just as this woman did, and declare, ‘We cannot bear to see our country being destroyed! We have forgotten whatever happened in the past so that we can fully use the opportunities of the present and build a glorious future for our country!’

Peace and unity are possible only when underlain by tolerance. It is a principle of nature that differences will inevitably arise between individuals and groups. They are an indispensable part of life. This is why communal harmony cannot come about by eliminating differences. Rather, it is possible only when tolerance is shown.

The fact is that to attempt to eliminate differences is to act against not a particular community, but, rather, against a universal law of nature. No individual or group is so strong that it can fight with, and win, against nature. That is why pragmatism demands that, as far as the issue of religious and cultural differences is concerned, we must abide by the principle of tolerance, rather than engage in confrontation. We need to tolerate differences so that unity may be established, because seeking to establish unity by eliminating differences is simply impossible.

between communities. It is only in India that incidents like these became a cause for continuing bitterness between communities— Hindus and Muslims—leading to repeated communal riots. They became a major obstacle in promoting communal harmony.

The basic reason for this exceptional case of India in this regard is, I believe, that the Indian Muslim ulama and intellectuals have labelled Muslim dynasties in India as ‘Islamic’ dynasties. They began considering them as a chapter in the history of Islam. In actual fact, however, their rule was simply that of certain Muslim families. It is completely wrong to consider their rule as the rule of Islam. These two things are totally different. But because this difference was not kept in mind, the events that were associated with the reign of particular Muslim dynasties came to be associated with the name of Islam.

Another terrible blunder that Muslims made because this basic distinction was not borne in mind was that they perceived the reign of these Muslim rulers as a source of Islamic pride. They began to view it as a symbol of the domination of Islam. On the other hand, Hindus began thinking on the lines of what is called ‘righting historical wrongs’. Both these stances resulted in mutual bitterness. When Muslims made the memory of the Muslim kings a source of pride, consciously or otherwise this became a part of what they thought of as their religious history. And, on the other hand, Hindus perceived their actions as historical misdeeds and began trying to redress them.

In this regard, both sides, I believe, have made mistakes. The mistake of the Muslims is that because they have given this history of these Muslim rulers a supposedly religious status, they are not willing to re-examine it. And, on the other hand, the mistake of the Hindus is that they are not willing to forget history. They insist on the righting of historical wrongs, even if this results in destroying the potentials and prospects of the present.

I believe that on this matter both sides need to be realistic. Muslims should not give the Muslim rulers of the past the status of ‘Islamic rulers’. Instead, they should simply characterise their

that which is a product of human reasoning and reflection can be either right or wrong.

In my opinion, the term dar ul-harb is an error of ijithad. Many different developments took place at the time of the Prophet, but he never declared any territory as dar ul-harb. If one engages in ijtihad based on the Quran and Hadith and coins a relevant term, it can be just one: and that is, dar ud-dawah or ‘Abode of Invitation to accept the Faith’. This is what is in accordance with the spirit of Islam. Islam regards all people as mad‘us, or people who are to be invited to accept the faith, irrespective of whether their relations with the followers of Islam are peaceful or not. Hence, in accordance with the authentic understanding of Islam, only two terms are proper with regard to the issue being discussed here. One is dar ul-islam (‘Abode of Islam), and the other is dar ud-dawah. Other than these, all other terms that are used in the fiqh tradition to categorise territories (such as dar ul-harb, dar ul-kufr [‘Abode of Infidelity’], dar ut-taghut [‘Abode of Falsehood’], etc.) represent, in my view, errors of ijtihad.

The Concept of Jihad

As a result of wrong interpretation by some Muslims, jihad has come to be understood as war engaged in to ‘reform’ others (or what is called in Urdu muslihana jang). Such people say that Muslims are God’s khalifas, or deputies on earth, and that it is the responsibility of Muslims as God’s deputies to establish the rule of God in the world. They think they are charged with the God-given task of making people obey God’s commandments. They call this war jihad.

This understanding of jihad is undoubtedly without any basis. It has nothing to do with the Quran, the Hadith, and the Prophet’s practice.

A ‘reformist war’ , from the point of view of its consequences, promotes nothing but fasad or corruption and strife. In society,

The decline of the Ottoman Empire is the decline of the Islamic shariah and the Muslim millat.

O my friends, till when will you be concerned only about your children and families?

This understanding, that the collapse of a certain government is synonymous with the decline of the Islamic shariah and the Muslim millat, is certainly baseless. Such a thing has never happened in the past, and nor can it ever happen in the future. The period of the four rightly-guided Caliphs came to an end, but the peaceful expansion of Islam still carried on. The journey of Islam continued in the same way even after the Umayyad and Abbasid Empires collapsed, and also after Muslim rule in Spain and that of the Fatimids in Egypt and the Mughals in India ended. The decline of these Muslim dynasties could not, and did not, cause any decline of Islam.

In the same way, in the 20th century a number of extremist ideologies emerged—for instance, Communism, Nazism, Nationalism, and so on. But the end result of all of these was that the law of nature rebutted their extremist aspects, and, finally, whatever survived of them was what was desirable according to the law of nature. Thise eternal law removes extremist ideologies and replaces them with moderate ideas.

The Concepts of Kufr and Kafir

Some people claim that the notions that Muslims have of kufr and kafir are a permanent stumbling block to communal harmony. However, this claim is based on a misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with the Quran.

The literal meaning of the word kufr is to ‘deny’, and kafir means ‘one who denies’. It is important to note that these two terms are used in the Quran in the context of narratives about the prophets. Moreover, kufr is a trait of a particular individual;

specified in one’s passport, while passports were not used earlier. There are also new legal definitions of nationality for determining international rights. And so on. Hence, one can rightly say that today the term qaum, or nation, is used in essentially the same way as it was used in earlier times, the only difference being that earlier it was employed in a limited sense, while today it is used in a more expanded sense.

Some people interpret nationalism in an extremist fashion, so much so that they make it out to be synonymous with religion. But this is a case of ideological extremism. One can cite instances of this sort of ideological extremism with regard to religion, too. For instance, some modern Muslim thinkers have interpreted Islam in such an extremist manner that all systems other than Islam have been branded as taghuti nizams or ‘false or evil systems’. These writers have declared it haraam or completely forbidden for Muslims to cooperate with such systems. They have even declared it haraam for Muslims to seek education under such so-called ‘false systems’, to take up government employment, to vote in elections, and to approach the country’s courts to have their disputes solved.

This notion of ‘false systems’ was the product of some extremist minds. It does not have anything in common with the real Islam. This is why practical realities have compelled many of those who once upheld this erroneous ideology to distance themselves from it in their own personal lives. And so, all these people have, in actual practice, abandoned this extremist theory, without announcing it as such.

Exactly the same thing happened in relation to the issue of nationalism. Some extremist Western thinkers had expanded the notion of nationalism to the extent that they presented it in the form of a complete religion by itself. But when this notion had to contend with practical realities, it became completely untenable. And so, in practical terms, nationalism is now understood in somewhat the same natural manner as it is portrayed in the Quran.

Muslims speak and write against him. This method is, from the point of view of reform, completely useless. It only pleases one party, which thinks it to be advocacy in its favour, but it has no positive impact whatsoever on the other party.

Contrary to this, the proper and beneficial approach is that if a Muslim does something wrong, Muslim ulema intellectuals should speak and write against it. Likewise, if a Hindu does something wrong, Hindu leaders should speak and write against it. It is just as when a child does something wrong, his parents are the first to admonish him. His parents do not wait for their neighbours to come to their house and scold their child. In any case, even if these people do come and scold their child, it will not have any positive impact on him.

It is human nature that one generally takes the admonishment of people one considers one’s own in a positive way, and, accordingly, reforms oneself. In contrast, one generally takes the criticism of people one considers as the ‘other’ as an insult to one’s honour, and so it does not have a positive impact. It is very necessary to keep this practical wisdom in mind with regard to the issue of community unity.

Community, Nation and Nationalism

In the context of what we are discussing here, there are certain Islamic terms whose clarification is necessary. Clarifying their real import can help in promoting better relations between Muslims and others. On the other hand, a wrong understanding of these terms can only further magnify the distance between them.

One of these terms is qaum. From the Quran we learn that every prophet addressed his disbelieving addressees as ya qaumi, which can be translated as ‘O my people!’ From this we learn that the believers and non-believers can share the same nationality, to use a modern term. The fact is that one’s nationality is related with one’s homeland, not with one’s religion. The term to

controversies, and then people’s passions are roused, leading to confrontation and violence between communities. Because of this, many people have become opponents of religion itself. They say that human beings have no need for religion at all, and that, hence, religion must be destroyed. Without this, they contend, social unity is impossible.

This, however, is an extremist response to an extremist stance, a secular extremist reaction to religious extremism, which is neither possible nor useful. The fact is that religion is in itself not a problem. It is a vital part of human life. It is the political exploitation of religion by certain opportunists that is the problem. Hence, it is the exploitation of religion, rather than religion itself, that needs to be eliminated.

Religion has two dimensions: personal and collective. The personal dimension of religion includes beliefs, worship, morality and spirituality. The collective dimension of religion includes its political and social commandments. In this matter, the right approach would be, in general conditions, to lay stress only on the personal dimension of religion. The entire focus should be on enkindling the spirit of religion.

As far as the political and social commandments of religion are concerned, they should not be taken up until such time as the entire society becomes favourable towards them. These commandments can be established only through the collective consent of the entire society. That is why no practical steps should be taken as far as these rules are concerned as long as the collective consent of society is not willingly given.

This approach can be termed a practical division between religion and politics. That is to say, while considering politics, at the ideological level, to be part of religion, in the face of reality the practical enforcement of the political commandments of religion frequently need to be delayed or postponed. This is a wise approach. The advantage of this approach is that in this way the demands both of religion and of politics can be fulfilled: those of religion, in the present, and of politics, in the future. On

every community. That is why it is not necessary to make changes in religious teachings in order to promote unity and harmony between different religions. For this purpose, the only thing necessary is to promote among the followers of different religions a commitment to ‘live and let live.’

However, some people still advocate this failed experiment of monoculturalism and have given it the name of ‘social engineering’. Through this they seek to respond to the fact of cultural diversity among different communities by calling for the restructuring of their culture so that society may be free from cultural differences and all citizens of the state share a common culture.

No matter what name it is called by—‘social engineering’ or ‘cultural nationalism’ or whatever—there have been no positive results of the effort to build and impose a single culture on people. It is tantamount to nothing less than what could be called ‘cultural bulldozing’. It is thoroughly impractical and unrealistic. And to pursue anything that is impractical from the point of view of natural laws is simply a waste of time.

In this regard, my difference with the ‘cultural nationalists’ or ‘social engineers’ is not on ideological, but, rather, practical grounds. I do not say that their aim is wrong, but, rather, that what they want to bring about is simply impractical. Supposing it became possible for everyone in the country to start to speak one language, to follow one culture and to have the same traditions and way of life. If such a thing were to happen, I would certainly give this my seal of approval. But the fact remains that, in line with the laws of nature and history, this sort of uniformity is simply impossible. It has never been possible in the past, and nor will it be possible in the future. Cultures always develop according to their own laws. It is simply impossible to sit in an office and invent a cultural map of your choice and then go about imposing it on every community in the country.

So, in this regard, we should do exactly what we generally do with regard to all other divisive issues—we should solve the problem

sort of imaginary universal Constitution may greatly please the author of such a book, but it will not be acceptable to even one single country! Every country will reject it. The same holds true for books like the one written by Dr. Bhagwan Das. Books of this sort may give their compilers great satisfaction, but they cannot be acceptable to the followers of the different religions.

I have studied this issue in detail and have found that to claim that all religions are one and the same does not correspond to reality. In actual fact, there are so many differences between the different religions that it is simply impossible to prove them to be the same. For instance, one religion says that God is one. Another religion talks of two gods. A third religion says there are three gods. Yet another religion claims that there are 330 million gods. Some religions insist that the number of gods is simply beyond counting. In such circumstances, to claim that the teachings of all the religions are one and the same may appeal to the minds of people who are given to wishful thinking, but it is not logical, and nor is it factual.

Even if, by some means or the other, it could be argued that the scriptures of the different religions are, in actual fact, the same, the problem of differences will still remain unresolved. This is because there are multiple and conflicting interpretations of each of these scriptures, and these multiple interpretations lead to the formation of numerous sects within each religious community.

The fact is that such difference or diversity is not just related to religion. The entire world is based on the principle of difference and variety. These differences are so pervasive that no two things or people are without some difference or the other. As someone has very rightly said, ‘Nature abhors uniformity.’

When differences are themselves a law of nature, how can religion be an exception to this rule? The fact is that, just as differences are found in everything else in the world, so also there are differences between one religion and another. We have not thought it necessary to do away with differences in other matters,

National Integration Council to deal with matters related to communal harmony and to make necessary suggestions. The second conference of this Council was held in June 1962. In the speeches made on this occasion, various measures were suggested to promote communal harmony. Yet, no action was taken on these suggestions. Moreover, no more meetings of the Council were held during the rest of Nehru’s life.

The third meeting of the Council was called by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, in Srinagar, in 1968. It called for promoting hatred between communities to be made a cognizable offence. Some other steps were also mooted. A few laws and rules were also passed. But still, no practical benefit emerged from all of this. And so, even today, the situation in the country is about the same as it was in 1947 as far as the issue of communalism is concerned.

What caused this failure? The basic reason is that this issue has been thought of simply as a law and order problem. However, in actual fact, the nature of the issue is different. It is not really a law and order problem. Rather, it has to do essentially with the lack of intellectual development or lack of awareness. To solve the problem, what is required is to properly educate the people and to promote proper thinking and right judgment. People should know how to make the distinction between actions that are efficacious and those that are not. They must know what they should do and what they should abstain from. They should learn the importance of thinking before acting.

This sort of aware or awakened society is one where communal harmony can flourish. It is by promoting this sort of social awareness, rather than by approaching the issue as one of law and order and reacting accordingly, that the problem of communalism can be solved. The purpose of the law in this regard is only to deal with exceptional cases of violence in society, and not for improving the general health of society. In the case of surgery, only the affected part of a patient’s body is treated. But if

gives up his life. He pens the truth of his ideology with the ink of his blood. Such a death is a source of life for thousands of people. And this is exactly what happened. Sacrifices like this one willingly made by the early Muslims made many territories enter the fold of Islam.

when the Prophet would step out on a military campaign against his opponents, he would often do so quietly. But it was different in the case of the Tabuk campaign. On this occasion, he clearly announced before the people, exhorting them to participate in the campaign. (Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya by Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5, P. 3)

The Tabuk campaign was an important event in the history of Islam. It has been described in great detail in the biographies of the Prophet and in historical accounts. If you study this event, you will be able to appreciate some important principles of the Prophet’s method of war. Two of these principles are as follows:

1. The Prophet’s military action in the course of the Tabuk campaign was for the purpose of defense. It was not an aggressive or offensive attack. From this we learn that Islam does not permit aggressive war. In Islam, war can be resorted to only when it becomes necessary for the purposes of defense.

2. Another principle that we learn from this campaign is that even while taking defensive steps, confrontation is not indispensable. If it is possible that through a show of strength the enemy will step back and abandon its aggressive intentions, then one’s response should remain limited to this show of strength. It is not necessary to go to the extent of military confrontation. This is why, contrary to his general practice, the Prophet made preparations for the Tabuk campaign very openly, rather than silently. As a result of this, even before he reached the Syrian border the Byzantines had received the news that the Prophet, along with 30,000 men who were ready to sacrifice their lives, was advancing towards them.

This open expression of strength had its desired effect. The Byzantine monarch was so overawed that he ordered his soldiers

inner nature. This is the method of reform of human beings, or what can be called a ‘reformist movement’.

War always aims at removing external obstacles, not at producing an inner state of higher consciousness within individuals. For the latter purpose, the appropriate method is advice, exhortation and guidance. It has nothing to do with war.

In Islam, only one sort of war is allowed—and that is defensive war. If a group commits aggression against the followers of Islam, the latter can oppose this to the extent that it is capable of doing so. This response can take different forms, such as open war, or other forms, too. But in ordinary circumstances, Islam’s method is that of peace and dawah.

A Study

After the Hudaybiya Treaty, when conditions were stabilised, the Prophet sent out missionary groups to various places outside Madinah. One of these groups was sent to a region along the Syrian border, to the north of Madinah. This area was inhabited by Christian tribesmen who were under Byzantine rule.

There were 15 people in this missionary group, which was led by Ka‘ab Ibn Umair al-Ghifari. When they reached Zat-e Itla, near Syria, they saw that quite a few people had gathered together. The Muslims presented these people with the message of Islam. However, they did not accept this offer, and, instead, started raining arrows on the Muslims. (Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya by Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, P. 241 ) In this one-sided attack, 12 Muslims were martyred. Ka‘ab ibn Umair al-Ghifari was injured, but managed to return to Madinah.

This assault on the Muslims by the Christian tribe on the Syrian frontier was, indirectly, an attack by Byzantine, because these Christians were under Byzantine rule. In this way, Byzantine initiated aggression against Islam.

The Prophet sent Al-Harith bin Umair Al-Azdi to the ruler

the complete following of Islam, not the complete enforcement of Islam.

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

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

Islam in the 21st Century

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

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

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

In this regard, it is important to note that in former times, large parts of the world were under a monarchical system of political coercion. Under this system, people had no freedom of thought or action. Without freedom, neither could religious commandments be acted upon, nor could the work of dawah be done. The Islamic revolution not only demolished this coercive system at the initial level but also set in motion a new historical process. This process reached its culmination in the

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

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

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

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

The same is true for the entire corpus of Islamic literature produced in the later period. From Ibn Taimiyah to Shah Waliullah, and from Shah Waliullah to present-day writers, almost no Muslim scholar prepared any book on the topic of

‘universal deterrent’ in the form of the United Nations, Amnesty International and numerous human rights groups. No ruler can afford to turn a blind eye to them or to act against them for too long.

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

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

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

ruled by a system of Absolute Imperialism. This coercive system had robbed people of almost every conceivable goodness. At that time, God commanded the end of this artificial system so that the doors of goodness could be opened to humanity.

The Quran sets forth this commandment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the exceptional verses in the Gita that are about war are alone looked at, to the exclusion of the rest of the text, and one then makes a sweeping generalization about the Gita on the basis of these verses and claims that this represents the overall teachings of the Gita, it will undoubtedly be an unscholarly approach and a major obstacle in understanding the Gita’s true import.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Islam Permit Violence?

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

It is true that Islam permits fighting in defense, just as this is also permitted in every other religion and in every non-

its expanded sense, jihad is also used for war, but in Arabic the actual word for war is qital, not jihad.

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

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

It is an accepted fact that actions should be judged in the light of the ideology that is invoked for them, rather than vice versa. The contrary—to gauge an ideology in the light of actions committed in its name—is not the proper way.

For instance, the proper thing to do is to judge the actions of the member-states of the United Nations in the light of the United Nations’ Charter, rather than determining the meaning of this Charter in the light of the actions of these states. In the same way, it is necessary to see Islam and Muslims separately. For instance, some Muslims worship graves of saintly personages. Seeing this behaviour, some people who worship idols might claim that there is no difference between their religion of polytheism and Islam. Naturally, this sort of comparison is not proper, because the worshipping of graves by some Muslims is a deviant action. It has nothing to do with the true teachings of Islam.

The same sort of logic applies in the case of jihad. Undoubtedly, jihad is a peaceful action. However, if, for instance, the violent actions of some medieval Muslim monarchs, such as Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, are labelled as ‘Islamic jihads’, or if the

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

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

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

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

Ease in Hardship

The Quran tells us:

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

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

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

If you stand at the foot of a mountain, you will notice streams

in existence for centuries. It had completely eliminated human freedom. The will of the monarch alone counted for everything.

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

What Is Jihad?

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

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

1. The Quran says:

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

CHAPTER TWELVE The Religion of Peace

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

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

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

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

relations with him or them so that dawah work can continue in a balanced manner. Apparent enmity must not be allowed to become a barrier in the way of interaction, because it is through interaction that dawah work continues—and dawah work has the power to turn even enemies into friends.

However, the issue of combatants is different from this. Combatants are those who, without provocation, have engaged in physical war against the believers. These people should be dealt with on the basis of emergency principles, or the ethics of war, so much so that one can cut off all relations with them until they desist from war.

This is an extremely important difference, which it is necessary to observe in practical life. If the believers do not understand this difference, they might start behaving in the same way with enemies as with combatants. The result of this would be that interests of the Islamic dawah would be hurt and the desirable dawah efforts would stop.

One must adopt stern precautionary measures with regard to individuals or groups who launch aggressive war, even abstaining from normal relations with them. But as far as ordinary people are concerned, one should, without considering their apparent friendship or enmity, maintain the same human relations with all of them so that the work of Islamic dawah may continue uninterruptedly and under no condition comes to a halt.

Islam clearly teaches us that even in a situation of an actual war one should distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. That is to say, a combatant can be fought, but never a non-combatant. In this regard, it may be argued that this principle was perhaps appropriate as far as war in the ancient past was concerned, but that today wars are fought using bombs and other modern weaponry and systems, and that, therefore, in modern wars it is not possible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

The answer to this argument is that if such a situation arises that in the course of fighting non-combatants will also be killed,

in Islam’s dawah mission, even if this might appear to harm their personal interests or cause economic loss or entail physical difficulty. They must, under all circumstances, remain with the Prophet in this mission. In this verse, the phrase jihad fi sabil Allah, or struggling in the way of God, essentially indicates the Prophet’s dawah mission, and not war.

A second Quranic verse gives the following commandment:

Do not yield to those who deny the truth, but strive with the utmost strenuousness by means of this [Quran]. ( 25:52 )

In this verse, jihad very clearly indicates the jihad of dawah, because there can be no other meaning of doing jihad through the Quran.

The word jihad appears in a third Quranic verse in the following way:

If you have left your homes to strive for My cause and out of a desire to seek My goodwill, how can you secretly offer them (God’s opponents) friendship? ( 60:1 )

This verse was revealed before the Prophet’s victory over Makkah. The Prophet did not journey from Madinah to Makkah in order to engage in war. Rather, it was actually a peaceful march, undertaken to obtain the peaceful results of the Treaty of Hudaybiya. And so, on this occasion, when the Prophet heard a Muslim say, ‘Today is the day of fighting’ (al-yauma yaumul malhama), he remarked that this was not the case, and that it was, as he put it, the ‘day of mercy’ (al-yauma yaumul marhamah). (Al-Waqidi, Kitab Al-Maghazi, vol. 2, pp. 821-22)

The fourth occasion on which the word jihad appears in the Quran is in the form expressed in the following verse:

Strive for the cause of God as it behoves you to strive for it. . ( 22:78 )

In this verse, the word jihad refers to the jihad of dawah, as is clear from the context in which it is used here.

CHAPTER TEN Islamic Jihad

Jihad is a fact of life. What in English is called ‘struggle’ is what is meant by the word ‘jihad’ in Arabic. Jihad is no mysterious thing. Nor is it synonymous with violence. It is simply a word that conveys the notion of making efforts to the maximum possible extent. And so, one can speak about engaging in the jihad or struggle of life, about engaging in a jihad or struggle against prejudice. And so on.

It is a general human tendency to make efforts to achieve one’s objectives. Just as this phenomenon is denoted by different words in different languages, there are words for it in the Arabic language, too. The word ‘jihad’ also has this essential meaning. The word sa‘ee is a general word for ‘effort’ in Arabic, and the word ‘jihad’ indicates making great effort.

However, there is one difference to be noted here. When we ordinarily use the terms ‘effort’ or ‘struggle’, the sense of divine reward or worship is absent. But when the word ‘jihad’ became an Islamic term, this understanding of divine reward (sawab) or worship (ibadat) was also included. In other words, jihad is no ordinary effort, but, rather, an effort that is a form of worship, engaging in which one obtains divine reward. As the Quran says:

Strive for the cause of God as it behoves you to strive for it. ( 22:78 )

flourish. And where the ‘hate culture’ emerges, ills and violence will spread. No sort of goodness can coexist with hatred.

The Real Work To Be Done

The fact of the matter is that the present-day political agitations and the violence fomented by Muslims are not just un-Islamic but are also completely useless. Recent history provides ample evidence of this.

In the first half of the 20th century, most Muslim countries were, directly or indirectly, under the control of Western powers. Then, movements for their independence were launched. Today, all these Muslim countries are politically independent. Some 60 in number, Muslim states taken together form the largest block among the members of the United Nations. Yet, despite this, Muslims carry no weight at the global political level. The reason for this is that in the ancient past political dominance counted for everything, whereas today it has been reduced to a secondary status. Today, education, knowledge, science, technology and economics are considered more important. Merely being independent in political terms does not hold much weight in today’s world.

Because present-day Muslim countries are today considerably behind others in these non-political spheres, they have no place on the global map. Most of their people are still uneducated. In the fields of science and technology, they are still dependent on Western countries. In terms of modern standards, they have not achieved economic progress. Despite appearing to be politically sovereign, they are backward in all the modern spheres of life. Despite their political independence, they are, in reality, still dominated by others.

Several Muslim countries have, so they claim, witnessed an ‘Islamic Revolution’—for instance, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. However, these so-called ‘Islamic states’ are

Jihad, in the form of qital or war, is a wholly defensive action. Aggressive qital or offensive war is completely forbidden in Islam. Furthermore, if one is faced with an aggressive attack from another community, even then all possible efforts should be made to stave off war. War can only be resorted to when all efforts to stave it off or avoid it have failed. The opponents of the Prophet sought to entangle him in war and confrontation on more than 80 occasions, but he was able to avoid fighting through wise action. Only on three occasions (the battles of Badr, Uhud and Hunayn), when no option was left but war did he participate in fighting.

Another aspect of a legitimate war in Islam is that it should be an open affair. To engage in secret military actions is definitely not legitimate in Islam. And so, proxy war is regarded by Islam as illegitimate, because in such a war the government uses a group to engage in violence by providing it covert assistance, but it does not participate in the war openly itself.

Hostage-Taking

These days, some Muslims are resorting to violence against their imaginary enemies by resorting to hijacking and taking people hostage. All such tactics are completely illegitimate in Islam. Those who engage in such actions undoubtedly have no fear of being held to account by God. Otherwise, they would never do such terrible things. Such attacks target and harm innocent people. These cowardly actions are wholly against humanity as well as against the religion of God.

An instance from the life of the Prophet clearly illustrates the point that taking people as hostages is completely un-Islamic. Opponents of the Prophet in Makkah once captured some Muslims and kept them prisoner. At this time, the Prophet had entered into a treaty with the Makkans at Hudaybiya. But while entering into this treaty, he did not ask the Makkans to

that relatively few Muslims are engaged in such movements. But, along with this, it is also true that the rest of the Muslims do not openly denounce such movements. They are silent on them. Hence, in accordance with Islamic principles themselves, it would not be wrong to say that, even if only a few people are directly responsible for spearheading these violent and hatedriven movements in the name of Islam, the rest of the Muslims are indirectly responsible for them.’

This approach of Muslims today is extremely lamentable. In the name of establishing ‘Islamic Government’ and ‘The Prophetic System’ (Nizam-e Mustafa) and engaging in ‘Islamic Jihad’, such acts are being committed as are completely opposed to Islam. Instead of attracting people to the religion of God, these deeds are only driving them away from it.

The Islamic System

In present times, numerous violent movements are being spearheaded in the name of establishing the ‘Islamic System’ or the ‘Prophetic System’. These movements, however, are simply a ruse to engage in a quest for political leadership in the name of Islam, and this is in spite of the fact that to launch and conduct a movement in order to acquire political dominance is itself not permissible in Islam. The aim of a genuine Islamic movement is the Islamisation of individuals, not the Islamisation of the government or the state. Accordingly, for centuries the Sufis focused on the Islamisation of individuals. This work continued, using peaceful methods, and never became a source for spreading hatred and violence. The Sufis always promoted peace and humanity, while the so-called ‘revolutionary Islamic’ movements of today are producing completely the opposite results.

The linking of Islam with hatred and violence is entirely the result of the misguidance of modern-day so-called Muslim leaders, who have been spearheading violent movements aimed

I then made another suggestion—of adopting what I called a ‘delinking policy’. That is to say, the question of Kashmir’s political status should be delinked from other important human concerns in the context of relations between India and Pakistan. The Kashmir question should then be sought to be resolved entirely through peaceful dialogue. As regards other, non-political issues, relations between the two countries should be fully normalised. For instance, with regard to trade, education, travel, tourism, cultural relations and other such matters, India and Pakistan should establish fully normal and friendly relations— the same sort of relations as exist, for instance, between India and Nepal or between the different European countries. The advantage of this solution would be that the Kashmir question would not stand in the way of progress on other fronts as far as India-Pakistan relations were concerned, as is the case at present.

The biggest blunder of the Pakistani leadership with regard to Kashmir is that they are still living in the past. They want to extract the price of their mistakes from the other party. Completely ignoring an unchangeable principle of nature, they want to build an imaginary world of their own. However, this is completely impossible in the real world.

Pakistan’s completely unrealistic approach to the Kashmir question has greatly damaged Pakistan itself. If it continues with this unrealistic approach, its final consequence could be an enormously destructive war between Pakistan and India. If, God forbid, such a war breaks out, it would prove deadly for both countries. However, because India is a large country, it will be able to bear it. But Pakistan, in comparison, is a much smaller country. Today, it refuses to accept India’s control over Kashmir. But in the event of such a devastating war, Pakistan would itself have to accept coming under the control of numerous countries to recover and remain alive with their assistance. And as far as Kashmir is concerned, its political map will have remained completely unaltered.

CHAPTER EIGHT The Secret of the ‘Clear Victory’

When the Prophet, along with his Companions, wanted to enter Makkah to perform the Umrah or the ‘minor pilgrimage’, he was wrongfully stopped by the leaders of the town at a place called Hudaybiya. This created a situation of conflict between the Muslims and the Makkan polytheists. The Prophet resolved this conflict by withdrawing his right to enter the town. In response, the Makkans gave him the guarantee that they would cease their war against him so that peace could prevail between the two parties.

In the immediate wake of the Treaty of Hudaybiya, a chapter of the Quran ( 48 ) was revealed, in which it was declared that this treaty had been a ‘clear victory’. From this Quranic declaration one can deduce an important principle—that a dispute is always resolved through the method of ‘give and take’. The Prophet and his Companions accepted the demand of their opponents to relinquish their right to enter Makkah. In return, the Makkan opponents agreed to cease their war against the followers of Islam, thus giving the latter the opportunity of carrying on with their work peacefully.

This point can be expressed in a different way: that in this

that human rights are being violated, it has the right only to make efforts to address the situation by using peaceful means. Under no circumstances and under no pretext is it permissible for it to adopt violent methods.

Suppose an individual or a non-governmental organisation were to argue, ‘We want to work peacefully, but our opponents are not ready to give us our rights even if we use peaceful means. In these circumstances, what can we do?’

The answer to this is that the responsibility for these matters lies with the government, and not with non-governmental organisations. If someone feels that the government is failing to live up to its responsibilities, even then it is impermissible for him to take on what is the government’s work. Even in these conditions he has to choose between only two alternatives: either to exercise patience, or else to make peaceful efforts. That is to say, either he can do nothing at all, or he can engage in peaceful efforts.

Here, the question arises about the Islamic ruling about state terrorism, that is, when the state engages in the same sort of undesirable violence as non-governmental terrorist organisations. What is the Islamic ruling in such a situation? The answer is that this sort of governmental violence represents a state’s misusing a right that it possesses, while violence is for non-governmental organisations something that they have no right to engage in at all, under any circumstances. Clearly, there is a fundamental difference between doing something which one has no right whatsoever to do, on the one hand, and misusing a right that one is legally entitled to.

In other words, if a non-governmental organisation engages in violence, the Islamic ruling is that, without even asking it on what grounds or pretext it has resorted to violence, it must completely abstain from it. In contrast, if an established government were to engage in inappropriate violence, it would be told that it must use its right to employ violence only in a legally permissible manner. By misusing this right, a government can turn itself

According to this Quranic commandment, it is legitimate for non-state actors to establish a jama‘at or party only for two purposes. One, for peacefully inviting people to what is good, or dawat-e khair, and, two, for peacefully preaching the message of God to people. The former refers to conveying the message of Islam to non-Muslims. And by enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong is meant the fulfilling of the responsibility of exhorting and advising Muslims. Besides this, forming organizations for political agitation is entirely an innovation or bid‘ah and deviation (zalalat) from the right path that has no sanction in Islam. It must be made clear here that in the Quran the term jama‘at refers to a group, and not to a political party.

The ideology invented by the founders of the Ikhwan ulMuslimoon and the Jamaat-e-Islami was against the Islamic shariah as well as against nature. Such a self-styled ideological interpretation always starts with violence and ends in hypocrisy. As long as people are obsessed by their romantic notions they are so mesmerized by their imaginary ‘revolution’ that they can go to the extent of declaring legitimate even suicide-bombing in the name of seeking martyrdom. But when the hard rock of reality forces their fervour to cool down, they resort to sheer hypocrisy: that is, at the intellectual level and in terms of belief they continue to cling to their ideology, but in practical terms, they fully adjust to reality in order to protect their worldly interests.

In present times, in contrast, the killing of fellow human beings has assumed a new form. This is what can be called ‘ideological murder’. That is to say, killing people on the basis of a particular ideology, or shedding human blood on the basis of some ideological justification. This notion of ideologicallyjustified violence has made it possible for people to blindly and indiscriminately kill others, ignoring the distinction between culprits and innocents. And this does not prick their conscience at all, because, based on their misconceptions, they think that they are killing people for the sake of the Truth.

Ideological justification of violence was invented in the first half of the 20th century by the Communists. They believed in the theory of ‘Dialectical Materialism’. According to this belief, the only way that ‘Revolution’ could come about was by one class violently wiping out another. This belief led these people to massacre some 50 million people in different parts of the world.

A second, even more frightening, example of ‘ideological violence’ was that which emerged in the Muslim world. This extremist ideology got a major boost in the first half of the 20th century. Two present-day Muslim parties in particular were responsible for developing and spreading this ideology—the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimoon or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in the Arab world, and the Jamaat-e-Islami in the non-Arab world.

Based on its ideology, the Ikhwan adopted the following slogan: al-Quran dasturuna wal jihad manhajuna, or ‘The Quran is our Constitution, and Jihad is Our Method.’ ‘Through jihad [in the sense of violent method]’, they insisted, ‘We have to enforce the Quran throughout the whole world.’ This slogan became so popular in the Arab world that people began singing on the streets:

Halumma nuqatil! Halumma nuqatil!

Fa innal qitala sabilar rashadi!

described, in other words, as a policy of adjustment. In this world, no individual or community lives all by itself. Here, people live together or in proximity with many others. Everyone’s interests are different. And because of this, problems repeatedly arise between people.

In this context, there are just two options. One can either try to clash with a problem, or one can avoid it and move on ahead. The first method is that of war, the latter of reconciliation. The Quran teaches us that the policy of reconciliation is the best policy. The Prophet acted on this Quranic commandment in entering into the Treaty of Hudaybiya, which proved to be a ‘clear victory’ for Islam.

This method of reconciliation or adjustment is the method of nature. Think of a flowing stream. Whenever a rock comes in its way, it does not try to break it. Rather, it makes a way for itself around the rock and moves on ahead. Likewise, someone driving his car on the road does not willingly crash into a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Rather, he simply shifts to one side, lets the vehicle pass, and then moves on ahead.

This method of reconciliation was exemplified in the Treaty of Hudaybiya. The Hudaybiya method can be expressed in the following words: Ignore the problems and avail of the opportunities. This is an eternal principle, one that relates to the whole of human life. Be it family or social affairs or international relations, everywhere this is the only principle for success in life. The consequence of abandoning the Hudaybiya Treaty method is confrontation—and no problem can ever be solved through confrontation. If the Hudaybiya Treaty method is Life, then confrontation and war are nothing but Death.

The Hudaybiya Treaty method is the only method for success in the present-day world. It rescues people from negative thinking and leads them to think in a positive way. It saves people from wasting their time in confrontation and from failure to use available opportunities within the possible limits. The Hudaybiya Treaty method makes people capable of transforming their disadvantages into advantages, their minuses into pluses.

than in the event of being faced with aggression, no pretext or cause for war is acceptable.

The Prophet was born in the year 570 CE. He received his prophethood in 610 CE. After this, he remained in this world as a prophet for 23 years. He spent the first 13 years of this period in Makkah, and the remaining 10 in Madinah. Some verses of the Quran were revealed in the Prophet’s Makkan period, and some others in his Madinan period.

Throughout his life as a prophet what did the Prophet do? He recited to the people non-war-related Quranic verses, such as ‘Read in the name of your Lord Who created’ ( 96:1 ). He kept asking them to acknowledge the one God. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 16023) He taught them how to worship and make supplications to God. He taught them about morality and humaneness. He told them that when others troubled them, even then they must behave with patience and avoid conflict. He gave people the teachings of the Quran, as a book for reforming themselves and for inviting others to tread God’s path. He taught them that real success is entry into paradise, not entry into the institutions of power in this world. By his own practical example, he showed people how to carry on the mission of Islam through peaceful means and without resorting to confrontation. He demonstrated how it is possible for people to save themselves from falling prey to hatred of others in even the most turbulent situations, and how, at such times, one can remain peaceful and carry on working for the true welfare of others.

All these non-violent activities of the Prophet are undoubtedly exalted Islamic actions. In fact, it is these that are the very essence of the mission of prophethood. As far as war is concerned, it is only as an exceptional necessity.

In this regard, the Quran says:

Whenever they kindle the fire of war, God puts it out. ( 5:64 )

This Quranic verse tells us about the essence of Islamic teachings about war and peace—that people are often willing to go to war with each other for various reasons. This is related to the principle of competition. But the task for the followers of Islam is that when others stir the flames of war, they must, through unilateral and one-sided action if need be, put the flames out. In other words, their policy should be not war, but, rather, avoidance of war. On the one hand, they must, without going to the extent of war, protect their interests. On the other hand, their responsibility is also to become messengers of peace. They should be heralds of peace, not war-mongers.

This Islamic spirit was clearly reflected in the Prophet’s life. Even when he was the head of the State in Madinah he did not unleash war in order to subdue people and make them his subjects. Instead, he initiated dialogue with various tribes in Arabia and entered into treaties with them. In this way, he brought together various tribes scattered across Arabia on the basis of peace.

If you seriously study Islam, you will realise that, in fact, Islam seeks to cut the very roots of the factors that lead people to go to war. Why do people go to war? There are two basic reasons. Firstly, to eliminate their enemies. And, secondly, to acquire political power. There is simply no justification in Islam for war for these either of these two purposes.

As far as an enemy is concerned, as I mentioned earlier, a Quranic verse serves as an eternal guiding principle in this regard. This verse tells us:

Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend. ( 41:34 )

when, to stave off war, the Prophet and his Companions left Makkah and went to Madinah, some 300 miles away. Yet, despite this, the Makkan opponents did not remain silent. Instead, they launched aggressive attacks on Madinah. These attacks are called ghazwas in the biographies of the Prophet. The total number of these ghazwas, both big and small, is calculated at 83. But only on three of these occasions did full-fledged war break out between the Prophet and his opponents. This means that in 80 ghazwas the Prophet was able to stave off physical confrontation with his opponents through avoidance and wise policy. Only on three occasions—the battles of Badr, Uhud and Hunayn—did he engage in armed conflict, and this was because of compelling circumstances.

An example of this policy of the Prophet of avoiding physical confrontation is that of the Treaty of Hudaybiya. When war-like conditions developed between the Prophet and his opponents, he began efforts to end these conditions through unilateral or one-sided action and to establish peace between both parties. For this purpose, he began discussions for reconciliation with his opponents, which carried on for two weeks. These discussions took place at Hudaybiya, near Makkah. That is why the treaty that resulted is called the Treaty of Hudaybiya. This was a peace treaty between the two parties. During the discussions that led up to the treaty the Prophet noticed that his opponents were unwilling to budge from their obstinacy. And so, accepting the one-sided conditions that they insisted on, he entered into a peace treaty with them.

The purpose of this treaty was to end the tension between the two parties and establish a climate of normalcy, so that in such an atmosphere the work of dawah and other constructive activities—which are the real aim of the Islamic mission—could be carried on with. With this treaty, normalcy was established, and so all the constructive activities that Islam promotes began being carried out in full swing. And the final result of this was that Islam spread across the entire region.

wise teachings. But, along with this, the Gita also relates that Krishna insisted that Arjuna should go ahead and fight in war.

It is obvious that these statements in the Gita are an exception, not the general rule. The same is true in the case of the Quran as well.

An important aspect of the peace-loving nature of Islam is that it makes a distinction between an enemy or opponent, on the one hand, and an attacker, on the other. According to Islam, if a group launches a one-sided or unilateral attack and gives rise to a state of aggression, then, as a necessary evil, war can be fought for the sake of defense. But as far as an enemy is concerned, Islam does not permit launching war simply because of existing enmity. In this regard, the following verse of the Quran gives clear instruction to Muslims:

Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend. ( 41:34 )

This Quranic verse teaches us that even if someone appears to us as an enemy, we should not regard him as an eternal enemy. Rather, as this verse suggests, inside every enemy a potential friend is hidden. The Quran exhorts us to discover this friend and turn this potential of friendship into a reality. After this, we would not have any complaints about anyone’s enmity.

This issue is also illustrated in a hadith. Indicating the Prophet’s general policy, the Prophet’s wife Aisha narrates that whenever he had to choose between two things, he always chose the easier one. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 3560; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2327; Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4785; Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 1984; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 24549)

Methods of action are of two types: violent methods and peaceful methods. If you compare the two, you will agree that in the event of a dispute, adopting a violent method is always a harder option. In contrast, adopting a peaceful method is always an easier option. Accordingly, one could say that the

CHAPTER FOUR War and Peace in Islam

To understand the status of war and peace in Islam, we need to understand what the target of the Islamic mission is. War and peace are two different methods, not goals in themselves. Hence, if we are able to determine what the target of the mission of Islam is, this will itself determine if the method that Islam advocates is war or peace.

The Quran gives a very clear answer to this question. In this regard, the Quran ( 25:52 ) addressing the Prophet, lays down a general commandment to engage in peaceful jihad through it by changing people’s thinking. In other words, the mission of the Quran is not territorial conquest, but, rather, the moulding of people’s minds. Islam’s target is to bring about an intellectual revolution, not the physical subjugation of people.

If you study the Quran as well as the way the Prophet carried on with his mission, it will be clear that the target of his mission was to transform people’s hearts and minds. Thus, the Quran states:

It is He who sends down to His Servant clear revelations, so that He may lead you out of darkness into light. ( 57:9 )

According to a hadith, the Prophet said that there is just one thing that is of real importance as far as reforming human beings is concerned—and that is the reform of the heart. (Sahih

face these losses at once, while others have to contend with them at some later stage.

This question of loss is connected only with the use of violent methods. The use of peaceful methods is an entirely different case. Peaceful methods lead only, and always, to victory and nothing else. There is no question of defeat at all as far as the choice of these methods is concerned, so much so that even if the result of using peaceful methods appears in the form of what seems to be a defeat, it is still actually a victory. This is because by using peaceful means one may lose a war but one does not lose the available opportunities. These opportunities and possibilities still remain open to one. Availing these, one can start new efforts and journey towards success.

Stop Complaining At Once

A complaining mentality is a baneful mentality. It makes people think negatively. A person who always complains is rendered incapable of thinking positively. And this sort of mentality is, without a shred of doubt, the root of all ills. In most cases of violence, it is this mentality of constant complaint that is seen to be at work.

This world has been created in such a way that most people will often be led to complain about each other. In this regard, what we need to do is to dispel a complaint about someone as soon as it enters our minds. However, what generally happens is that a complaint is formed, first in our conscious minds, and then, if we constantly obsess about it, gradually it seeps into our unconsciousness. And then it becomes so deeply entrenched that after this it cannot be rooted out.

In this situation, the wise approach is to nip all complaints in the bud. You should remove them soon as they appear in your mind. If you do not do this, they will gradually become an integral part of your psyche, and, after this, your thinking will become

sort of step is no protection at all. Rather, from the point of view of its results, it will only cause your devastation.’

Conscience, the Best Judge

Once, a Muslim man built a new house for himself. Then, he fenced in an adjacent bit of land and included it in his garden. His neighbour was a Hindu contractor. This Hindu contractor claimed that the land belonged to him. And so, he instigated some Hindus of the town to take action against him. A crowd of Hindus gathered on the road outside the Muslim man’s house and started shouting slogans.

The Muslim man had two guns with him, but he did not use them. Instead, he came out of his house all alone and emptyhanded. He did not say a word to the slogan-raising crowd except to ask them who their leader was. A man stepped out of the crowd, saying that he was their leader and asked him what he wanted.

The Muslim man turned to the crowd and requested them to remain where they were. Then, he took their leader into his house and requested him to be seated. He asked the leader why the crowd had gathered outside.

The leader angrily replied, ‘You have grabbed a Hindu brother’s property, and that’s why we have come here!’

The Muslim man gently said, ‘You are aware that the name of the rightful owner of any property is mentioned in the official documents. These documents decide who the rightful owner of a plot is. So, what you should do is to take my documents and those of my contractor neighbour and then go to your home and examine them. You be the judge in this matter. After studying both our documents, whatever decision you come to I will unconditionally accept.’

At this, the leader suddenly turned friendly. He had entered the Muslim’s house in a rage, but he now stepped out all smiles.

is offered for violence is false. Whenever an individual or group engages in violence, it also has, at the very same time, the possibility of choosing non-violent or peaceful methods. Yet, in such a situation, it still chooses violence. Why? When the opportunity exists to act without violence, why do some individuals or groups choose to act violently?

Violence should be abandoned completely and peace should be accepted completely. One should never resort to violence under any pretext whatsoever. No matter what the conditions are, one must necessarily remain firmly wedded to peaceful methods.

Solving Enmities

People often think of certain communities as their enemies. And then, on the basis of this imaginary perception, they start fighting against them, supposedly to save themselves from the consequences of their enmity. This imaginary enemy of theirs is, however, wholly false. And so are those actions which they engage in to counter this so-called enemy’s imagined threat.

Enmity is not a constant aspect of human existence, unlike, say, the fingers of one’s hands. It is just a superficial aspect. Through positive actions, every enmity can be ended. It is like a bit of dirt that stains a glass. This bit of dirt can easily be removed—by simply washing it off with some water. A bit of dirt on a glass is not a problem in itself. The problem is created when you do not have clean water to wash it off.

It always takes two hands to clap. You cannot clap with just one hand. In the same way, enmity is a two-sided affair. If someone considers you his enemy, you can respond by not considering him your enemy. In this way, his enmity will automatically cease. The most effective way to end the problem of enmity is not to be the enemy of someone who sees you as his enemy

a result of a sense of attainment or achievement. People who think they have been deprived or robbed of something of theirs by others always remain immersed in negative thinking. This feeling is often expressed in the form of violence. On the other hand, those who feel that they have achieved something in life experience peace of mind. They always lead peaceful lives.

Individuals and groups that hate others, sometimes going to the extent of inflicting violence on them, prove by their actions that they feel that they have been deprived. In contrast, individuals and groups who live peacefully prove by their actions that they have achieved what they wanted to in life.

What is the reason that some people feel deprived? And, who are those others who always live with a sense of achievement or attainment?

The greatest attainment in life is to find God, while the greatest deprivation is to fail to find Him. If you have found God, nothing else remains for you to find. On the other hand, those who fail to find God suffer the maximum possible deprivation, and then nothing can cure them of their sense of deprivation.

Positive Status Quoism

No sooner do you want to do something than you find yourself faced with some hurdle or the other. This happens in the case of individuals as well as entire communities. Now, one way to react to this is to first fight against these hurdles in order to try to get rid of them and then to begin whatever work one wants to. This is what is conventionally called ‘radicalism’.

Radicalism seems to appeal to certain highly emotional people, people with a proclivity to extremism. Yet, it is not useful for any sort of positive purpose. Radicalism is effective only for destruction, not for construction. Radicalism not only causes the destruction of an existing system, but it also leads to the destruction of social traditions that have evolved over centuries

for an instant solution. This is the basic problem. If, instead, one adopts a wait-and-see approach, the problem will no longer remain a problem at all.

Divine Warning, Not Oppression by One’s Fellow Men

According to a hadith, the Prophet is said to have predicted with regard to the Muslim ummah that that soon people would summon one another against them just as when eating, people call others to share their meal. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4297)

Events show that this prediction came true in the second half of the 18th century with the emergence of European colonialism. The Europeans later began being joined by other communities. And this process is continuing till today. The question is: Why did this happen?

A study of the Quran reveals that this happened directly in accordance with the practice, or sunnat, of God. God’s sunnat in this regard is that He sends warnings to communities or peoples to wake them up. This is a sort of shock treatment to jolt people and make them reform themselves. As God says in the Quran:

When the affliction decreed by Us befell them, they did not humble themselves, but rather their hearts hardened, for Satan had made all their doings seem fair to them. ( 6:43 )

This Quranic verse mentions a common human tendency— of dressing up a bad deed in beautiful-sounding words so that its wrongness is concealed. This is exactly what has happened with Muslims in present times. Present-day Muslim leaders have, consciously or otherwise, done exactly what this Quranic verse describes.

The problems that present-day Muslims faced from other communities were Divine warnings. However, Muslim leaders

from the hadith referred to above that a more difficult method is one which makes it more difficult to achieve one’s goal. In contrast, an easier method s makes attaining one’s goal easier.

Flexibility, Not Rigidity

A hadith report likens a true worshipper of God, to a soft plant, which, whenever it is faced with a gust of wind, bends accordingly. And when the gust dies down, the plant once again stands up. (Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 5644; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2810; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 15769) In this way, it saves itself from troubles and difficulties.

According to this hadith, there are two ways to face a storm. One way is to be rigid when faced with it. The other way is to be flexible. Another way of putting this is to say that one way of reacting is the violent way, while the other is the peaceful way. God wants us to abstain from the former and to choose the latter.

Those who try to react to a storm by adopting the method of rigidity only show by this that they are victims of extreme egotism. In contrast, the path of peace is based on modesty. In this world, those who let their egotism dictate their behaviour are bound to face destruction, while success is for those who adopt the path of modesty. This is expressed in the form of a hadith, according to which the Prophet said that God will raise high those who behave modestly. (Musnad Al-Shihab, Hadith No 335)

Peaceful Citizens

Explaining who a true believer is, the Prophet is said to have remarked, so we learn from a hadith report, that people’s blood and wealth are safe from such a person. (Sunan At Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2627)

There are two ways of living in society. You can live peacefully with others, or you can choose to keep quarreling with them. The

The above-mentioned hadith tells us about this basic law of nature on the basis of which the entire system of this world functions. Whatever one obtains in this world is what one gets by behaving in accordance with, rather than in violation of, this system. This system of nature is based completely on the principles of peace and non-violence. That is why whenever you obtain something in this world, it is by these principles of peace and non-violence. By deviating from them, you can be sure that you will get nothing at all.

The Limits of Dissension

A hadith report relates that the Prophet declared that the best jihad is to speak a word of truth and justice in front of an oppressive ruler. (Sunan At Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2174; Sunan Abu Dawud, hadih No. 4344; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 4011) The Prophet is also said to have declared that a person who sees something in his ruler that he does not like should exercise patience with regard to that matter. (Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 7143; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1849) Likewise, in a hadith contained in the Sahih Muslim, the Prophet is said to have declared that one should listen to one’s ruler and obey him, even if he whips one on one’s back and seizes one’s wealth. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1847)

These hadith reports appear to provide two different commandments. On the one hand, we are told that if we see something wrong with our rulers, we should openly announce it. On the other hand, we are also told that if we see something wrong with our rulers, we should exercise patience in that regard and that even if he oppresses us, we should tolerate it.

These prescriptions clearly indicate the distinction between announcing something, on the one hand, and taking action on it, on the other. It is a desirable thing that if you see something wrong with your rulers, you should announce it in the form

speaking in ordinary, day-to-day conversations, then, because of this habit, you will do just the same when you are confronted with difficult situations. Your habit of controlling yourself in ordinary, everyday conversations will enable you to speak in the same way, keeping yourself under control and speaking with mental discipline in emergency situations, too.

Much of the chaos and conflict in this world has to do with words. Some words provoke hatred and violence. Other words nourish a climate of peace and humaneness. If people could only do this one thing—making the correct choice of words while speaking, and then keeping their emotions under control—most conflicts and strife would die even before they were born.

To be able to keep oneself under control while speaking is a very great thing. Only those people who keep examining themselves and constantly keep a check on their words and deeds possess this lofty attribute.

When you hear something, you should not answer or react immediately. Instead, you should pause for a while, ponder on what you have heard, and think of what your ideal response should be. This will guarantee that you reply in a proper manner to what you have heard. Instead of reacting to stones with stones, you will find yourself responding with flowers and thereby you will achieve success!

Do Not Confront the Enemy

In a hadith recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet is said to have remarked that one should not desire confrontation with one’s enemy, and that one should ask for peace from God. (Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2966) This indicates that if someone thinks of us as his enemy, we should not react in the same way by making him our enemy and starting to fight with him. Rather, despite this person’s enmity, we should seek to avoid quarreling

physically stronger than the latter. However, physical strength is a very limited sort of power. In contrast, someone who is angry but is able to control his anger and behaves in a balanced way with the person who provokes him to become angry is much stronger than the person who is only physically strong. His behaviour proves that he possesses the power of intelligence, which is undoubtedly much more powerful than physical strength. Such a person can, because of his wise planning, win every battle without physically harming anyone.

The Formula for Social Peace

What is the ideal formula for social peace? How can social equilibrium be established? In this regard, a hadith gives us some valuable clues.

According to this report, the Prophet said that fitna, or strife, is asleep, and that God’s curse is upon one who wakes up a sleeping fitna. (Kanz al Ummal, Hadith No. 30891) Self-restraint in this case is a natural formula for social peace.

The fact of the matter is that within every human being there is a deeply-rooted egotism. And this egotism is such that if it is provoked, it very quickly explodes and sets off violence. However, nature has arranged for this egotism to be asleep within every person’s breast. It is present within everyone, but, in accordance with the system of Creation, it is in a somnolent state. Under such conditions, a simple way to establish a peaceful society is to let the egotism that is fast asleep inside people’s breasts remain as it is.

It is only those whose egotism has been provoked who go about disrupting social peace. If one abstains from provoking other people’s egotism, social peace will not be ruptured. From this we learn that establishing social peace is within our own control, rather than this being dependent on others. Through your positive behaviour you can avoid provoking other people’s

the term ‘jihad’ is regarded as proper, still it would be only an expanded usage of the term. In terms of the actual or essential meaning of the word, jihad is a term for a peaceful action, not a violent one. It is undertaken to transform people intellectually and spiritually, not to kill them.

Peace at All Costs

The Prophet Muhammad was a great lover of peace. His opponents repeatedly wanted to embroil him in war, but he avoided it and stayed away from fighting with them. However, on a few occasions, in the face of the one-sided aggression of his opponents, he was forced to engage in defensive battles, which were of a temporary nature. One of these defensive battles was the Battle of Badr.

At the very moment when the two armies faced each other at Badr, an angel of God came to the Prophet. The angel told the Prophet that God had sent him a message of salam or peace. Hearing this, the Prophet replied that God is Peace, peace is from Him and to Him is peace. (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, Vol. 3, p. 327 )

From this incident we learn that, even at the time of war, the Prophet remained a peace-loving person. Even at this moment of great emergency, his mind did not come to be filled with hatred and violence. Rather, even at this time he continued to think in terms of peace and security. At this moment, too, his heart was heaving with the hope that, with God’s help, he could establish an atmosphere of peace and security in the world. A true person is he who, even during war, thinks of peace, and who, even during battle, harbours the hope of peace and security in his heart.

This is no ordinary matter. Rather, it is an exalted model of positive thinking. War is the most negative of all negative things. The Prophet here stands at the edge of war but on his lips are words, not of bloodshed and violence, but, rather, of peace and

The advent of the Prophet was an expression of God’s mercy for the whole of humankind. Through the Prophet, God informed us about the principles on the basis of which human beings can come to inhabit what the Quran refers to as daar-us-salaam or ‘home of peace’ ( 10:25 ), an abode of peace and security for its inhabitants. Through the Prophet, God conveyed to us teachings that can make for a peaceful society. The Prophet presented humankind with a complete ideology of peace. He provided us with a formula that can enable us to abstain from hatred and violence and lead a healthy life. He ushered in a revolution that made it possible for humanity to avoid confrontation and war and nurture a peaceful society.

Because of certain compelling circumstances, the Prophet had to fight some battles, but these were so minor that they might be more appropriately called skirmishes, rather than wars. The Prophet gave peace the status of a complete and comprehensive way of life. He taught us that violence leads to destruction, while peace leads to construction. He cited patience as the highest form of worship, which means remaining firmly on the path of peace. He called strife, the disrupting of the peaceful system of nature, the biggest crime. He gave such importance to peace that he equated the killing of a single individual with the slaying of the whole of humankind.

The Prophet taught us to greet each other with the greeting Assalamu Alaikum or ‘May peace be upon you!’ This means that our relationships with each other should be based on peace and security. He taught us that success in the Hereafter is the real goal of human activity and struggle in this world. In this way, he uprooted the false belief that the purpose of our life is worldly progress, which is the basis of all forms of confrontation and violence. He gave humanity this beautiful formula: Become someone who benefits others. And if you cannot benefit others, then at least become harmless as far as they are concerned. He taught us not to consider anyone as our enemy. From him we learnt that if we behave in a good way with our opponents, we

saves him from resenting or hating others and inflicting violence on them. He obtains the sustenance of the Lord—which means that he has acquired the firm faith that he has found the Truth, that he has discovered that the existence that God has bestowed on him is far more valuable than all the treasures of gold and silver. He lives with such an awakened mind that the entire cosmos becomes for him an intellectual and spiritual feast.

A person who receives the sustenance of the Lord in this way has risen so high that things such as power and wealth appear to him to be very paltry. His mindset automatically makes him a lover of peace. He comes to regard hatred and violence as so utterly meaningless that he simply has no time at all to hate or to make plans of inflicting violence on anyone. Why would someone who has gained an invaluable treasure run after paltry baubles?

Peace, the Means for Security

The Quran relates that the Prophet Shu‘ayb was addressed by his people thus:

They replied, ‘Shu‘ayb, we do not understand much of what you say. In fact, we see that you are powerless among us. Were it not for your clan, we would have stoned you, for you are not strong against us.’ ( 11:91 )

This verse refers to the protection provided by members of the Prophet Shu‘ayb’s clan, who, despite not being true believers, protected him on the basis of tribal custom. This same phenomenon is expressed in a hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, according to which God has sent every prophet along with the protecting power of his community. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 10903)

In ancient times, long before the rise of modern forms of governance, people were protected by fellow members of their

the good news that we must not be frustrated and bitter, and that, instead, mustering our courage, we should search for new opportunities. If we respond in this positive way, nature itself gives us the good news that our loss is not permanent. It tells us that we can very soon rebuild our lives—and in a better way than before. It conveys to us that very soon we will discover that what seems to be our defeat is actually a source of guidance for us.

People who refuse to tolerate loss fall prey to negative thinking and so make their lives into an enormous burden. In doing so, they themselves become a burden on others. On the other hand, people who respond to loss with patience and courage can construct a new mansion on the ruins of the past. They can search for and discover a new dawn after a dark night, in the light of which they can carry on with their life’s journey unimpeded.

Accepting Offers of Peace

The aggression of the Quraysh of Makkah had led to a state of war between them and the Muslims. Among the Quranic commandments that were revealed at this juncture was this one:

Then if they should be inclined to make peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in God. Surely, it is He who is All–Hearing and All-Knowing. Should they seek to deceive you, God is enough for you. ( 8:61-62 )

From this Quranic verse we learn that, according to Islam, peace is desirable to the maximum possible extent, so much so that if establishing peace entails a risk, then, too, it must be accepted. If in the course of war the opposing party makes an offer of reconciliation, it must be accepted without delay. Even if there is some doubt that this offer of reconciliation might involve some sort of hidden deception, reconciliation should still be made with the opposing party, based on the confidence that

means that a person who is on the path of Truth must not respond to violence with counter-violence. He must unilaterally abide by peaceful means. Patience is another name for this response.

Truth and violence cannot go together. If you want to be faithful to the Truth, you have to leave violence aside. No matter on what pretext it is used, violence is abhorrent, and all forms of violence are equally destructive. No seemingly wonderful or alluring excuse or pretext can absolve violence of its destructive consequences.

To engage in violence in the name of the Truth is itself a negation of the Truth. Those who engage in violence in the name of the Truth clearly indicate that they are not on the path of the Truth. A lover of the Truth can never be a lover of violence. Conversely, a lover of violence most certainly is not a lover of Truth, even if he believes himself to be Truth’s most ardent champion.

The Price of Peace

Everything has a price. You can acquire a particular thing only when you are ready to pay for it. In this world, you simply cannot get what you want without paying the appropriate price for it. This is true of peace as well. Peace, too, has its price. An individual or group can obtain peace only after paying the price. What is the price of peace? It is to tolerate loss.

This fundamental truth is narrated in the Quran in the following words:

We shall certainly test you with fear and hunger, and loss of property, lives and crops. Give good news to those who endure with fortitude. Those who say, when afflicted with a calamity, ‘We belong to God and to Him we shall return,’ are the ones who will have blessings and mercy from their Lord: it is they who are on the right path! ( 2:155-56 )

the result will be. This verse teaches us that whenever we face any misfortune, we should discover its cause inside our own selves, and not start searching for it outside ourselves.

If a person realizes this fundamental truth and remains deeply aware of it, he will never blame others for his woes and start inflicting violence on them. Instead, the only thing that he will do is to engage in an unconditional survey of his own life. He will discover his own mistakes, so that by rectifying them he can save himself from further problems. To blame others for one’s problems is like a sick man blaming his neighbour for his illness and then going about fighting with him.

Suppose in a certain town the traffic rules require you to keep to the right. Now, if you start driving on the left you are bound to have an accident. Some car or the other is bound to collide with yours.

On the face of it, it would seem that this accident was caused by another car crashing into yours. But you certainly would not have the right to claim that it was not you, but, rather, the driver of the other car, who was at fault, and that it was he who banged into your car and injured you! You will have to admit that the fault was yours—because you were driving on the wrong side of the road—and that it was not the mistake of the other person, who was driving on the right side.

The same principle holds true in all aspects of our lives. Whenever you face any loss or misfortune in life, you ought to know in advance that whatever has transpired is because of your own wrongdoings. This is the right way to deal with life. If you think in this way, you will reform yourself and save your future. But if, on the contrary, you go about blaming others for your woes, you will only ruin your future. And, as for your past and your present—well, they have already been ruined!

Anger is a Weakness

The Quran refers to truthful people as those who ‘forgive when

in order to protect oneself, and that, too, only when all possible peaceful ways to avoid confrontation have been sincerely tried and have failed.

The Path of Patience Wins God’s Help

The Quran instructs us:

Have patience: God is with those who are patient. ( 8:46 )

The path of patience can also be called the path of peace. The opposite of the path of patience is the path of violence. The above-quoted Quranic verse refers to a natural law—that those who walk on the path of peace will find that at every step natural factors support them. On the other hand, those who adopt violence are not supported by the laws of nature — and for such people there is nothing in this world but failure and destruction.

What does walking on the path of patience mean? It means that in the face of difficult or unfavourable conditions and situations, a person does not lose his tolerance, and so his positive thinking remains unimpaired. He distinguishes the possible from the impossible, and begins his journey from what he knows to be possible. He does not hanker after immediate results. Rather, he adopts the gradual way. He does not lose heart in the face of loss. Instead, he keeps walking ahead with the future in mind. He accepts what the present gives him. As for what he might receive in the future, he adopts a wait-and-see approach. He keeps his desires subservient to the laws of nature, rather than trying to subordinate the laws of nature to his desires. Patience is thus a completely positive action, and not a passive or negative reaction.

Turning Your Enemy into Your Friend

The Quran tells us:

Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what

who are firmly established in truth and justice. Such individuals and groups, if they act with patience and not in haste, will inevitably be successful. Success will inevitably come to them.

In most cases, those who fail are those who act hastily and who engage in emotionally-driven actions before their appropriate time. On the other hand, those who are patient always succeed.

According to the Quran ( 46:35 ), the opposite of patience is haste. A person who behaves in a patient manner follows the creation plan of God. In contrast, someone who deviates from the creation plan can be sure that it will be impossible for him to succeed.

Avoid Conflict

The Quran tells us:

Let them not dispute with you on this matter. Call them to the path of your Lord. ( 22:67 )

From this Quranic verse we learn that not disputing with someone means not giving the other person the chance to dispute. That is to say, whenever differences arise between two parties, they should keep them within the limits of peaceful dialogue. They must never let these differences go beyond their initial limits and turn into a violent conflict.

In this world, tensions constantly arise on various grounds between individuals and groups. In itself, this sort of tension is something quite natural. It happens everywhere, and under all sorts of conditions. The real thing to consider here is that we should make sure that these tensions or differences do not get out of hand. If differences are not to create friction, they must remain within their limits. When differences turn into physical confrontation or violence, they transgress their limits. No differences are in themselves wrong if they remain within

Strife After Reform

The Quran tells us:

Do not corrupt the land after it has been set in order. This is for your own good, if you are true believers. ( 7:85 )

This Quranic verse indicates a fact of nature—that this world has been created perfectly. Here, everything has been made according to the plan desirable for it. This means that humans should act in a balanced way in this world, without distorting the balanced pattern of nature. If we distort this plan of nature, it will lead to chaos.

Innumerable processes are at work in the world, all in accordance with nature’s equilibrium. The earth moves in its orbit and revolves non-stop. The sun continues to pour its light on the world. The winds blow, the rains come, the rivers flow, the plants and trees grow, and so on. Innumerable processes like these carry on without any interruption, day and night, all of them in a perfectly peaceful manner, with no violence or confrontation whatsoever.

This is the plan of nature, and human beings should live according to it. Hence, we must completely abstain from violence and lead our lives entirely on the basis of the principle of peace. Those who behave to the contrary engage in what is termed in the Quran as fasad or corruption. They are definitely not engaged in promoting reform.

Avoidance, Not Confrontation

The Quran instructs us, ‘Avoid the ignorant’. ( 7:199 )

The opposite of avoidance is confrontation. The method of avoidance keeps one within peaceful sphere, while the method of confrontation leads to violence with others.

No one—whether individuals or groups—lives alone in this

In contrast, the ghulu-psyche always leads one towards extremism. And extremism very easily turns into violence and confrontation. Ghulu and violence are thus closely interlinked. This is why ghulu is looked at with great disfavour in Islam. Inclining towards ghulu is another name for addiction to violence. And abstaining from ghulu is another name for cherishing moderation.

Killing a Single Person is Tantamount to Slaying the Whole of Humanity

The Quran tells us: ‘[W]hoever killed a human being – except as a punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land – shall be regarded as having killed all mankind’ ( 5:32 )

Killing someone is a very heinous act. It is legitimate only if someone becomes a definite danger to social peace. To kill someone without genuine justification is tantamount to the slaughter of the whole of humanity, because such an action is a gross violation of respect for life, which, in turn, leads to the taking of human life becoming a seemingly easy affair.

With regard to the consumption of alcohol, there is a tradition of the Prophet which tells us that if a large quantity of something leads to intoxication, then a small quantity of it, too, is forbidden. (Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith No. 3681) The same principle applies in the case of killing as well. It is as reprehensible and enormous a crime to kill a single person as it is to kill a large number of people. The only difference between the two is of degree, but in terms of the nature of the act itself there is no difference whatsoever.

From the Quranic verse quoted earlier one can gauge the great importance that Islam gives to peace and security. Islam demands that if a single person is killed, the entire society must

violence among people, then, despite claiming to be reformist activities they are definitely not so. Rather, they are destructive activities, leading to strife. Those who engage in such activities should be considered criminals and enemies of humanity, and certainly not reformers or servants of humanity.

An action can be considered a genuine reformist effort only if it is carried out within the limits of peace and humaneness. All activities undertaken in the name of reform that disturb social peace and cause loss of life and property are wrong. Essentially, efforts in the name of reform must also truly bring about reform in terms of their results. If, instead, they result in what the Quran refers to as fasad or strife corruption , then they are actually themselves a form of fasad, no matter what seemingly beautiful words may be used to describe them.

Ending Conspiracies

The Quran tells us, ‘If you persevere and fear God, their designs will never harm you in the least’ ( 3:120 ). This Quranic verse indicates a very important fact of life. And that is, that the real issue for individuals or groups is not of whether they might have enemies who are conspiring against them. Rather, it is whether or not they have sufficient sabr or patience and have adopted the necessary precautionary measures to cause any conspiracies against them to fail.

If conspiracies can be likened to the rain, patience and Godconsciousness are like a strong roof. Rain is a problem only for those who have not bothered to make a firm roof over their house. For those who have made such a roof, this is not the case.

This world runs on the principle of competition. That is why it is but natural that sometimes rivalries develop between individuals and groups, which may later assume the form of conspiracies against each other. Whenever something like this happens, one should consider it not as an enemy’s conspiracy

but they exist for the purpose of testing us—for instance, alcohol. Alcohol exists not so that people should drink it, but, rather, so that they should avoid it and thereby prove that they can distinguish between good and bad. The same thing holds for war, too. War is something that can be resorted to, but the right thing for human beings to do is to desist from it.

In the ancient past, considering the then prevailing conditions, permission was given for defensive war. This permission was in accordance with the law of necessity. But now, in the changed conditions of today, this necessity no longer exists. And that is why there is now no need at all for war.

Reconciliation is Best

The Quran describes a particular natural law in the following words: ‘reconciliation is best’ ( 4:128 ). In the event of a conflict between two parties, they can engage in violent confrontation. But there is another method they can choose: to immediately come to an agreement and end their conflict. This is what reconciliation is about.

It is very rare for this sort of reconciliation to be equally in accordance with the desires of both parties. In most cases, this reconciliation happens on a unilateral basis. That is to say, one of the two parties sets aside its desires and agrees to settle the dispute according to the desires of the other party.

Why is this sort of unilateral reconciliation taken to be ‘best’? The reason for this is because a situation of conflict calls a halt to constructive activity. The benefit of agreeing to reconciliation is that one is thereby spared the need to waste one’s time, strength and resources on useless confrontation and so can focus on constructive efforts instead. A course of action that is opposed to reconciliation is always and inevitably a course leading to destruction. The method of reconciliation is always, and in every case, a beneficial one.

informed the cosmos, by now it would have been devastated, and there would have been no possibility for human life to exist.

The same Creator who made the rest of the cosmos created us human beings, too. The Creator wants human beings to adopt the very same ‘peace culture’ that He has established throughout the rest of the vast cosmos. The only difference is that this ‘peace culture’ prevails in the rest of the cosmos on the basis of nature, while humans are independent creatures and have free will. And so, God wishes that they should freely decide to adopt this ‘peace culture’ in their lives.

The Quran, a Book of Peace

The Quran is, without doubt, a book of peace. It is not a book of violence and war. All the statements of the Quran are, directly or indirectly, related to peace. The very first phrase in the Quran is: ‘In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.’ In other words, the highest attribute of the God who has sent this Book is mercy, and this Book is an expression of this attribute of His mercy.

All the verses of the Quran are, directly or indirectly, based on peace. There are more than 6000 verses in the Quran. Of these, hardly 40 are about commandments of qital or war—in other words, less than 1 per cent. .

Those who regard the Quran as God’s Book can be considered to be true believers only when, abiding by the teachings of the Quran, they become fully and completely peace-loving. On no condition whatsoever should they take to the path of violence.

In this regard, one needs to stress the need for people to distinguish between Islam, on the one hand, and Muslims, on the other. They must not label the actions or behaviour of Muslims as ‘Islamic’. The fact is that the behavior of Muslims must be judged on the basis of Islam. Islam should not be sought to be understood on the basis of the Muslims’ behaviour. Islam is an

CHAPTER THREE The Culture of Peace

What is Peace?

Some scholars define peace as the absence of war. This definition is, from the dictionary or literal point of view, correct. Whenever there is no war or violence between individuals or groups, a state of peace begins to prevail on its own.

However, for peace to be established in any society, the ending of violence or war is not enough. To define peace as the absence of violence or war is a negative definition. A positive way of defining peace is on the basis of the positive attributes that characterize peace. Accordingly, a society can be said to enjoy peace if positive and constructive thought and activity flourish at all levels. When such thought and activity flourish, a society can truly be said to enjoy peace.

The establishment of peace in a society can be likened to the lifting of the gates of a dam, leading to a river being filled with water in plenty. Life is like a flowing river that seeks to surge ahead, driven by its own inner force. It stops its journey only when some artificial barrier is placed in its path. In the absence of such a barrier, life flourishes in all its dimensions, impelled by nature.

Violence and war are barriers that seek to block the natural

In present times, Muslims have launched violent confrontations with governments in various countries. But almost wholly without exception, these are not Islamic jihads, but, rather fasad, or conflict. This is because none of these socalled jihads has been launched by an established government.

All of these movements have been launched, and are being carried out, by what in today’s parlance are called nongovernmental organizations. If some of their so-called jihadi activities enjoy the support of some Muslim government, this support is being provided in a clandestine and undeclared manner. However, according to the shariah, a Muslim government has the right to engage in jihad (Ibn Qudamah, Al Mughni: vol 9, p. 202 ) only when it openly declares this. It is impermissible, according to Islam, for a Muslim government to engage in qital, or war, without such a declaration.

The violent activities presently engaged in by Muslims in various parts of the world in the name of jihad are, to use modern-day terms, of two types: guerilla war and proxy war. And both of these types of war are, without any doubt, illegitimate in Islam. Guerilla war is illegitimate in Islam because it is conducted by non-state actors, and not an established government. And proxy war is illegitimate because it is engaged in by a government without its having made an open declaration of hostilities.

Islamic jihad is thus a positive and continuous action or process. It continues uninterrupted in the life of a believer and has three large spheres:

1. Jihad an-Nafs: This is the struggle to control one’s negative emotions and desires, and under all conditions, remain always firm in the way of life that is pleasing to God.

2. Jihad-e Dawah: This is the struggle to convey the message of God to all of humankind, and for this purpose to make every effort, inspired by compassion and concern for the welfare of all. This is an exalted task, and so the Quran calls it jihad-e-kabir, or ‘great jihad’.

here, and from which we can gain valuable lessons, is the life of Mahatma Gandhi. Because of the changes in the times that we have talked of, it was possible for Mahatma Gandhi to engage in a full-fledged political struggle and succeed. And all of this happened by adhering to non-violent methods and peaceful activism, from start to finish.

According to a well-known principle of fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence, certain rules can or should be modified to suit the change of time and place. (e.g., Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ighathatu lahfaan, vol 1, p. 330) This generally accepted principle of fiqh demands that when the conditions have changed, then, if need be, one must seek the re-application of the relevant shariah commandments so that they may be brought into harmony with the prevailing conditions. Indeed, this principle of fiqh applies as much to issues of war as it does to many other matters. It, too, demands that violent methods should now be discarded and only peaceful methods should be considered to be in conformity with the shariah.

Contemporary Jihadi Movements

In present times, in many countries Muslims are engaged in armed conflicts in the name of ‘Islamic jihad’. But the fact is that no movement can turn into a jihad simply because its flag-bearers give it that label. An action can be considered an Islamic jihad only if and when it is fully in accordance with the conditions that Islam has laid down in this regard. Without fully meeting these conditions, it will not be a real jihad, but, rather, fasad, or strife. Those who are engaged in such actions will not earn the rewards they would have had for participating in a true jihad. Rather, they will deserve only God’s punishment.

I have discussed in considerable detail in several of my books the various conditions necessary for jihad in the sense of qital or physical war. Here I wish to clarify just one point. And that

5. This sunnat of the Prophet was also exemplified by his victory over Makkah. On this occasion, he was accompanied by 10,000 devoted Companions. They could certainly have successfully fought the Quraysh. However, instead of using force, the Prophet chose rather to demonstrate force. He did not set out by making an announcement, with this army of 10,000 people, and then fight the Quraysh and capture Makkah. Instead, what he did was that in complete secrecy he made preparations for the journey and travelled along with his Companions to Makkah and then very silently entered the town. His entry into Makkah was so sudden that the Quraysh were unable to make any preparations against him, and Makkah was won without any bloody confrontation. This, too, is an example of the Prophet’s choice of a peaceful, over a violent, method.

All these examples prove that not only in ordinary conditions, but also in case of extreme emergency, the Prophet adopted the principle of peace as opposed to war. All his successes are practical examples of this very sunnat of peace.

As indicated above, in Islam peace is the general rule while war is a rare exception, to be resorted to only when it becomes an absolutely unavoidable compulsion. Keep this principle in mind and survey the world today. Today’s world is completely different from the world of ancient times. In the past, violence was a common or general practice. Choosing peaceful methods was, at that time, an extremely difficult thing to do. However, today the situation has changed completely. In today’s world, resorting to violence has become completely undesirable and unacceptable. In contrast, peaceful methods are now regarded as the only acceptable way. Moreover, today, peaceful methods not only have an intellectual base but are supported by practical requirements, which makes these methods extremely powerful in their own right.

In life, one is oftenfaced with the issue of having to choose between two paths to follow: the peaceful and the violent. The accounts of the Prophet’s life tell us that always, and in every matter, he adopted peaceful methods, totally shunning violence. His whole life was a successful expression of this principle. Here are some instances which illustrate this:

1. Immediately after being appointed as a prophet, he was faced with choosing between two methods—peaceful or violent. As a prophet, his mission was to end polytheism and to establish tawhid, faith in and surrender to the one God. The Kabah in Makkah had been established as a centre of tawhid, but by the time of the advent of the Prophet some 360 idols had been installed therein. Hence, one could think that in the Quran the Prophet should first have been instructed to purify the Kabah of idols and then remake it as a centre of tawhid, thus advancing themission he was engaged in. But had this been the case and he had started his work in this way, it would have been tantamount to warring with the Quraysh of Makkah, who enjoyed leadership among the Arabs, precisely because they had traditionally been the custodians of the Kabah. History tells us that at this stage, the Prophet completely avoided cleansing the Kabah of idols, and restricted himself purely to the mission of conveying the ideology of tawhid instead. This was an example of the Prophet choosing a peaceful method over a violent one.

2. Firmly upholding this peaceful principle, the Prophet carried on his preaching work for thirteen years in Makkah. Yet, despite this, the Quraysh fiercely opposed him, so much so that their elders, after consulting each other, plotted to act together to kill him. Accordingly, they armed themselves with swords and surrounded his house.

so on. All such things, and even the pressure of traditions and customs, are hurdles in God’s path. Overcoming them all and abiding by the commandments of God is the real jihad, and this is what jihad’s essential meaning is.

There are many references to jihad in the sayings attributed to the Prophet. For instance, in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, there are several traditions, such as:

1. A mujahid is he who engages in jihad against his own self (nafs) for God’s sake. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 23951)

2. A mujahid is he who engages in jihad against his own self in God’s path. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 23965)

3. A mujahid is he who engages in jihad against his own self for the sake of obedience to God. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 23958)

The world we live in is a testing ground. It has been fashioned in such a way that human beings are constantly in a state of being tested. In the course of this test, people have to face numerous hurdles. So, for instance, you might face a situation where you are faced with a truth, but you feel that acknowledging it would lower your status. You might have in your possession a thing that belongs to someone else and you feel that returning it to its rightful owner would cause you a loss. Or, you might feel that leading a modest life is tantamount to suppressing your desires. At times, you might think that not giving vent to feelings of anger and revenge is tantamount to negating yourself. You might hesitate to uphold justice for fear of losing your popularity. You might feel that if you act in a principled manner, instead of selfishly, you may lose certain facilities. And so on.

In this way, on different occasions one has to repeatedly suppress one’s desires. Sometimes, you might feel that you will have to sacrifice your ego totally, surmounting all hurdles and facing all sorts of difficulties and losses, but still remaining

coming to be thought of as a religion of hatred and violence, not as a religion of peace and humanity.

There is only one way in which Islam can be rid of this bad image: and that is if Muslims stop giving their communal or national conflicts an ‘Islamic’ label. They must attribute all their actions to their community, not to Islam, so that whatever they do can be seen for what it truly is—actions linked to their community, and not Islamic or religious actions as such.

addition, the Gita also talks about war. In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to go ahead and participate in war. Now, this certainly does not mean that those who believe in the Gita will be waging war all the time. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi drew his philosophy of non-violence from the Gita. This was possible because in the Gita, war is an exception, to be resorted to purely in exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, in ordinary or general life, it is the Gita’s peaceful teachings that apply, and it was these which Mahatma Gandhi drew on to develop his philosophy of non-violence.

In the same way, in the New Testament (Matthew 10:34), Jesus is said to have declared, ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I haven’t come to bring peace but a sword.’ It would be wrong to assume from these words that the religion of the Messiah was one of war and bloodshed. This is because words of this sort are simply an exception in Jesus’ teachings and are linked to a particular situation. As far as general life is concerned, the Messiah always stressed love and peace.

The same thing likewise, holds true of the Quran. When the Prophet Muhammad migrated from Makkah to Madinah, the polytheists launched aggressive attacks on him. But he repeatedly staved off these attacks through patient steadfastness and avoidance of fighting. However, there were occasions when there was no option left but to reply to these attacks. That is why, on such occasions the Prophet responded in the form of defensive fighting. It was in these circumstances that the exceptional Quranic commandments about fighting were revealed. These commandments were related to a temporary situation, and were not meant to be universally applied. Indeed, in the Quran ( 21:107 ) the Prophet is referred to as a ‘mercy to the worlds’, or rahmatul-lil-alameen.

to a mere political headache. And so, it is not necessary now for the followers of Islam to wage war for the sake of capturing political power. Irrespective of who wields political power, the followers of Islam can now, under all conditions, establish nonpolitical institutions and thereby access all the desirable benefits.

This does not mean that the followers of Islam must wash their hands off politics. Rather, it means that while gaining the benefits that accrue through institutions and organizations, they can engage in peaceful political work in a limited arena. They must abstain completely from political agitation, however, and, instead, should pursue their peaceful political journey, within the possible limits. It may be, then, that God will give them the opportunity to enter into institutions of political significance.

The Strength of Peace

A hadith in the Sahih Muslim tells us that God gives in response to gentleness what He does not in response to harshness. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2593) From this we learn that peaceful activism is clearly superior to violent activism.

What this hadith relates is not something mysterious. Rather, it is an obvious, well-known and natural fact. War and violence only further exacerbate hatred and enmity between opponents. They cause much destruction of resources, besides taking precious lives. They lead entire societies to fall prey to negative thinking. Obviously, in a climate of war there is no possibility left for positive and constructive activities. In war and violence, destruction is certain. They produce no benefit whatsoever.

On the other hand, in a climate of peace, people can establish propitious and balanced relations with each other. Friendship and love can flourish. As a result of this sort of favourable atmosphere, positive and constructive activities and the use of resources for progress are possible. Such an atmosphere is conducive to positive thinking, which promotes progress in terms of thought and action.

prevailed throughout the world. Under this coercive system, people could hardly do anything without the monarch’s consent. Ordinary people simply had no freedom whatsoever. The situation was similar to that prevailing in the Soviet Union under Communism.

God wanted this unnatural system of coercion to be ended and for the whole of human life to run according to the natural conditions that He has laid down in order to test human beings— that is to say, people should be free to do what they like without the permission of the political authorities.

In the early period of Islam, the overthrow of mulukiyat or monarchical despotism and its replacement by the Caliphate was the beginning of this phenomenon. This system was first established in Arabia. At that time, there were two big empires in the region—the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. The establishment of the Caliphate and its programme of reform was a major challenge to these two powers. Hence, they wanted to quell this reformist movement. As a result of this, the Companions of the Prophet had to face stiff opposition from them. With God’s assistance, they were victorious in this confrontation, and the coercive system of what the French historian Henri Pirenne termed as ‘Absolute Imperialism’ was ended.

Ending a system of coercion that was several thousand years old and replacing it with a system based on freedom was a very revolutionary development. This development could not be completed in its initial phase itself. With God’s help, Islam, in the seventh century C.E., broke the historical continuity of this ancient coercive system. After this, this transformation assumed the form of an ongoing process that became central to human history. It continued, through various natural ups and downs, until in the 20th century it reached its culmination.

Decentralization emerged as a reality in the early 20th century. And so, political power has now become very limited, remaining restricted essentially to the form of administration. Today, the interference of political institutions in human life is minimal. In

by the law of nature. It is not that a group gets political power because of its own efforts. Nor, too, can a group lose its political power because of the conspiracy of others.

Victory Without War

In 628 C.E., the Prophet entered into a treaty—called the Treaty of Hudaybiya—with his opponents. At this time, the Prophet was based in Madinah, while Makkah was still under the control of the polytheists, who were then at war with the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet wanted to visit Makkah in order to perform the Umrah, because the Kabah was located there. This visit would have been only for the purpose of worship. However, the Makkans made this into a prestige issue for themselves. And so, they stopped the Prophet outside Makkah, at a place called Hudaybiya, and asked him to return. Things came to such a head that war seemed imminent. At this time, the Prophet was accompanied by some 1400 Muslims. If these people had insisted on going to Makkah to perform the Umrah, war would certainly have broken out. The Prophet, however, accepted the demands of the Makkan polytheists, and, signing a ten-year peace treaty with them, returned from Hudaybiya to Madinah.

The Treaty of Hudaybiya thus averted war between the two parties, being, as it were, a withdrawal from the field of confrontation. But in the first verse of chapter 48 of the Quran described it as a ‘clear victory’ in favour of the followers of Islam. By not engaging in war with their opponents, they had won a decisive victory over them. This meant that by avoiding war and, instead, by entering into a peace pact, the followers of Islam won the opportunity to prevent their resources from being wasted in war and to use them entirely on constructive activities instead. And this is exactly what happened. History tells us that within two years of the peace pact of Hudaybiya, the followers of Islam had so well established themselves that they were in a position

This Quranic verse clearly tells us that we should engage in peaceful efforts and thereby make our opponent our friend, rather than branding him as an incorrigible enemy and declaring war against him.

It is true that Islam does give permission to engage in war in some situations, but this is only when all efforts to avoid war have failed and the opposing force launches an attack, creating a situation that necessitates defensive measures. In this regard, the Quran says:

Permission to fight is granted to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. ( 22:39 )

In the same vein, elsewhere, the Quran, permitting Muslims to participate in war, clarifies that the opposing party is the one that attacked the Muslims first. This verse reads:

Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and conspired to banish the Messenger? They were the first to attack you. ( 9:13 )

It must be clearly understood that according to Islamic teachings, war may be resorted to, not against all enemies or opponents but only against aggressors, and that, too, only if the urgent need arises. If Muslims consider some people to be their enemies or opponents, they certainly do not have permission to attackor declare war against them. With regard to such people, the one and only thing that Muslims can and should do is to engage in peaceful dawah work. Islam does not permit them to do anything other than this. While defensive war ispermitted in Islam in the wake of violent aggression by others, this can be re sorted to only when all efforts to avoid war have failed. This is very well exemplified in practical terms in the life of the Prophet Muhammad.

people. (Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2957) This indicates that the planning and declaration of qital, or war, is entirely the prerogative of a properly established government. The general Muslim populace can, remaining under the leadership of their rulers and obeying their orders, play whatever role is required of them in this regard, but they cannot act independently.

From this Islamic principle it is clear that there is no scope in Islam for non-state actors to engage in war on their own, or what is generally called guerilla war. This is because a guerilla war is fought by independent non-state organisations, rather than by agencies of an established government. If agencies of an Islamic state seek to engage in defensive war, then, in accordance with the commandments of the Quran, they must first issue an open declaration of war. If the state has a treaty with the party it wants to wage war against, it must dissolve it. In Islam, war must be openly announced. Undeclared war is not permissible in Islam. Hence, according to Islam, proxy war is illegitimate.

All actions in Islam have certain conditions. It follows, therefore, that in Islam there are also certain necessary conditions for war. One of these conditions is that war must be limited only to, and directed only against, aggressors. In other words, a Muslim army is permitted to fight only against combatants. It is not permissible for it to attack non-combatants. The Quran lays down:

He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you on account of your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just. God only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your faith and driven you out of your homes or helped others to do so. Any of you who turn towards them in friendship will truly be transgressors. ( 60:8-9 )

Suppose a Muslim government is embroiled in a war with another country. Even if this war abides by the necessary

of God. Now, with regard to this mission, there was a major issue that he had to deal with. And this was that the Kabah, which is in Makkah and which the Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael had built for the worship of the one God, had, in later times, been converted into a centre for polytheism. 360 idols had been installed therein.

One might think that, given this situation, the first commandment of the Quran should have been to purify the Kabah of these idols. But ignoring this problem, the Quran’s initial commandments were about the need for inner purification. (The Quran, 74:4 ) Had the Prophet been ordered to purify the Kabah of idols at the very outset, at a time when the Quraysh polytheists were dominant in Makkah, it would inevitably have led to conflict and even war. Therefore, after being appointed as a prophet, the Prophet continued to pray peacefully for over a period of thirteen years at the Kabah even while scores of idols remained therein. Likewise, after he shifted to Madinah, he and his Companions performed the Umrah or ‘lesser pilgrimage’ to Makkah and circumambulated the Kabah following the Treaty of Hudaybiya ( 628 C.E.) at a time when these idols were still there.

The Prophet acted in this way so that war and confrontation with the polytheists could be avoided and peace could be maintained. The entire life of the Prophet exemplified this peace-loving policy of his. The Quraysh of Makkah were ready to attack him, but he avoided this by quietly leaving the town and shifting to Madinah. Just before the Hudaybiya Treaty, war-like conditions prevailed, but the Prophet agreed to the Quraysh’s one-sided conditions and entered into a peace pact with them. Likewise, on the occasion of the Battle of the Trench ( 627 C.E.), a massive force of some 12,000 polytheists reached the outskirts of Madinah, challenging the Muslims to battle. However, the Prophet ordered a long trench to be dug around the town, thus establishing a buffer between the Muslims and their opponents. All this clearly indicates the great importance that the Prophet gave to peace.

Peace in the Quran and Hadith

Peace is integral to the meaning of the very word ‘Islam’ itself. The root of the word ‘Islam’ is s-l-m, which is related to the Arabic word for ‘peace’. And so, Islam means a religion of peace. Imam al-Bukhari has given the title, ‘Spreading peace is a part of Islam’, to hadith no. 28 , which is on the importance of peace in Islam. Likewise, the Prophet is reported to have declared that a Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands people live safely. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 8931) In other words, a Muslim, in the true sense of the word, is a person who does not harm anyone by his or her words or deeds.

Of the various names or attributes of God mentioned in the Quran one is As-Salam, or ‘The Source of Peace’. That is to say, God is Peace. Similarly, in a hadith recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet observed that God Himself is Peace. Moreover, God’s guidance is referred to in the Quran ( 5:16 ) as subul as-salaam or ‘the ways of peace’. According to Islam, heaven is the ideal abode for Man, and the Quran ( 10:25 ) refers to heaven as daar us-salaam or the ‘home of peace’. Elsewhere, the Quran ( 56:26 ) says that the inhabitants of heaven will greet each other saying, ‘Peace! Peace!’ In other words, life in heaven will be entirely peaceful.

We are told by the Quran ( 4:128 ) that ‘reconciliation is best’. This means that, in terms of consequences, reconciliation is the better option. According to the law of nature that God has devised, reconciliation leads to successes and achievements that would simply be impossible by having recourse to violence.

In a narration recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha, wife of the Prophet, is mentioned as having noted that whenever the Prophet had to choose between two courses of action, he would always choose the easier one. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 3560; Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2327; Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4785; Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 1984; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 24549) This indicates that when opportunities for peaceful

negative tendencies and inner feelings and eliminate them. This is a jihad, and without this jihad no one can save his or her faith from damage, decrease or erosion.

Wahiduddin Khan

skhan@goodwordbooks.com

thoughts. That is why Islam places great stress on nurturing right thinking. This being the case, war is excluded from Islam’s plan of affirmative action. Islam teaches us to focus entirely, and under all conditions, on the awakening of right thinking and awareness.

War is something that undermines, rather than facilitates, the plan of human reform that Islam stands for. One can derive no real gain or benefit from war or any other form of violence. This is why if all possible efforts to prevent war are made but, yet, they fail and one is compelled to engage in war, the first thing for the followers of Islam to do is to seek to put an end to the fighting as soon as possible, so that in a climate of peace the real positive work of Islam can carry on unhindered.

In this context, it is pertinent to say a few words about the notion of jihad in Islam. Jihad is, in fact, another name for peaceful struggle. In today’s parlance, it could be called ‘peaceful activism’—or, in other words, using peaceful means to try to attain certain lofty objectives.

The literal meaning of jihad is ‘effort’ or ‘struggle’. The Quran speaks about a ‘great jihad’ (jihad-e kabir)—engaging in jihad through the Quran ( 25:52 ). According to a hadith, a mujahid, one who engages in jihad, is one who, for the sake of obedience to God, combats his own lower self, or nafs. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 23967) According to another hadith, when the Prophet returned from the Tabuk campaign, he said, ‘We have returned from lesser jihad to greater jihad.’ (see, Al Bayhaqi, Al-Zuhd al-Kabir, Hadith No. 373 ) The ‘lesser jihad’ is military struggle, while the ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against one’s own lower self, that is to say, the struggle to control one’s negative and undesirable feelings and to persevere in the life of God’s choice in all circumstances.

Jihad, if understood correctly, is an entirely peaceful action. At the individual level, to engage in jihad is to refuse to deviate from God’s path in the face of the desires and inclinations of one’s nafs and the baneful influence of the environment. It is to