"Say We believe in God and what is revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and I`saac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what was entrusted to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to Him we have surrendered."
(Quran 3: 84)
"If
peace and nonviolence are to be conceived as instrumental values then
there must be clearly identifiable values whose intrinsic worth must be
more than that of peace".
"And
Allah summons to the abode of peace, and leads whom He wills to the
straight path"-- (Al-Quran 10:25)
That
change is necessary in the Muslim World, both political and
socio-cultural, is an eminently uncontested feeling. The issue that public
intellectuals and policy makers must contemplate is whether this change
can be engineered peacefully or whether it will have to be violent. Before
we can reflect on any substantive issues regarding the impulse for change
and the form this change will take, we must examine the idea of peace and
nonviolence itself. What is the intrinsic value of peace and nonviolence?
Are they to be valued in themselves to such an extent that the fear of
violence and instability in the process of change compel us to
indefinitely defer change?
Privileging
peace and nonviolence as desirable values with intrinsic and not
instrumental worth inevitably leads to the politics of status quo. If
existing power regimes and ruling coalitions are not willing to relinquish
power even in the face of popular opposition like in Algeria, then
privileging of peace and stability becomes a defense of status quo even in
the absence of legitimacy. However, the need for change should not be
taken as a license to resort to violence in the face of political
frustration.
If peace
and nonviolence are to be conceived as instrumental values then there must
be clearly identifiable values whose intrinsic worth must be more than
that of peace. It is only when such values are identified that peace can
be compromised in pursuit of these values which are more precious than
peace itself. Can we demand that people give up their rights, freedom and
accept injustices in the interest of maintaining peace?
Certainly
not, but we can appeal to the oppressed and the downtrodden to give
“peaceful change” a chance. We can defend instrumental peace and not
peace as an inherent value worth achieving above everything else.
Particularly with respect to a region where change is necessary, the
engineering of peaceful, gradual and systematic change will preclude
violent and revolutionary transformations.
Al-Quran
offers a very sophisticated view of peace. In many verses it promises the
believer peace as a final reward for a righteous life ( 5:16 ). It also
describes the house of Islam as the abode of peace (10:25). At the behest
of the Quran, Muslims greet each other every time they meet, by wishing
peace for each other (6:54 ). However the Quran does not shy from
advocating military action in the face of persecution and religious
intolerance. The strongest statement is in the chapter al-Baqarah (191):
And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places
from where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.
The
presence of this verse in the Quran clearly precludes a complete
prohibition of violence. The verse is important because in spitet of the
enormous significance that the Quran attaches to peace and harmony, it is
categorical in its assertion that persecution is worse than killing. There
is nothing allegorical in this verse: "persecution is worse
than killing" (Al-Quran; 2:217). Elsewhere the Quran states:
"And fight them until persecution is no more" (8:39). The
Quranic preference for struggle against persecution and its promise to
reward those who struggle in the path of Allah (4:74) means that the only
way violence can be eliminated from the Muslim World is by eliminating
injustices and persecution. At the risk of sounding tautological, one is
back at square one. In order that there be peace, there must be change.
Can this change be peaceful? Perhaps we can minimize areas where violence
can be used.
In al-Baqarah,
The Quran says: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and
religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility
except against wrong-doers" (2:193). This verse is very
interesting for it limits retaliation against all except those who are
directly responsible for wrong-doing and also suggests that persecution
could mean religious persecution. This also means that when the practice
of Islam is prohibited, it is a condition that can be deemed as
persecution and therefore fighting this persecution is desired.
This could
have implications for conflicts among Muslim states and between Muslim
states and Islamic groups. Where citizens are allowed to practice their
faith freely, violence is not an option. The Quran makes a profound
pronouncement in al-Anfal: "Tell those who disbelieve that if they
cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven
them" (8:38); this injunction further reduces the scope for
violent response against persecution by granting amnesty to those who stop
persecution. One of the reasons why tyrannical regimes persist in the
Muslim World is due to the fear of retaliation. Regimes are resisting
change and democratization for fear of being persecuted for past crimes by
new regimes. A promise of general amnesty for past deeds by potential
challengers may create an atmosphere where existing regimes may permit
gradual change.
Thus
philosophically we may not be able to completely eliminate the
revolutionary option for instituting change, but there are enough
injunctions in the Quran to limit violent response to egregious cases of
religious persecution and repression.
_____________________________________________
Dr.
Muqtedar Khan is the Director of International Studies at Adrian College
in Michigan. He is on the board of the Center for the Study of Islam and
Democracy and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists.