Peace in Islam: history, precept and practiceDelivered at University of Auckland, 21 September 2005
1This evening, I would like to speak to you about this question: what is the idea of peace in Islam? Put in a different, though perhaps less precise way, is Islam a religion of peace? My thesis is a simple one – that salaam, which means peace, is at the core of Islam. The Qu’ran, the Muslim Holy Book, and Hadith, the sayings of Prophet Mohammed, are replete with exhortations to non-violence over violence and forgiveness over retribution. The life and actions of the Prophet Mohammed are an example of the value in which Islam holds peace. Thus, when my friend says salaam aleikum to me, he expresses an idea which is central to the Islamic faith. Whether Islam is a religion of peace is, of course, central to a critical assessment of whether Islam itself is culpable for acts of terrorism committed in its name. Today, Islam is on trial. Some are convinced of its guilt. To take an extreme example, after September 11, Robert A. Morey, a prominent evangelical cult-watcher, announced a spiritual crusade against Islam and invited Christians to sign a pledge affirming the belief that Islam is at the root of all “Muslim terrorism”. A lesser form of Morey’s claim seems to have popular credibility. In a poll conducted last year, 44 percent of Americans agreed with the view that Islam, more than other religions, is likely “to encourage violence among its believers”.¹ Others are sceptical whether Islam is the proper defendant at all. For example, Edward Said, the Palestinian intellectual, viewed the September 11 attacks as “the capture of big ideas…by a tiny band of crazed fanatics for criminal purposes”.² While I will argue that peace is as the core of Islam, it would be of course inadequate to leave the matter there. We must acknowledge that civil and state-sponsored *I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Tarek Cherkaoui (PhD student, AUT) and Eesvan Krishnan (law student, University of Auckland) in the preparation of this lecture.
¹ The Pew study, “Religion and Politics: Contention and Consensus”, June 24–July 8 2003, cited in Daniel Pipes “Fixing Islam’s Image Problem” New York Post (New York, USA, July 29 2003)
² Edward Said “The Clash of Ignorance” The Nation (New York, USA, 22 October 2001).
To those ends, the structure of this lecture is as follows. I will begin at the level of
principle through a textual and contextual analysis of what the Qu’ran and Hadith say
about peace and the concept of jihad. Then, by way of illustration, I will give an
account of Prophet Mohammed’s actions and choices in the early years of Islam, to
illustrate that he was a peacemaker. This will be followed by a consideration of the
relationship between outer peace and inner peace. I will end with the practical
question of how to promote peace in the Muslim world.
Two preliminary issues: methodology of interpretation and the meaning of ‘peace’
Before I begin on the analysis of the peace in the Qu’ran and Hadith, I would like to
address two preliminary issues.
The first issue is the methdology of interpreting the Qu’ran. Understanding the
position of Islam vis-a-vis war and peace is essentially a problem of textual exposition.
For the uninitiated, this can be a perilous task. The Qu’ran must be studied in its total
background, not just studying it verse by verse or chapter by chapter. In other words,
‘cut and paste’ analysis should be avoided! There is a highly developed Islamic
jurisprudence, better known as usul al-figh, for the analysis of Islamic texts. This
jurisprudence has solutions to common problems such as reconciling the general with
the specific, and the clear with the ambiguous.
Like any text, the Qu’ran is susceptible to many different interpretations. None of
these interpretations are necessarily authoritative because there is no clergy in Islam.
What I will be advancing is a particular interpretation of the Qu’ran that is informed
by the text, its context, and subsequent jurisprudence. Because of the confines of a
lecture, the interpretation will be necessarily incomplete. However, in broad strokes at
least, it provides what is, in my view, a true picture of the idea of peace in Islam.
The second preliminary issue is a deceptively simple one – the meaning of peace. In
the dominant Western conception, peace is effectively the absence of war, and is
considered separately from justice.³ Islamic aspirations, on the other hand, have long
reflected a more expansive and holistic conception of peace. Peace in Islam is closely
linked to justice and human flourishing, and is best understood as:
With the preliminary issues addressed, we can now move to the subject of peace in
the Qu’ran and the Hadith.
Peace in the Qu’ran and the Hadith5
The word ‘Islam’ itself does not derive from the name of a particular prophet or
people, but has the same root as salaam, peace. Peace in Islam begins with God. Peace
is one of the “most beautiful names” of God, as-salam (Qu’ran 59:23-24). God invites
humanity to dar-as-salam, the abode of peace (Qu’ran 10:25), and does not love fasad,
violence (2:205). In the Qu’ran, peace is the greeting, language, and condition of
Paradise (Qu’ran 10:10, 14:23, 19:61-63, 36:58). The yearning for peace derives from the
innermost nature, or fitrah, of humankind.
The entire spirit of the Qu’ran is infused with the concept of peace. For example, the
Qu’ran attaches great importance to patience, which is set above all other Islamic
virtues (Qu’ran 39:10). Patience implies self-control and tolerance, and is regarded as
one-half of faith. When conflict arises, there is a clearly articulated preference in Islam for non-violence over violence and for forgiveness (‘afu) over retribution.6 Forgiveness is the highest ideal:
What is called for, in other words, is neither naïve pardon nor a mechanical
retribution.7 The goal is to generate contrition in the wrongdoer through a measured
response:
5 Ibid 7; Louay M. Safi Peace and the Limits of War (International Institute of Islamic Thought, Virginia, USA, 2002) ch 3; Maulana W. Khan “Non-Violence and Islam” Paper presented at Symposium on Islam and Peace sponsored by Non-Violence International and The Mohammed Said Farsi Chair of Islamic Peace at the American University Washington D.C, February 6 1998
6 Abdul Aziz Said et al, above n 3, 8.
7 Abdul Aziz Said et al, above n 3, 8.
For many in the West, jihad is translated as ‘holy war’; that is, a war to enforce one’s
religious beliefs on others. In my view, this is completely incorrect because Islam
explicitly protects freedom of religion and forbids coercion in matters of faith (Qu’ran
2.256). Although we come from one source and one soul, God made us different, and
we are asked to know each other despite difference: “O people! We have formed you
into nations and tribes so that you may know one another” (Qu’ran 49:13). Muslims
are enjoined to invite non-Muslims to the faith in a graceful and courteous manner:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with
them in a way that is best” (Qu’ran 16:125).
In an essay on the meaning of jihad, the scholar Louay Safi observes that mistake of
equating jihad with a holy war of conversion tends to arise from a misinterpretation
of three Qu’ranic verses and one verse in the Hadith.9 In an analysis employing the
tools of jurisprudential analysis (which I mentioned earlier), Safi systematically
deconstructs the meanings of the verses to uphold the general principle that Islam
forbids coercion in religion. For example, Safi argues that one of the verses, Qu’ran
2:193, only authorises the selective use of force to protect the freedom to practice
Islam, and does not authorise war as a means of conversion. Another verse Qu’ran
9:13, Safi argues, must be confined in its application only to non-Muslim Arabs who
lived at the time of the Prophet. The evidence is conclusive that jihad does not mean
holy war’.
So, what does jihad in fact mean? To understand this question fully, it must be
remembered that the Islamic revelation took place over a period rather than at a
single point in time. The term jihad first appears in the Qu’ran in the Meccan period.
At this time, the Prophet and his followers were being persecuted and oppressed by
the main tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muslims were not permitted to fight at this
time, and thus jihad was used to mean peaceful struggle in the cause of God. After the
Prophet and his followers migrated to Medina, and were then pursued aggressively
by the Quraysh, Muslims were then permitted to wage war in self-defence. The
meaning of jihad then enlarged to embrace the defensive use of force. Thus, it follows
that the use of military tactics is only one of several avenues through which the duty
of jihad can be discharged. The methodology of jihad includes, among other things,
peaceful resistance and perseverance.
9 Louay A. Safi, above n 5, ch 2.
Not only must jihad be justified as legitimate self-defence, but the use of force is also
highly regulated by, what we would call in modern parlance, ‘rules of engagement’.
Jihad is placed within the Islamic ethical sphere and is thus highly regulated to
prohibit harm to non-combatants, enemy property, and the environment. Some of the
main principles were clearly stated in a speech made by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr
(who was one of the closest companions of the Prophet) when he sent his army on an
expedition to the Syrian border:
These principles were ahead of their time, and we see them today in the Geneva
Conventions. There are further principles restricting the use of force. Firstly, there
must also be a clear declaration of war before beginning hostilities. Secondly, peace
conventions must not be unilaterally breached. Thirdly, the force used must be no
more than necessary and must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. In the Hadith (narrated by Al Bukhari), a story is told of a prophet who was stung by an ant, and in retaliation he razed by fire all the ants he could find in his town. God admonished the prophet for his act, and said that he should only have retaliated against the specific ant that had hurt him.
Finally, there is no absolute right of retribution with the same type of force employed
by the aggresor. For example, Islamic scholars were unanimous that even if the
aggressor burned civilians intentionally to spread fear, Muslims are not allowed to
retaliate in the same way because it is not an ethical manner with which to conduct
war.
To summarise, I have made four main points so far. Firstly, jihad does not mean a holy
war of conversion. Secondly, jihad, which means striving in the path of God, embraces
a range of activities, only one of which is the use of force in limited circumstances.
I would like to push the reasoning one step further and introduce you to a creative
line of inquiry by the Thai scholar-activist Satha-Anand.12 The question that he
considers is this: given the disproportionate magnitude and indiscriminate effect of
weaponry such as explosives and nuclear technology, can Muslims use force
consistently with Islamic principles? Satha-Anand argues that they cannot, and
therefore Muslims cannot use violence in the modern world. The only way to
discharge the duty to fight oppression and injustice is to engage in non-violent action.
This, as I have argued, is entirely consistent with a fuller understanding of jihad.
I would now like to turn illustrate some of the principles I have discussed in relation
to the life and actions of Prophet Mohammed. I will argue that the choices made by
the Prophet to protect the early Islamic state illustrate an anxiousness to preserve
peace even at the expense of pride, and the use of force only as a last resort.
Prophet Mohammed as a peace-maker
Prophet Mohammed was born in the year 570 AD in Mecca. Even before the first
revelation of the Qu’ran to the Prophet around 610 AD, he was known as a
peacemaker, and as Mohammed Al-Ameen, the one of high integrity. When he was
over thirty, a dispute arose among the Quraysh, the main tribe in Mecca. The great
stone temple called the Kaaba was being re-built. At first, the work went on smoothly.
However, conflict arose when time came for the sacred black stone, revered for
having fallen from Paradise, to be put back in place in the southeast corner of the
building. The different clans of the Quraysh all wanted the honour of putting back the
black stone, and were ready to fight and kill. Mohammed acted as conciliator. He
placed the black stone in the middle of a sheet, and asked the heads of the assembled
clans to hold the corners of the sheet and raise it. They did so, and then taking the
stone in his hands, he put it in position. In this way, the honour of all the clans was
protected, and conflict averted.
12 Chaiwat Satha-Anand, above n 10, 195-211.
As Khan observes, part of this non-violent activism was the choice to migrate rather
than confront.13 Around 615 AD, Muslims sought refuge in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia)
which was then ruled by a Christian King, and were welcomed and protected from
their Quaraysh persecutors. The major migration took place in 622 AD when the
Prophet and his followers, around two hundred in number, migrated to Medina. The
migration, known as hijra or flight, is celebrated to this day as the beginning of the
Islamic calendar. The Prophet continued to play the role of peacemaker when
establishing the new state in Medina by negotiating and concluding two Charters. The
first Charter resolved the feud between the two rival Arab factions in Medina. The
second Charter, named mu’ada, was a constitutional charter to uphold harmonious
and peaceful relations between Muslims and Jews, who were the significant minority
in Medina at this time.
Relations between the Quaraysh in Mecca and the Muslims in Medina worsened in
the ensuing years. Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in
Mecca. The Meccans sent armies against Medina. The two sides clashed in the battle
of Badr in 624 AD and the battle of Uhud in 625 AD. We see, during this time, the first
Qu’ranic verses that authorise the use of force. For example:
In 627 AD, another Meccan force was led against Medina, but the Prophet led his
followers in digging a deep trench around Medina between the two sides, thus
successfully preventing a battle from taking place.
In the context of these military encounters, one might expect that the greatest victory
of the early Muslims would be a grand military triumph. In fact, it was the opposite –
a truce, followed by a peace treaty. Having had a vision in which he found himself
entering Mecca unopposed, the Prophet was determined to attempt the pilgrimage.
The Quaraysh were suspicious of his motives, and maltreated one of the Prophet’s
envoys who was sent to explain that the Prophet came only as a pilgrim. After several
diplomatic manoeuvres, the two sides finally sat down to negotiate. The negotiations
The notable feature of the Treaty were the unilateral concessions in form and
substance made by the Muslims to the Quaraysh, despite the fact that by this stage the
Muslims were stronger militarily than the Quaraysh. In terms of form, the Prophet
acquiesced to Quaraysh demands that he sign the Treaty simply as Mohammed,
rather than as Mohammed the Prophet of God. In terms of substance, the Prophet
agreed that any Quaraysh who embraced Islam and came to the Muslims without
permission from his guardian was to be returned to the Quaraysh, but not so
deserters from the Muslims to the Quaraysh. Why did the Prophet make these
concessions, which were certainly painful? In my view, the only conclusion can be is
that the Prophet valued the peace so highly that he was willing to accept it costs for
himself and his people.
In the event, the Treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah worked largely to the advantage of the
Muslims, and so is now regarded as the early Muslim state’s greatest victory. The
stature of the Prophet and Islam had grown so significantly through this peace that
the number of converts to Islam in the following two years was greater than the total
number of all previous converts.
In summary, from his early life onwards, the Prophet was first and foremost a
peacemaker. He held the peace despite severe persecution in Mecca, and resorted to
the use of force only in self-defence in reaction to Quaraysh aggression. Finally, the
Prophet preferred peace to continued conflict, even at the expense of short-term
Muslim interests. The Prophet’s choices illustrate that there are a range of
peacemaking options in Islam – such as perseverance, migration, and treaty-making –
and force may only be used as a necessary defensive measure. In contrast, as I
discussed earlier, the use of indiscriminate force against innocent civilian populations,
such as the suicide bombings that we see today, is totally outside Islam.
Having now painted, in broad strokes, a picture of the idea of peace in Islam, I would
like to consider what Islam says about inner peace. What is the relationship between
the inner peace (that is, peace within one’s being), and outer peace? What does Islam
say about the cultivation of inner peace?
Inner peace
Put simply, without a sense of inner peace, one cannot make peace between people.
God, as the source of peace, bestows his grace only if we strive for peace within
ourselves: “…Allah would not change a favour which He had bestowed upon a
people until they change what is within themselves” (Qu’ran 8.53). The challenge, of
I faced such a challenge when I first arrived in New Zealand and was imprisoned for
two years, the first ten months of which I was placed in solitary confinement. Getting
through life day by day became itself a monumental challenge, but a great source of
strength were the lessons from the Qu’ran and Hadith about how one should remain
calm and peaceful. The Hadith tells the story of the Prophet urging a grieving woman
to show patience and restraint in order to cope with shock (narrated by Al Bukhari and
Muslim). I remember being deeply shocked when I was shown for the first time some
of the inflammatory media coverage about me. I struggled to remain patient, to
analyse my situation, to try and understand what was happening. Later, I would cry,
and feel relieved. In the Islamic view, it is best to try and remain optimistic, especially in human relations, to try and look and things in the best light possible. In my time of isolation, I would lie in bed and try to check my soul for bad feelings, and to try and cleanse myself of these.
When I was feeling very downhearted, I would recall two passages from the Hadith.
The first passage is a story which illustrates that one should remain forgiving even in
times of hardship. In the Battle of Badr, the Prophet had been injured by the
Quaraysh, who as you will recall were formerly his own tribe. Rather than react in
anger, the Prophet said while wiping blood from his face, “O Allah! Forgive my
people, because they are certainly ignorant” (narrated by Al Bukhari and Muslim).
The second passage from the Hadith illustrates that particularly in times of hardship,
when the human will to persevere is weak, one should surrender oneself to God:
I would like now to turn to the final topic I will be touching upon tonight. Given
Islam’s rich heritage of valuing peace and restricting force only to circumstances of
self-defence, how do we explain the violence that is committed in Islam’s name? What
practical steps can be taken to promote peace in the Muslim world?
Neither question, of course, admits of an easy answer. The roots of religious
extremism are multiple and complex. In a recent lecture at Victoria University on that
topic, I concluded that the lack of democracy in Muslim countries is the main cause of
religious extremism. In an authoritarian regime, dissent is created without a peaceful
means of expression, and conflict is fuelled by the imbuing of political action with the
certainties of faith. For present purposes, this illustrates that peace is indivisible from other essential social values, such as respect for human rights, democracy, and justice. As I discussed earlier, the Islamic conception of peace is more expansive than simply the absence of violence.
What, then, are the key steps that should be taken to promote peace in the Muslim
world? Two of the most important, in my view, are dialogue and education.
In most Muslim countries, including Algeria, there is no democracy so there is no real
dialogue. Without dialogue about the pressing social and political issues of the day, a
true peace cannot be sustained. Dialogue must also occur about the past. Each Muslim
country has a special story, a particular experience of colonialism, a particular path of
post-colonial development. While we must acknowledge this story, and acknowledge
the lingering effects of colonialism, we cannot make the story a prison. We cannot be
trapped in the past. We must understand our history to understand and change our
present, but we must then look to the future.
Another type of dialogue that must take place is dialogue about Islam itself. What
place should Islam have in political life? How can our conception of Islam be renewed
to be relevant to modern times without losing the essentials of the faith? How can
Islam be better integrated into international discourse about the promotion of peace,
rather than being looked upon as an accused on trial? These questions are vast, and
we must at least begin an open dialogue about resolving them.
Peace must be supported by dialogue, and dialogue must be supported by education.
As the scholar Riffat Hassan observes, educating for peace is a compelling ethical
imperative and must have a high priority in Muslim societies and for Muslims
generally.14 Educating for peace requires engagement on many levels, from raising
basic educational standards to fostering learning and research in fields such as
international relations, conflict resolution, and human rights.
There is a particularly pressing need for education about the true nature of Islam.
Islam is as misunderstood and misconceived in Muslim countries as much as it is in
Conclusion
The question I posed at the beginning of this lecture was this: what is the idea of peace
in Islam? To conclude, peace is at the core of Islam. The Qu’ran, the Hadith, and the
choices of the Prophet Mohammed in establishing and protecting the first Islamic
state, illustrate that Islam values peacemaking, and only authorises the use of force in
self-defence, and even then in a restricted and proportionate manner. In this context,
the pretextual use of Islam to justify terrorism can be exposed for what it is – a sham,
and a disgrace. To make a bridge between Islam in principle and actual practice in
Muslim countries, we must renew our commitment to informed and educated
dialogue, particularly about the renewal of the faith and how Islam can form part of
international discourse to promote peace.
Salaam aleikum, peace be upon you.
|