Editors: This is a
self syndicated column. If you wish to publish this column in your newspaper,
magazine, journal or on your websites please click here: Syndicate
Dr. Muqtedar
Khan is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Adrian College in Michigan. He
is on the board of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Center for Balanced
Development and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists.
He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic
Political Thought, from Georgetown University in May 2000.
Dr. Khan's column has appeared in The Daily Telegram, San Francisco Chronicle, Detroit
Free Press, Detroit News, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Muslim Democrat,
Iviews.com, ptimes.com, Theglobalist.com, Freerepublic.com, MiddleEast
Online, Beliefnet.com, Arabies Trends, Al-Mustaqbal, and many other periodicals world
wide.
For a comprehensive resume
click here: Resume
|
Peace,
Justice and Change
in Islam
Dr. Muqtedar Khan
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 will it 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. I wonder how many would challenge my contention that
justice, equality and freedom are values more valuable than peace? I am not willing to
give up my freedom or allow myself to be treated as an inferior or be treated unjustly
without a fight. Can we demand people to 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 inspite 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 it is clear:
persecution is worse than killing (Al-Quran; 2:217). Else where
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. Meaning 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 is enough meat in the Quran to limit violent response to
egregious cases of religious persecution and repression.
|
