• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam and the Question of Violence*

Al-Serat *
*
Islam and the Question of Violence* *
*
Seyyed Hossein Nasr *
*
Vol. XIII, No. 2 *
*
Despite the presence of violence in many regions of the world ranging from Ireland to Lebanon to the Pacific Basin and involving many religions from Christianity to Hinduism, the Western world associates Islam more than any other religion with violence. The Muslim conquest of Spain, the Crusades - which were not begun by Muslims -, and the Ottoman domination of eastern Europe have provided a historical memory of Islam as being related to force and power. Moreover, the upheavals of the past few decades in the Middle East and especially movements using the name of Islam and seeking to solve problems of the Muslim world created by conditions and causes beyond the control of Muslims have only reinforced the idea prevalent in the West that in some special way Islam is related to violence. *
*
To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. In what follows. however, it is the Islamic religion in its principles and ideals with which we are especially concerned and not particular events or facts relating to the domain of historical contingency belonging to the unfolding of Islam in the plane of human history *
*
First of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by violence. There are several dictionary definitions that can be taken into account such as 'swift and intense force', 'rough or injurious physical force or action', 'unjust or unwarranted exertion of force especially against the rights of others', rough or immediate vehemence' and finally 'injury resulting from the distortion of meaning or fact'. If these definitions are accepted for violence, then the question can be asked as to how Islam is related to these definitions. As far as 'force' is concerned, Islam is not completely opposed to its use but rather seeks to control it in the light of the divine Law (al-shari'a). This world is one in which force is to be found everywhere, in nature as well as in human society, among men as well as within the human soul. The goal of Islam is to establish equilibrium amidst this field of tension of various forces. The Islamic concept of justice itself is related to equilibrium, the word for justice (al-'adl) in Arabic being related in its etymology to the word for equilibrium (ta'adul). All force used under the guidance of the divine Law with the aim of re-establishing an equilibrium that is destroyed is accepted and in fact necessary, for it means to carry out and establish justice. Moreover, not to use force in such a way is to fall prey to other forces which cannot but increase disequilibrium and disorder and result in greater injustice. Whether the use of force in this manner is swift and intense or gentle and mild depends upon the circumstances, but in all cases force can only be used with the aim of establishing equilibrium and harmony and not for personal or sectarian reasons identified with the interests of a person or a particular group and not the whole. *
*
By embracing the 'world' and not shunning the 'kingdom of Caesar', Islam took upon itself responsibility for the world in which force is present. But by virtue of the same fact it limited the use of force and despite all the wars, invasions, and attacks which it experienced. it was able to create an ambiance of peace and tranquillity which can still be felt whenever something of the traditional Islamic world survives. The peace that dominates the courtyard of a mosque or a garden whether it be in Marrakesh or Lahore is not accidental but the result of the control of force with the aim of establishing that harmony which results from equilibrium of forces, whether those forces be natural, social or psychological. *
*
As for the meaning of violence as 'rough or injurious physical force or action', Islamic Law opposes all uses of force in this sense except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the shari'a. Even in war, however, the inflicting of any injury to women and children is forbidden as is the use of force against civilians. Only fighters in the field of battle must be confronted with force and it is only against them that injurious physical force can be used. Inflicting injuries outside of this context or in the punishment of criminals according to the dictum of the shari'a and the view of a judge is completely forbidden by Islamic Law. *
*
As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as 'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'. If there is nevertheless violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the Divine Message. Man 15 man wherever he might be and no religion can neutralize completely the imperfections inherent in the nature of fallen man. What is remarkable, however, is not that some violence in this sense of the word does exist in Muslim societies, but that despite so many negative social and economic factors aggravated by the advent of colonialism, overpopulation, industrialization, modernization resulting in cultural dislocation, and so many other elements, there is less violence as unjust exertion of force against others in most Islamic countries than in the industrialized West. *
*
If one understands by violence 'rough or immoderate vehemence'. then Islam is totally opposed to it. The perspective of Islam is based upon moderation and its morality is grounded upon the principle of avoiding extremes and keeping to the golden mean. Nothing is more alien to the Islamic perspective than vehemence, not to say immoderate vehemence. Even if force is to be used, it must be on the basis of moderation. *
*
Finally, if by violence is meant 'distortion of meaning or fact resulting in injury to others', Islam is completely opposed to it. Islam is based on the Truth which saves and which finds its supreme expression in the testimony of the faith, la ilaha illa 'Llah (there is no divinity but the Divine). Any distortion of truth is against the basic teachings of the religion even if no one were to be affected by it. How much more would distortion resulting in injury be against the teachings of the Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet! *
*
In conclusion it must be emphasized that since Islam embraces the whole of life and does not distinguish between the sacred and the secular, it concerns itself with force and power which characterize this world as such. But Islam, in controlling the use of force in the direction of creating equilibrium and harmony, limits it and opposes violence as aggression to the rights of both God and His creatures as defined by the divine Law. The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that exertion (jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the shar'ia. Islam seeks to enable man to live according to his theomorphic nature and not to violate that nature. Islam condones the use of force only to the extent of opposing that centripetal tendency which turns man against what he is in his inner reality. The use of force can only be condoned in the sense of undoing the violation of our own nature and the chaos which has resulted from the loss of equilibrium. But such a use of force is not in reality violence as usually understood. It is the exertion of human will and effort in the direction of conforming to the Will of God and in surrendering the human will to the divine Will. From this surrender (taslim) comes peace (salam), hence islam, and only through this islam can the violence inbred within the nature of fallen man be controlled and the beast within subdued so that man lives at peace with himself and the world because he lives at peace with God. *
*
Source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Uh, OK. What about this are you wanting to debate? The last paragraph indicates that Islam is about peace, but Islamic Peace is obtained by jihad. I have often heard that Pax Islam (tip of the cap towards Pax Romana) is a time when the entire world is under Muslim Law (Sha'ria). I don't detect anything from this article to make me think otherwise.

Perhaps you could follow up on the article by letting us know what you are trying to prove, or what discussion you are attempting to spark.

B.
 

Islam

Member
says who islamic peace is obtained by jihad ? No its not. Read Mohammeds life story if you want, never did he invade anyone or go to war with anyone unless he has to. He always chose peace instead of war if he had a choice.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Islam said:
says who islamic peace is obtained by jihad ? No its not. Read Mohammeds life story if you want, never did he invade anyone or go to war with anyone unless he has to. He always chose peace instead of war if he had a choice.

That is exactly what the first post was about. Islam does indeed use force when necessary to achieve a specific goal of acquiring peace. Peace must sometimes be maintained through force. A good example is that of Adolf Hitler and his regime. There was a measure of peace for the jews and other minorities before Adolf got his hands in the mix. A man such as that would never respond to anything other than sheer force of arms to make him desist in his heinous acts. I bet the jews of that time would have rejoiced mightily at his death and the death of his sytem. Only a war can be waged in such cases where rationale and logic cannot be used. In the case of any tyrant, war must be used if necessary to end his tyranny. Islam is indeed about achieving a peaceful aim if you can. We should at all times try to resolve a matter in the most amicable terms for all parties involved. However, this is not always the case.

Islam is designed to handle the entire life of mankind. Violence, whether we agree or no, is a part of our lives. Allah only gave us a structure and a boundary in which to carry it out, if and when needed. Allah had to do this, otherwise we would transgress the limits and do much more harm than good. Instead of Allah telling us never ever to fight anyone under any circumstance no matter what, He simply gave us the just causes wherein we could fight. Allah also gave the method to be used and when we should cease fighting. The first option is to have patience and exercise good judgement. If a peace agreement can be and has been made, we should stick tightly to the terms that we agreed. If we (the muslims) break such a treaty then we deserve whatever outcome that brings.

P.S I am soooo sick of the Islam breeds violence and terror threads I don't know what to do. If that were the case then no one would be safe. There are muslims everywhere in the world pretty much. If we all believed or even the majority of us believed that we should just slit the throats of any non-muslim we encounter, then alot of people would be dead. I don't think anyone has ever thought of the muslims like me. I was not born muslim. Most of my family members are non-muslims. I was not born in a muslim country and was not raised with muslim values. Muslims such as myself, that entered into Islam on their own will, comprise a large percentage of the muslim population. In Chicago alone there are well over 350,000 muslims. I would say about 80% were born here to non-muslim parents. Why would we want to hurt them? Why would we want to harm innocent people who happen not to be muslims just off that fact alone, when that would automatically mean that we could not spare our own families? I have no problem with other people. People are afraid of me, but I have never committed any crimes, nor brought people to harm. Why would I and muslims like me be able to control other muslims-be they real or fake-in a whole other country?

This whole question started in people's minds because of 9/11. The government told us that muslim terrorists did those attacks, and people have been increasingly hating us ever since. I got a news flash though. Muslims had nothing to do with those attacks at all. I am absolutely certain that it was an inside job done by this government, in order to justify the actions that came after it. Without this justification, the American people and people around the world would have severely protested the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Think about Afghanistan. This is a country too poor to make use of its own natural resources, but they had enough money and were able to pull enough strings to launch an attack on a superpower such as America without detection? I bring this up only to make a point. The point is that before 9/11 people couldn't have cared less what muslims did and believed in. We could have been killing each other and it would have been all good, as long as we didn't bother other people with our problems. But now since we "bombed America" so ruthlessly we have to reform the Quran and hadith and shariah, basically the whole darn thing's gotta change. Muslims are the only people in the world ever to perpetrate violence. Or maybe it's the case that muslims are the only people in the world to perpetrate violence the likes of which have never been witnessed before in the recorded history of mankind.
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
Read this...
The Week said:
Such extremism is, sadly, “not a fringe phenomenon,” said Sam Harris in the Los Angeles Times. In the West, politically correct liberals comfort themselves with the notion that Islamic radicalism is a product of “economic despair” at the bottom of Arab societies. It’s just not so. “Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.” Other religions, including Catholicism, once justified violence against infidels and blasphemers, said William Rees-Mogg in the London Times. But Christianity had its Reformation, and today, “Islam is the only major religion in which violence remains a serious doctrinal issue.” Sadly, major portions of the Muslim world still believe that suicide bombers are “martyrs on a religious mission.”
 

vandervalley

Active Member
What if someone in a muslim country such as afghanistan or saudi arabia decide to convert to chritianity or buddhism? i wonder what will happen to that person?
 

Random

Well-Known Member
vandervalley said:
What if someone in a muslim country such as afghanistan or saudi arabia decide to convert to chritianity or buddhism? i wonder what will happen to that person?

Under the law, they would be imprisoned and/or killed unless they "repented" and re-affirmed faith in Islam. What's your point?
 

shema

Active Member
Islam said:
says who islamic peace is obtained by jihad ? No its not. Read Mohammeds life story if you want, never did he invade anyone or go to war with anyone unless he has to. He always chose peace instead of war if he had a choice.

Now see that's what I have a problem with. If God was on his side, then he wouldnt have to. and in what instances did he not have a choice?:sarcastic
 

shema

Active Member
fullyveiled muslimah said:
That is exactly what the first post was about. Islam does indeed use force when necessary to achieve a specific goal of acquiring peace. Peace must sometimes be maintained through force. A good example is that of Adolf Hitler and his regime.

A good example is Abraham. When his servants and Lot's servants began to have strife. Abraham told lot" in order to have peace, how about you choose a way to go, then I will go the other way, because the land is not able to hold us both." Then they parted ways in peace.
 

ayani

member
Islam said:
says who islamic peace is obtained by jihad ? No its not. Read Mohammeds life story if you want, never did he invade anyone or go to war with anyone unless he has to. He always chose peace instead of war if he had a choice.

there is always a choice to act with violence or to not act with violence. non-violence is always an option, even in the face of defeat and death.

look at the life of Christ... so far as we can tell, the man never raised a sword to anyone. from a human point of view, he was given many choices during the final week of his life, choices that could have lead to his being saved from death. he did not raise a sword or tell other to do so. when one of his disciples cut off the ear of a man who had come with Judas and the Romans to arrest Jesus, Jesus scolded him and healed the wounded man's ear. (Luke 22:50-51) in the name of peace and meekness he allowed himself to be tortured and killed.

christianity got to be a pretty big thing in spite of this.
 
Top