Inter
Press Service English News Wire; 10/16/1995; Kunda Dixit
10-16-1995
PENANG, Malaysia, Oct. 16 (IPS) -- Worried by what they see as a Western-led
campaign to demonize their religion, some Muslim intellectuals want to project
the non-violent face of Islam. Citing the lessons of recent history, such as the
Iranian Revolution and the Palestinian Intifada, they assert that much more than
war, non-violent struggles have succeeded in promoting the interests of Muslim
peoples worldwide.
"Non-violence is at the core of Islamic teachings, a jihad is justified only in
the extreme cases. Violence absolutely has no legitimacy," says AbdulHamid-Ahmad
AbuSulayman, the Saudi Arabian rector of the International Islamic University in
Malaysia. But other Islamic scholars argue that non-violence in situations like
Bosnia-Hercegovina would be a joke. They say the Qu'ran justifies the use of
retaliation and self-defence, and a completely pacifist Islam would give the
advantage to the oppressor.
They say Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent struggle for Indian independence worked
because colonial Britain had some democratic values. It would not have worked if
the enemy had overwhelming power, and did not hesitate to use it ruthlessly.
Nevertheless, there is a small but growing body of thought in the international
Islamic academia that violence in the long run is counter-productive. It
violates religious teaching, begets more bloodshed and gives the enemy the
excuse to use more force. "The oppressor would like the oppressed to use
violence, because then it can justify its own use of violence," says Chaiwat
Satha-Anand, a Thai Islamic scholar who believes Gandhi's ideology of
non-violence was strongly influenced by his readings of the Qu'ran.
Many devout Muslims think the Islamic concept of jihad has been misused by
radical Islamic groups, but also deliberately distorted by the West so that the
term has come to mean senseless and desperate acts of violence and terrorism.
The Chambers Concise Dictionary describes jihad as "a holy war" (for the Muslim
faith); or "a fervent crusade." "In its most general meaning, jihad is an
effort, a striving for justice and truth that need not be violent," notes
Chaiwat. "Muslims are taught to practice the greater jihad -- the process of
struggle against worldly passion in oneself."
Some 50 Islamic scholars, historians, Mid-East experts, activists and
journalists met in Penang this month to analyze the true Islamic view on the use
of force, violence and terrorism and the negative perceptions of Islam in the
West.
"We wanted to find out whether it was always necessary to resort to force in the
quest for justice, since centers of power in the West are bound to tarnish the
image of those who are seeking justice by projecting them as terrorists," says
Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian activist whose group, JUST World Trust, sponsored
the Penang meeting.
"We want to see if it isn't possible to develop from within Islamic philosophy
itself a concept of struggle, of a jihad for justice, which is totally
non-violent and peaceful." Most participants agreed that the concept of
non-violence is strongly founded in Islamic teachings and cited the verse from
the Qu'ran on the sanctity of human life: 'And if anyone saved a life/It would
be as if he saved/The life of the whole people.' "The role of violence has been
greatly exaggerated, and the potentials of non-violence have been
underestimated," says Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton
University in the United States.
Falk says the issue of violence and terrorism lies at the heart of the tension
between Islam and West today and has fed self-motivated prophecies of a
"civilizational conflict." Detaching violence from Islam would deprive the West
of its most powerful argument for demonizing Islam. Falk cites the Iranian
Revolution as one of the most potent uses of non-violence against injustice, but
laments what came later. Television images of Palestinian youths using stones
against Israeli armored cars became a powerful symbol of non-violent struggle --
many times more effective than decades of hijackings, bombings and sabotage by
Palestinian guerrillas.
Muzaffar says instances when Palestinians, Algerians or Kashmiris have blown up
buses, killed journalists or beheaded tourists have diminished the moral
legitimacy of their just cause. Since international public perception is shaped
by a largely Western-owned media, these events receive far more coverage than
the violence the world over in which Muslims are victims.
"The distorted image of Islam as a violent, extremist and uncompromising
religion has been carefully nurtured to make the Western public take an
aggressive stance so voters will support drastic military or economic action
against selected Muslim states," says Hans Koechler, professor of political
philosophy at University of Innsbruk in Austria. He says this serves a strategic
geopolitical purpose for the West, which regards Mideast oil as crucial to its
prosperity and power. In the process the "Arab threat" of the 1970's has been
changed to the "Islamic threat" in the 1990's. "Western strategic and economic
interests have a lot to do with the portrayal of certain Muslim states and
groups as terrorist," says Muzaffar. "Those who submit to U.S. interests and are
subservient to Western dominance will not be branded terrorist even if they
terrorize their own populace. It helps to hide the terrorism of the powerful
West." For Muzaffar, the most effective way to fight Western distortions of
Islam is what he calls "radical non-violence" -- a combination of political and
economic pressure, Islamic solidarity and information countermeasures.
Says Falk: "History is littered with struggles that have been destroyed from
within because of their reliance on violence. Recourse to violence contaminates
the struggle. Let us learn from history: non-violent opposition to oppression
provide the most promising possibilities for real change in the world."
Copyright 1995 IPS/GIN.