ISLAM AND THE MESSAGE OF PEACE
If there are indeed “moderate” Muslims out there somewhere, why do they not loudly denounce any and all Muslim associations with violence?
As a matter of fact, and a seldom reported record, Muslim leaders have been denouncing and attempting to counteract claims of Islamic legitimacy by countless agitators for violence and supporters of groups like al-Qaeda since immediately after 9/11. Just as the data from international European police reporting have received virtually no press coverage, neither have the outcries of major Muslim groups and individual religious scholars throughout the past ten years simply have not been considered newsworthy because, some would argue, they do not support the dominant narrative about Islam and Muslims. For every fatwa calling for the destruction of “Zionists and Crusaders” (as in Usama bin Ladin’s infamous 1998 declaration), there have been scores (perhaps even hundreds) of counter-fatwas.
Are there any examples of significant immediate Muslim denunciations of those events?
Perhaps more surprising for the vehemence of his denunciation was Shaykh Muham-mad Husayn Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Lebanon’s “islamist/jihadist” Shi’ite organization known as the Party of God (Hizb Allah). Saying that he was “horrified” by these “barbaric and un-Islamic” attacks, the shaykh condemned the misguided notion that any such act can be considered a form of laudable martyrdom. No suicide will be rewarded hereafter, because it is a crime; and no action that disregards the limitations placed on genuine jihad (as the 9/11 events did) is ever acceptable. Furthermore, he insisted that such acts in no way serve their intended purpose, and in fact work against the cause of Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general. “It is a horrible massacre on every level with no positive results for the basic causes of Islam.” Fervent believers in Islam, the shaykh insisted, must adhere to the tradition’s humane values; and though his own organization is opposed to the U.S. government and its policies, it does not blame the American people and cannot countenance the kind of action done on 9/11 for the purpose of retaliating against people who are not at fault for their administration’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, there remains the vexing matter of Hezbollah’s ongoing involvement in Middle Eastern violence.
Are there any distinctively Islamic approaches to the matter of international peace?
The vast majority of Muslims long for a world at peace. They sincerely believe that Islamic values seek to promote the possibility of such a world. Their tradition, they believe, stands not only for the absence of war, but for that positive state of safety, security, and freedom from anxiety that uniquely results from the condition of grateful surrender to God in faith (islam, iman). Those who get their entire picture of Muslims from media coverage of current events need to understand that they are getting a very limited perspective. Any Malaysian or Pakistani television viewer who relied on that medium to convey a sense of American values might very well develop a similarly truncated picture of Americans.
Have there been any modern and/or contemporary Muslim “pacifists”?
Quite a few, actually. Unfortunately news of violence-prone extremists invariably keeps such highly positive and idealistic organizations out of the news. Among earlier modern pacifist Muslim movements, Khuda Khidmatgar’s organization of one hundred thousand Muslim Pathans, led by Abdul Ghaffar Khan, espoused a non-violent program of civil resistance and social reform under the British Raj during the twentieth century. In addition, numerous individual Muslim pacifists have contributed notably to non-violent activism. An Azhar-trained Syrian scholar named Jawdat Said is a good example. As early as the 1950s he condemned violence-prone organizations and movements as shortsighted and ultimately self-destructive. His public commitment inspired his sons to refuse compulsory service in the Syrian army, and they paid for their courage by being denied the right to graduate from the University of Damascus. Other prominent individuals who have spoken out in favor of Islamic non-violence include Iranian Ayatollah Mohammad ash-Shirazi, Saudi doctor Khalis Jalabi, Iraqi writer Khalid Kishtainy, and Indian scholar Asghar Ali Engineer. Most have preferred the more active term “civic jihad” to the passive-sounding “non-violence.”
Did any prominent Muslims denounce the atrocities of 9/11/2001 immediately after those events occurred?
Yes, there were many such denunciations, though the American press made virtually no mention of them. Two statements issued within forty-eight hours of the tragic events stand out especially, precisely because they were by individuals whose public positions might make many Americans think they would be prime examples of the last Muslims one might expect to make such statements. The first was from Shaykh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi, the rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the premier academic institution of traditional Sunni Islamic teaching. Shaykh Tantawi, a conservative cleric by any measure, delivered a weekly sermon in Cairo to an audience of thousands, insisting that God would punish all who attack innocent people. Such attacks, he argued, display only cowardice and stupidity and will result in their perpetrators facing a harsh judgment in the next life.
What about larger-scale, so-called “peace movements” that are more recent?
Again there have been more than a few such contemporary movements. Three stand out and exemplify their presence in various parts of the world. One takes its inspiration from twentieth-century Kurdish/Turkish thinker Said Nursi. His monumental Quran commentary the Treatise (or Epistle) of Light (Risale-i Nur) is the key text for the movement’s nine million followers now spread across the globe. Another arises from the thought of contemporary Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and focuses on developing intercultural connections especially through engagement in education. Members of the organization tend to be highly educated professionals, including physicians, lawyers, and engineers, as well as academics spread across a broad range of disciplines. Another important movement is called the Asian Muslim Action Network (AMAN), whose presence impacts more than eighteen Asian nations through a host of social projects. None of these movements identifies itself explicitly with terms such as “peace-oriented,” “non-violent,” or “pacifist.” By calling themselves “Islamic” they intend to communicate an inherent concern and even active drive toward the peace that that name implies for the vast majority of Muslims. Among the more striking features of these developments are their truly international scope and diversity and the overwhelmingly positive impulse that has given rise to them.
Bawa Muhaiyaddeen was a Sufi shaykh from Sri Lanka who preached peace among Muslims and non-Muslims.
Are there any examples of contemporary Sufi views of war and violence?
A Sri Lankan Sufi named Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (d. 1986), who lived much of his adult life in the United States, is known for his efforts to teach peace to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. His writing establishes a thoroughly positive and irenic tone, facing head on that most intractable of problems, the fate of Jerusalem. After a lengthy and eyeopening chronology of the city’s changing fortunes over the centuries, the author appeals to world leaders to struggle against factionalism and enmity. Bawa bases his pacifist spirituality on the grounds of the rights of all to justice, on faith and the virtues of patience and trust in God, and on God as source of all peace. His treatment of Jihad in general likewise focuses entirely on the inward dimension, the “Greater Struggle” of self-conquest fought with the weapons of patience, gratitude, trust, and praise. In his writings, Bawa makes an idealistic distinction between the wars Muhammad fought