Lecture given at the plenary session of Exeter College Summer School on 11 July 2005
After a long list of terrible terrorist atrocities in Kenya, Tanzania, New York, Washington, Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Madrid, Egypt and many other places, the terrorists recently brought their carnage to the streets of London. On 7th July, Islamist terrorists carried out a series of four coordinated suicide attacks targeting commuters on London public transport, killing 52 UK residents and injuring more than 700 people.
One of my second cousins who came from a religious Muslim family and who had fled Iran and given asylum by Britain and worked as a medical researcher in one of London’s leading hospitals was killed as the result of the explosion in King’s Cross Station. Her body was so badly burned that she could only be identified by the ring she was wearing.
What is most gruesome about these terrorist attacks is that, firstly, they are carried out in the name of religion, and secondly that they are carried out by a number of fanatical people who were born and bred in this country, and in some cases were given refuge in this country. Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in the world which has given asylum to hundreds of thousands of people who had endured persecution in their countries on religious or political grounds, including even some hard-line Muslim figures who could not be tolerated in their own countries.
Immediately after the underground explosions on 7th July, there were many articles by the opponents of the Iraq War saying: “We told you so!” No matter what one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the Iraqi war, two wrongs do not make a right. The recent terrorist atrocities, like the terrible events on 9/11, must be condemned unreservedly. The moment you begin to say that we condemn these acts, but… you have lost the plot. Nothing can justify such indiscriminate attacks on innocent people.
More than two million British people took part in peaceful and dignified demonstrations against the Iraq war. The mobilisation around the G8 summit, the spectacular Live8 concerts around the world, the vast protest march in Edinburgh, the excitement generated by the Make Poverty History campaign, and the pressure to argue for another path and for different priorities were carried out by the British people. They had generated a great deal of optimism and hope throughout the world, most of which has now evaporated as the result of these dreadful events. They were the voices of decent people and democratic values that terror seeks to destroy. Surely, the British people who organised those events – indeed no people – deserve the indiscriminate atrocities committed by the terrorists.
Those who have the courage to condemn wars, also have the responsibility to condemn terrorism and any act of violence. It is clear that nothing good can come out of such violence. These and 9/11 atrocities have not helped anybody. They do not help the Muslims, the Arabs, the Middle East, or the Palestinians. They merely encourage further bitterness and greater violence. Violence breeds violence, hatred generates hatred. In the words of Buddha, “it is not by hatred that hatred shall cease. It is only by love that hatred shall cease.” Christ’s dictum, “love your enemy as yourself”, was not merely a naïve idealistic statement, but the most profound political as well as moral imperative. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.”
While totally condemning those atrocities, it would be wrong and counterproductive to blame any people or any religion for the demented acts of a tiny minority of a minority. Terrorism has no place in Islam, any more than it has in any other religion. There is this remarkable sentence in the Koran, that “He who kills another human being wrongly … it is as though he has killed mankind.”[1] The logic of this sentence is that the act of killing is a sacrilege against God and his creation.
Prophet Muhammad preaches: “You cannot go to Heaven unless you have faith, and your faith will not be complete unless you love one another.”[2] The terrorist acts in Oklahoma City, the IRA attacks in Omagh or in the Canary Wharf, the terrorist activities of the Basque Separatist Movement, or the terrorist acts of Hindu/Marxist Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombings against mainly Buddhist government in Sri Lanka were not attributed to any religion and were not seen as the clash of civilisations.
Exactly ten years ago this week, more than 8,000 Muslims were massacred in Srebrenica. That massacre was not described as a Christian crusade against Muslims. About 11 years ago more than 800,000 Tutsis were massacred by Hutus. The perpetrators of those crimes were not described as Christian terrorists. Similarly, one should not distort or dignify the recent atrocities as denoting anything apart from terrorism, pure and simple.
When a bomb goes off in Istanbul, Riyadh, Casablanca, Baghdad or Sharm al-Sheikh by the groups affiliated to Al-Qa’ida, it is not regarded as the battle between Islam and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Iraq or Egypt. It is seen as a violent political act by terrorists against their perceived enemies. Surely, the same is true of terrorist acts carried out against Western targets. That is the only way that we can properly understand those events and can isolate and eventually defeat the terrorists. The terrorists should be isolated and shown for what they are. The battle against al-Qa’ida is not only being fought in London, New York or Paris, but also in Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and elsewhere.
As those who have carried out the recent atrocities call themselves Muslims, it is instructive to examine the views of some leading Muslim scholars about violence. After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the outgoing Iranian President Mohammad Khatami expressed his total condemnation of those atrocities. He said: “The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States were perpetrated by a cult of fanatics who had self-mutilated their ears and tongues — and could only communicate with their perceived opponents through carnage and devastation.”[3]
A leading Iranian cleric and reformer, Mohsen Kadivar (b. 1959), spent 18 months in prison for questioning, on sheer religious grounds, the legitimacy of religious rule in Iran. In his book, Shi’i Theories of Government, he enumerated various theories of government as set out by leading religious scholars, none of whom advocate a role by the clergy in the government. He was defrocked and jailed for his opposition to Ayatollah Khomeini’s concept of Velayat-d Faqih or the “Guardianship of Leading Clerics”.
As soon as Kadivar was released from jail, he wrote a brilliant article about the concept of force and coercion in Islam, and showed that the only time there is any mention of force and coercion in the Qur’an, it refers to the action of tyrants and oppressors against righteous people.[4]
Referring to the role of religion in society and the concept of force and religious coercion, Kadivar enumerates different forms of the use of force and where it can be regarded as legitimate.[5] He divides the exercise of force into two types, legitimate use of force to punish offences, or repel foreign aggression in self-defence. He writes:
1. The first type of legitimate force is the use of violence as a form of punishment for crimes and offences as laid down in the law.
2. The second type of legitimate violence that has been approved by all thinking people in all societies, is a form of violence that is used against tyranny and injustice, whether in personal or collective forms. In the same way, from a social point of view, if a society is subjected to violence, that society is entitled to rise against that tyranny and violence, and this resistance may not always be peaceful.
Apart from the above cases, he believes that religion condemns any form of force and coercion. He provides seven compelling reasons why the use of force should be rejected. Here, I summarise the reasons and translate some of Kadivar’s key arguments about why, according to him, Islam condemns any form of violence, apart from the two cases stated above. He writes:
1. Although God is sometimes represented in religious texts as angry and wrathful, his wrath is directed towards the sinners that only He can judge. Regarding those who use force in the name of religion against allegedly infidel or non-Islamic individuals or societies, he writes: “Here we are not talking about the concept of divine punishment. Here we are talking about certain individuals. All members of the society are not guilty. They may only hold different views from those who resort to violence, unless we believe that all those who think differently are committing an offence.” In other words, it is not for man to judge the beliefs and behavior of others. It is only God who has the right to judge people’s beliefs.
2. Those who resort to violence on religious grounds or against other people’s religious beliefs and practices presume to do God’s work for him, rather than allowing the sinners to be judged by God. He writes: “In their view, this world is not only a preparatory stage for the afterlife. In their view, this world is the stage for punishment, and all those who have committed a religious offence must be punished here and now.” This is the highest form of arrogance and religious sin to presume that one is doing God’s work for him.
3. Those who resort to violence misunderstand human nature: “The third point is that those who resort to violence have also a different understanding of human beings. They are excessively pessimistic about man and about human nature. According to them, human development and human salvation through an internal transformation has no place. In their view, it is only through intimidation, fear and terror – through coercion – that man can develop and can be transformed. If we believe that the factors that lead to man’s growth and development are spiritual factors, we must be certain that in most cases violent means will not result in an inner transformation…”
4. Use of violence is a sign of dogmatism: “The fourth point is that those who resort to violence have a special understanding of truth. They believe in an excessive form of dogmatism and absolutism. Dogmatism is the special characteristic of the ideology of those who believe in violence. Dogmatic people believe that they have a monopoly of truth, and others do not have any share of truth…”
5. Violent people use wrong methods for achieving allegedly good ends: “The fifth point is that those who resort to violence believe that every method is legitimate for arriving at their desired goal. In other words, they believe that ends justify the means…” This is another form of arrogance and blindness to imagine that one wrong can be put right by resorting to a greater wrong, namely violence.
6. Violent people underestimate people’s ability to learn and to change: “The sixth point is that in the eyes of those who resort to violence rationality, understanding and learning do not play an important part. In other words, spiritual awareness does not play the primary role in man’s salvation…” This is contrary to repeated Koranic statements about people’s ability to change, to repent and to be reformed.
7. Violent people have no respect for the views of the majority and wish to impose their own views on them: “The seventh point concerns the attitude of the violent elements concerning politics. First, they attach no importance to laws. They live among groups who submit to the laws only when they are forced to do so, not as a social necessity… Secondly, they attach no value to people’s votes and views. According to some religious interpretations, consensus of opinion by the majority of the people is definitive in many issues. However, according to the interpretations of the violent elements, under no circumstances, and not even in social issues, should one rely upon public views and public wishes…” In other words, those who resort to violence are self-centred, anti-social and outlaw individuals who violate the law in the false pretense of wanting to implement God’s law.
Although Mohsen Kadivar wrote those words to deal with the issue of force and coercion in a larger context, they are very relevant to the present time when a small number of misguided individuals feel that by resorting to violence they are serving any useful purpose. Kadivar shows that there is no religious justification for violence and those who resort to violence are only making use of religion as a pretext for their own political agendas and misconceived ideas. Their action is a violation of religious teachings and the rejection of a merciful God who is the only judge of His servants.
These points are not only relevant to Muslim fundamentalists, but are also of value to fundamentalist and radical followers of all religions who put themselves above others and who arrogantly wish to do God’s work for him. It is time that we all engaged in a sane debate about the place of force – and that includes war and invasions – in a just society. In order to move towards greater mutual understanding and refrain from individual or national violence that will only result in anger, the desire to retaliate and engage in violence, we must readdress the whole issue of “a just war” and examine if in today’s world we must move beyond wars and resolve our differences through peaceful means.
Footnotes:
[1] The Koran, 5: 32
[2] A hadith or saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad, reported by Abu Huraira and quoted in a famous collection of Hadiths, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 54.
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا تَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَا تُؤْمِنُوا حَتَّى تَحَابُّوا أَوَلَا أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى شَيْءٍ إِذَا فَعَلْتُمُوهُ تَحَابَبْتُمْ أَفْشُوا السَّلَامَ بَيْنَكُمْ
[3] New York Times, 10 November 2001
[4] Mohsen Kadivar, “Zendan dar Qur’an” (Prison In the Koran), Kiyan, No 53, Aug-Sept 2000, pp 2-10. .
[5] See: Kiyan, No 45, February-March 1999, PP 6-19.
F Jahanpour 