|In the previous chapter we have
already discussed the circumstances in which the Quran permits
war. In this context there is nothing new to add save one aspect.
Objections Against War
One school of thought believes that whatever the circumstances
war in spite of everything is a demonstration of barbarity and
madness. It cannot be justified. It cannot be permitted. It is
jungle law. It reminds one of a period when conflicts were settled
by brutal force and not by reason and evidence. Therefore in this
age of intellect and knowledge and also of culture and
civilization it cannot be allowed even symbolically. It is against
human dignity to force a man to accept your point of view. When
man has been given intellect and culture then why should not his
conflicts and disputes be settled by negotiations and
rapprochement? War is a brute act. Love, peace, harmony, accord,
mercy are all jewels of humanity. Fire and blood destroy them. On
paper this teaching appears to be very appealing, balanced and
humane. And those who oppose this teaching are without a thought
considered cruel and hard –hearted. But the point is whether this
teaching appears good only in the world of words or it can be
practically implemented in the world?
Christianity's Point of View
In the Old Testament orders for war are unambiguously listed.
Major portion of this Scripture is devoted to wars fought by the
Children of Israel. For instance see chapter 13 in the book of
Numbers. Therefore the Jews cannot object to war. Christianity
pretends to be the biggest champion of anti-war campaign. The New
Testament says 'resist not evil' and 'whosoever shall smite thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matthew 5/38-41.
Therefore as our first case we would be discussing Christianity.
In our book 'Shola-e-Mastoor' we have discussed the life
and teachings of Jesus Christ in detail. In our book we have said
that Jesus did not preach cowardice. This element was introduced
into Christianity by St. Paul at the time when Christians were in
helpless conditions and as the survivors of a revolutionary
community they were being charged of rebellion. So this teaching
was evolved to save them from the oppressive and tyrannical
government of the day. And in this way such a philosophy of life
became part of their religion that has elements of poison for
man's freedom and self-respect.
Confession of the Christians
How much this philosophy has hurt humanity? Non-Muslim
philosophers and historians who have objectively studied history
have answered this question. The German philosopher Nietzsche was
of the opinion that Christianity has always supported weak,
downtrodden and rotten elements. Its faith is to eradicate all
self-respecting intellectual prowess of man. Highly
intellectualized brains have been destroyed by it.
But at another place he writes that Christianity gave birth to
humility and lowliness. And these qualities remained appropriate
and suitable for quite a considerable period. But this philosophy
of humility could not keep pace with rapid development of culture
till the end. For progress and civilization it is essential that a
community should have mind-set for self-respect and freedom.
Humility and lowliness are enemy of progress.
G. A. Dorsey, the historian of civilization, has asserted that
today millions of people feel that Christianity is the religion of
the defeated. They accept the religion but admit solemnly its
defeatist spirit. Nothing is satisfactory in life, they argue.
"Desire for satisfaction is wrong and satisfaction of wrong
desires is sin" is a slogan, which makes a true and healthy life
impossible. It destroys humanity.1
"Love your enemies," is an order, which is impossible to
implement. In this context W. A. Brend in his book 'Foundation of
Human Conflicts' writes that the order of the New Testament to
love your enemies is a psychological impossibility. Samuel Lowy
has echoed similar thoughts in his book 'Man and Fellow Man'. And
the writer of 'Civilization, War and Death', Sigmund Freud says
that the order to love thy enemies is an impossibility. Such lofty
ideals of love cannot eradicate evil. Culture does not care for
such orders. It is easy to utter this sacred order but it is very
difficult to follow it.2
'Resist not evil' is such an order that if it is followed then
all the forces of evil in the world would be free to operate and
oppression, injustice, tyranny and hardship would overpower every
aspect of social and civilized life. For this reason R Briffault
levels a grave charge against Christianity that with this wrong
teaching it has always supported cruelty and oppression and in
this way did away with justice and fairness. In this context he
quotes the Spanish scholar, Dr. Falta de Gracia, in his book 'The
Making of Humanity', "The notion of justice is as entirely foreign
to the spirit of Christianity as is that of intellectual honesty.
It lies wholly outside the field of its ethical vision." Dr.
Gracia further says that Christianity has been sympathetic to the
oppressed people but has always forgiven cruelty and oppression.
It has invited those oppressed people to the path of love who have
been engrossed with difficulties and problems from all sides. It
teaches them a lesson of forgiveness and pardon. It has reminded
them that God is the Sustainer. But in this storm of religion and
morality there is no scope for justice and probity. Christianity
has painted a picture in which the angel-like sacred Christ
descends from the sky amongst the victims of oppression and
tyranny, and gives them the blessed message of Paraclete. But it
is beyond his message to find out the grounds of oppression and
tyranny. He does not correctly contemplate the concept of good and
evil. For him this cruelty and oppression is the trial of sinners.
It is also a distinctive quality of his system. This decision is
of the government that has been formed on the basis of Divine
right. He observes the prison of St. Vincent Francis, which is a
living hell in the world. There he gives message of love and asks
the sinners to repent. But he does not find out the reasons owing
to which this hell has been formed. The victims of oppression and
cruelty may cry in pain, the lives of people may remain in
slavery, people may bleed to death, but the spirit of Christianity
will only console them. But Christianity will not think of the
ways of eradicating oppression and tyranny because it does not
think it to be its responsibility. The spirit of Christianity has
remained unconcerned towards justice and fairness. For it the idea
of justice is as strange to it as that of truth. It has always
taught the lesson of forgiveness, tolerance and mercy. But it
never remembered justice and fairness. Christianity has been
influenced by unnatural moral laws of 'resist not evil', 'love
your enemies', 'suppress your desires', 'whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also', etc. but no
scene of oppression and tyranny shook it.3
Evil and oppression can be resisted only by power. And the use
of force is prohibited in Christianity. Forces of tyranny and
oppression can be arrested only by power. But in Christianity
power is the right of 'Caesar' and not 'God'. Therefore the forces
of evil and oppression are free to do what they like. It is sin
for a victim to even think of revenge because the 'Kingdom is of
Heaven' and not of 'Earth'. A victim has to love his oppressor
because this is 'an order of his God'. Now, if the attitude of the
believers in God would be such then evil will reign supreme in the
world. We have already stated that it is impossible to follow the
commands of 'love your enemies' and 'resist not evil'. As such
today the thinkers and philosophers of Christianity are saying
that sometimes circumstances may arise when war becomes
inevitable. Dean Inge's comment on this way of combating evil
deserves careful consideration, says he, "The principle of
non-resistance was laid down for a little flock in a hostile
environment. But an organized society cannot abstain from the use
of coercion. No one would suggest that Christian Government must
not suppress a gang of criminals within its own borders, and if
this is admitted, can we doubt that it should defend itself
against an invading enemy? …….. Augustine held that war is
justified in repelling wanton and rapacious attacks and that in
preventing such crimes we are acting in the true interest of the
aggressor. Without justice what is empire but brigandage on a
large scale. ……. Allowing that circumstances may arise which make
a defensive war inevitable we have to find a principle which will
guide us in concrete cases."4
The Bishop of Canterbury holds a very prominent place in the
Church of England. According to the news agency Reuters he said
that circumstances might arise in which participation in a war
would not be against Christianity.5 Circumstances did
arise in the form of the Second World War. Sir Richard Gregory has
drawn a very vivid picture of this. He says that the Church of
Christ blessed the Forces and their arms and it is another matter
that every Christian State that took part in the war asked for
help from the same God.6
These quotations totally reject the claim of the Christian
missionaries that they oppose war because it is against culture
and humanity and the message of Christianity is a protest against
war. Why do Christian missionaries propagate this teaching? The
answer to this question would be given a little later.
Hindu Religion and War
Hinduism is a religion of war and violence. Like the Old
Testament the Vedas are also full of stories pertaining to wars.
They narrate the exploits of Aryan and how they conquered the
non-Aryans. Besides, the Vedas also tell about the wars fought by
their Devtas (gods). Rig Veda says that god Indra who
killed Wartara and destroyed villages and towns will also destroy
the black Dravidians.7 The same Veda at another place
says that he killed and destroyed fifty thousand black Dravidians
in the battle.8 For details of these wars one can go
through 'The Ancient Civilization of India' by R. C. Dutt.
After the Vedas the name of Ram and Krishna are mentioned in
the Hindu history as incarnations of God. Ramayana and Mahabharta
are considered as sacred religious books. Ramayana narrates the
tale of the war that Ram fought against Ravana, the king of Lanka.
Mahabharata tells about the war fought between the cousins called
Kauravs and Pandavs. This epic also contains Geeta. In this war
Krishna was the charioteer of Arjun. But once they are on the
battlefield Arjun develops cold feet. He does not want to fight
against his own relatives. But Krishna tells him about the
desirability of war. So the sermon of Krishna in favor of war to
Arjun in the battlefield is called Geeta. These are the exploits
of Ram and Krishna on the basis of which they are considered to be
incarnations of God.
Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi
With this backdrop it is improbable for a Hindu to oppose the
concept of war. But the Hindu religion accepts all kinds of
contradictory thoughts. Therefore, it is being said that Hinduism
preaches ahimsa (non-violence) and consequently it is 'parmo
dharam', the best religion. The political leader of the Hindu
community, Mahatma Gandhi, is propagating this theory of ahimsa.9
What political gains he wants to achieve by this? The answer to
this question is irrelevant to this book. However, the relevant
question is: does the theory of ahimsa have the potential to be
applicable in all circumstances and in every section of human
By ahimsa it is meant that one should not harbor the feeling of
revenge. One should not use violence to resist evil. One should
not restore to violence whatever the circumstances be. According
to Mahatma Gandhi ahimsa is Truth. And for this reason he is
speaking in favor of ahimsa for the last twenty to twenty-five
years. But circumstances did arise in which the Mahatma himself
advised against ahimsa.
And his Confession
The issue of 'Harijan' dated 9 August 1946 reported that a
white man insulted an African Priest. Though the Priest was much
stronger and healthier than the white man still he said: "Please
forgive me." On this incident the Mahatma writes that this is not
ahimsa. This is insulting the teachings of the Christ. The demand
of courage was that the Priest should have retorted back in the
Similarly in context of the riots in Calcutta his editorial
said that these people can take revenge and they can also keep
aloof from it. Restraining oneself from taking revenge is easy but
for it there should be will to do so. Taking revenge is complex.
(But it is to be seen whether) revenge confines to one tooth for a
tooth or more.10
In context of animal sacrifice the Mahatma believes that
snakes, scorpions, wolves and similar beasts and reptiles that are
harmful to man should be killed. Someone objected to his belief.
In his reply he says that it is impossible for a man to avoid
violence completely. Now the question is where to draw the
demarcation line? For every man it would be different. After this
he writes that on the basis of ahimsa animals cannot be allowed to
destroy the crop and that too when there is draught in the
country. This is sin. Good and evil are relative things. A thing
good in one particular condition might become evil in the other.11
This shows that for the Mahatma ahimsa is relative truth and
not absolute truth. And circumstances might arise when following
ahimsa becomes sin. Sometimes 'hinsa' (violence) becomes
virtue. This is what Islam teaches. According to Islam in some
situations forgiveness and pardon are virtues and in some the 'rod
of Moses' is justice and truth. In this context the Mahatma writes
at another place that monkeys create nuisance and inflict loss.
People get utterly sick of them and desire that they should die.
When someone kills them these people feel joy in their heart but
overtly they oppose the killing of monkeys. One friend, who is
well versed in Scriptures, asks as to what ahimsa says about the
monkeys that destroy the crop and whose population is on the
In answer to the above question the Mahatma writes, "My ahimsa
is mine own. I am not against killing animals. I have no feelings
to save those animals that tear man to pieces or inflict on him
loss. On the contrary I believe that it is wrong to help them
increase their population. Therefore I am against feeding ants,
insects, dogs and monkeys. I cannot sacrifice the human life to
save animals. Besides, I have come to the conclusion that where
monkeys are a problem in human welfare their killing is not only
pardonable but also obligatory. The question is why this rule
should not be made applicable on human beings? This is not
possible because how much bad a man may be after all he is like
us. God has given intellect to man and the same has not been given
The last portion of the above quotation deserves attention. If
any person or a group imitates wolves and monkeys and destroys
crop, creates disorder and chaos in the land so that there is
danger to life, to property, to freedom, to women's honor, and any
peaceful reasoning on humanitarian grounds against these acts is
answered by violence, then what should be done in such a
situation? Should they be left alone to increase their nefarious
activities? Should they be not stopped forcibly because their
faces resemble other human beings? If the answer to these
questions is in the positive then no system can remain in peace
and security. There is no doubt that knowledge and intellect are
precious jewels by which only human beings have been blessed. But
don't we observe daily that a person overcome by emotions, despite
the gift of knowledge and intellect, commits worst crimes than
animal would commit? The fact is that a person carried away by
emotions and passions is no different from an inebriated one. You
cannot convince both of them with logic and reason. One can say
that dacoits and robbers are low in intellect. But what has
happened to intellect and wisdom of cultured and civilized
communities of today? Almost on the daily basis they are at
loggerheads with each other. The memories of the Second World War
are still fresh. For six long years these cultured and civilized
peoples had turned this world into hell of fire and blood and no
logic or reason could stop them from this gruesome act. There is
no doubt that with proper upbringing animal instinct in man can be
reduced. (And this is the objective of believing and following the
Divine laws). But until such men are present in whom animal
instinct is dominant then to protect humanity from these man-like
beasts apart from reason the 'rod of Moses' is also required.
About these man-like beasts the Quran says that they look like men
but in reality they are worse than beasts. In this context the
philosophers of Europe have also pondered much. They have also
come to the conclusion that intellectual reasoning cannot stop
war. Dean Inge says that by and large contemporary man is not
militant but it is easy to infuse anger in him. If this
observation is correct then to stop war with logic and reasoning
is quite remote.13
Similarly the author of 'Treaties on Right or Wrong', H L
Menckam says that in-between grim conspiracy of putting one nation
against another appear those ideological interests that dream of
putting an end to war. If by any miracle their desire is fulfilled
then this idol of nationalism will meet its doom and along with it
many wrong and immoral things will also go. The source of power of
nationalism is fear and no person will fear that enemy who is
armed with the weapon of justice. But the chances of war coming to
an end before the end of this contemporary period are very remote.
And centuries might go by before this dream is realized. Man is
still closer to barbaric jungle-folk. Besides, man is not ready to
forgo the pleasure that he gets when in a fit of anger he goes in
pursuit of his enemy or fights with him. The proposals of peace
put forward by different governments are in fact requisitions of
Menckam says that these observations are based on the first
hand knowledge that he got by attending three international
conferences that were organized to end war. He further says that
after hypocritical peace of few days the leaders who participated
in the conferences resorted to grabbing and scrambling. And when
they returned to their respective countries their success was not
measured by what they did for restoring peace in the world but by
what material they brought for future war? Menckam says that the
League of Nations disintegrated when its aims started unveiling.
And only after a short period of its inception this thing came out
into the open. Despite all the fictional claims that were made by
its founders the fact was that their aim was just to ensure that
the war booty of the World War remained with the victorious. And
the moment this business started the victorious nations were in
conflict with each other over the division of the war booty.14
It is to be recollected that in 1932 Professor Einstein under
the auspices of the League of Nations' 'National Institute of
Intellectual Cooperation' invited various thinkers of the West to
answer the question: is there a way to save humanity from war?
While responding to this question Freud writes that though
this will appear contradictory but the fact is that the way of
achieving the desired goal of everlasting peace would be
constructed by war only. With war big nations would be developed
and within their boundaries their central authority would make war
impossible. Freud says that there is only one sure way of ending
war and that is to create with mutual understanding such a central
authority whose decisions would be final and binding on nations
that happen to be in conflict of interest with each other. But for
this two things are required; one, creation of a supreme court and
two, power to implement its decision. If the second thing is
missing the first will automatically become useless. However, the
question is not to curb dominant forces of man but how to use them
in fields other than war?15
In the end Freud writes that intellectuals hate war because the
demand of their physical nature is such.
These are the views of those persons who are considered
luminaries of knowledge and intellect in the world and who want to
solve every problem with logic and reasoning. The fact is that if
it had been possible to control the oppressive forces by reasoning
with them then Ram would not have gone to Lanka to kill Ravana and
Krishna would not have supported war in the field of Krushetra. If
verbal reasoning had the potential of solving the problem of war
then Krishna would have argued with Kauravas to stop the war
instead of inciting Arjun towards war. Therefore, until oppressive
forces are there in the world power would be required to suppress
their tyranny and to protect civilized humanity. For this reason
the flag-bearer of ahimsa, Mahatma Gandhi had to say women of
India should be taught the art of using weapon. This is preferable
to leaving them in a condition where they feel helpless. Women
should be encouraged to keep revolver and knives with their
The West is always absorbed and entangled in harassing and
weakening the spirit and forces of Islam. Why? This we have
already answered. And to achieve this objective the missionaries
of the Church play the role of a vanguard for the Christian army.
Mata-e-ghair pe hoti hai jab nazar uske
Tu hain harawal lashker-e-kalisa ke safeer.
When he keeps an eye on the resources of others
Sends he the Church envoys before the army.
These missionaries of the Church come in the guise of
considerate friends. Before leaving the shores of Europe they urge
their armed wing to prepare weapons of warfare17. But
in the East the 'message of Jesus' is preached to the Muslims that
God's Kingdom is for the weak and the poor. 'Whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' because the
Kingdom of God has become your destiny. Moreover the kingdom of
this earth is useless. And to desire for that which is useless is
ignominy. History has proved that for centuries the Christian
missionaries have been adopting this method. They come to Muslim
countries and preach them stories of God's Kingdom and
consequently the kingdom on earth of the Muslims gets transferred
to other hands. And Muslims, yes the same Muslims about whom their
anfusahum wa amwaa-lahum-bi-anna
lahumul-jannah yuqaa-tiluuna fii Sabii-
lillaahi fayaq-tuluuna wa yuqta-luun:wa-
dan alay-hi Haqqan-fit-Tawraati wal-lnjiili
wal-qur-aan:wa man awfaa bi-Ahdihii
minallaahi fastab-shiruu bi-bay-I-kumulla-zii
baaya –tum-bih:wa zaalika huwal-fawzul-aziim.
The believers without doubt have entered into a transaction
with Allah, through the instrumentality of the Divine order, Who
purchases their very persons and their worldly possessions in
return for the abiding blissful life of jannat. They shall
fight in the cause of Allah and slay and be slain and on the part
of Allah the promise of jannat is binding. Similar promises
were also made in the Tor'ah and the Injeel and are reiterated
here in the Quran. Who is better than Allah in fulfilling
promises? O believers! Rejoice then on the bargain effected which
is a great achievement. (9/111)
And owing to the influence of the Christian missionaries this
Muslim, thought that prayer mat and rosary are the wealth of life.
He misinterpreted the meaning of contentment and trust in Allah,
converted Diin into religion, ate the opium of religion and
now he is totally oblivious to the demands of Diin.
Ya woosat-e-aflak mein takbeer-e-musalsal
Ya khak ke aghosh mein tasbeeh wa munajaat
Wuh mazhab-e-mardane khud agha wo Khuda mast
Ye mazhab-e-mulla wo jamadat wo nabatat.
Either till skies, Order Divine they propagated
Or confined to cells dark with rosary and hymn they were.
Faith of God-intoxicated, self-realized man that was
This is the religion dead and inorganic of the priest.
Sheep and Tiger
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal in his narrative poem 'Asrar-e-Khudi'
has included a thought provoking allegory about the religious
leaders of the West. Iqbal says that there lived a tiger in a
jungle. The tiger harassed the sheep of that jungle. So the sheep
assembled together so as to find a way out. A sheep well versed in
the art of politics said, "Listen, all sheep cannot combine to
form one tiger. Therefore we should drop the idea of becoming a
tiger. Instead we should try to convert the tiger into a sheep."
Consequently that sheep donned the attire of a mystic and
tactfully preached to the tiger the ideology of self-denial:
I am possessed of spiritual power.
I am an apostle sent by God for tigers.
I have come as a light for the eye that is dark,
I have come to establish laws and give commandments.
Repent of your blameworthy deeds!
O plotters of evil, bethink yourselves of good!
Whoso is violent and strong is miserable:
Life's solidity depends on self-denial.
The spirit of the righteous is fed by fodder:
The vegetarian is pleasing unto God.
The sharpness of your teeth brings disgrace unto you:
And makes the eye of your perception blind.
Paradise is for the weak alone,
Strength is but a means of perdition.
It is wicked to seek greatness and glory,
Penury is sweeter than princedom.
The sheep was successful in his mission. The tiger became his
disciple and started feeding on grass and vegetables instead of
meat. After some time he began to lose his strength, swiftness and
activeness. He became weak, humble, spineless and coward. He lost
the sharpness of his teeth and spark of his eyes. There were left
no desires in his heart. He became like a mirror that has lost its
strength of reflecting back images. He lost his desire for making
an effort. He lost his enthusiasm to be active and to be always on
the move. At one time the tiger was the king of the jungle but now
he lost his authority, firmness, determination, command, dignity,
wisdom and prosperity. His once powerful clasp of the claw became
weak and he became heartless as if he was already in his grave.
Over hundred illnesses emerge when one is without strength. As
such the tiger became disgruntled, dispirited and of vile nature.
Owing to the spell of the sheep, the ever-vigilant tiger went into
slumber. Besides, culture was the name he gave to his disgraceful
This is not the place to discuss as to how these ideas were
spread amongst the Muslims of the world. When the British ended
the rule of Muslims in India they feared that Muslims would return
to their venturesome way of life. Therefore they applied their
time-tested formula and herds of Christian missionaries started
coming to India. They spread their network in the length and
breadth of India and started preaching to the Muslims the concept
of 'Kingdom of God'. One outcome of this preaching was Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyan. He himself admitted that his movement was
the product of the seed sowed by the British. Apart from his
fabricated 'revelation' he also preached against the concept of
Ai dosto! Jihad ka ab chordo khayal
Dii'n ke liye haram hai ab jung or qital
O Friends! Now leave the idea of Jihad
Now religion prohibits battle and war.
The result of this versified propaganda was that Muslims began
to feel embarrassment at the mention of Jihad. And even the
attitude of those people became apologetic who did not accept the
'prophet-hood' of the Qadiyani. They began to desire for a Quran
that had no verses on Jihad. But this was beyond their reach.
Therefore they began to interpret ridiculously the verses related
to Jihad. They said that the orders for Jihad speak about only
that period when the world had not become cultured. That period
was of madness and barbarity. Orders for Jihad were time bound.
They were mentioned because the Arabs by nature were militant. But
now all these verses have been abrogated.
The Message of Iqbal
This conspiracy was at the verge of becoming victorious when
fortunately for the Muslim community Sir Muhammad Iqbal arrived on
the scene and placed the real teachings of the Quran in front of
Ho agar quwwat-e-firon ki dar parda murid
Qaum ke haq mein hai lanat wuh Kalimillahi
Curse on the community is the leadership
That is secretively disciple to Pharaoh's power.
And Iqbal asked the 'considerate friends'-
Batil ke faal-o-far ki hifazat ke vaste
Europe zirah mein doob gaya dosh ta kamar
Hum poonchte hain sheikh-e-kalisa nawaz se
Mashriq mein jung shar hai to maghrib mein bhi hai shar
Haq se agar gharz hai to zeba hai kya ye baat
Islam ka muhasba Europe se dar guzar
To protect the pomp and presage of the Wrong
Europe armed herself from head to toe.
O supporter! Of the Church, I ask thee
Is war evil only in West and not in East?
If thou art just, not pertinent is it that
Europe were forgiven and Islam be called to account.
The modern Muslim is indebted to Iqbal. Iqbal unveiled before
him the truth of the Quran and made him competent enough. Now with
the strength of his faith he is putting before the world the
message of the Quran and also the attributes of the personality to
whom the Quran was revealed.
Asma' us ki lahd per shabnam afshani kare
Sabza-e-naurasta us ghar ki nighabani kare
O Heaven! Sprinkle dew on his tomb
O Bloom! O Harvest! Guard that house.
Buddhism and Jainism
There is no doubt that both Buddhism and Jainism have preached
against killing of animals. But the question is: which
civilization they gave to the world? In the entire history Jainism
has never been a dominant force. And today it does not have an
independent identity also. Owing to Emperors Ashoka and Kanishka
Buddhism did make some progress. But only one attack from the
Hindus was enough to wipe away the Buddhists from the boundaries
of India. Today they are not even recognized as a minority
community in India. This happened because these religions and
their philosophy advocate salvation for individual life and they
had nothing to do with collective life. At the time when the
Christians also believed in this philosophy their condition was
not dissimilar to the Buddhists and the Jains. Dean Inge says that
individually and universally18 Christianity was only a
The state of the Hindu religion is also the same. Therefore
Mahatma Gandhi writes, "If I had been a dictator then I would have
separated religion from politics. I swear by my religion that I
would have given my life for this (division). Religion is my
personal matter. What concern does government have with it? The
objective of government is that it looks after your worldly
requirements, for instance, communication, currency, foreign
affairs, etc. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a
private affair of an individual."19
Government and Power
We have already stated that Islam is not religion. It is
Diin that includes both religion and government. Look at any
government, at every step it has to fight a 'war'. What is war? It
is to make somebody to accept something by force. You see that a
government has to use power everyday. When any dacoit creates
breaches of the peace then police is ordered to arrest him. The
dacoit and the police both make use of their power against each
other. The stronger one dominates the weaker one. Often the dacoit
is killed in such an encounter. But if he is arrested alive then
in the first place his power (weapons, etc.) is snatched from him.
He is tried in the court of law and if proved guilty he is
punished. This punishment is again implemented by power. This is
called establishing peace in the land. This is the first
obligation of an organized government. So at every step power is
being used and no Christian mystic or a Hindu saint opposes it.
They bless a government that establishes peace in the land. But
when instead of one dacoit an entire nation or community starts
looting people then use of force (war) against them is considered
madness and barbarity. This shows that this philosophy is
defective and trivial.
Eternal truths are contained in the Quran. Therefore it does
not get influenced by cheap emotions and give these types of
superficial 'moral laws'. To resist evil is the fundamental
principle of the Diin.20 It says that evil
should be eradicated and resisted.
Idfa billatii hiya ahsa-nus-sayyi-ah.
(O Messenger) repel evil (judiciously) with that which is best.
The Quran accepts that some evils are committed accidentally
and not deliberately. Appealing to one's intellect and sagacity
can resist this type of evils. This is called 'resisting evil with
Wa yadra-uuna bil-hasa-natis-sayyi-
ata wa mimmaa razaqnaahum yunfiquun.
The Muslim community) averts evil with good and keeps open for
human welfare that which We have given to them. (28/54)
The Quran says that by 'resisting evil with good' an enemy can
also become your friend.
Wa laa tastawil-hasanatu wa las-sayyi-ah.
Idfa billatii hiya ahsanu fa-izallazii
bay-naka wa baynahuu adaawatun
ka-annahuu waliyyun hamiim!
Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is
better then will he between whom and thee was hatred become, as he
were thy friend and intimate. (41/34)
The Quran, however, does not negate human emotions and
therefore it does not limit itself to just the above instructions.
It observes the other side of the coin also. It says amongst the
evildoers are such persons who deliberately violate the laws. They
do not listen to any reasoning and soft approach towards them
makes them more extremists. This type of evil can only be arrested
by force and as such punishment becomes must.
Wa jazaaa-u sayyi-atin-sayyi-atum-misluhaa.
(Sometimes a culprit has to be punished but always keep this in
mind that) the punishment should be equal (in degree) to the
The Quran also says that use of force for (or in support of)
the oppressed is not crime.
Wa lamanintasara ba-da zulmihii
fa-ulaaa-ika maa alayhim-min-sabiil.
You have no right to charge or question a person who defends
(or take revenge) himself after he has suffered wrong. (42/41)
Use of force is a crime when it is used for oppression,
transgression, cruelty, riots, etc.
Innamas-sabiilu alallaziina yazlimuunan-
naasa wa yab-guuna fil-arzi oigayril-haqq
ulaaa-ika lahum Azaabun aliim.
The blame is only against those who oppress men with wrongdoing
and insolently transgress beyond through the land, defying right
and justice for such there will be a chastisement grievous.
As such the Quran has instructed to forgive and to pardon. But
along with this punishment and persecution are also considered
essential so as to maintain peace and justice. And when this
punishment and persecution extends beyond individuals to nations
or communities then it is called war. If these things are for
protecting human rights then they are good but if they are used
for personal interests then they are evil.
Zindagi kisht-tast wa hasil quwwat-tst.
Sharah ramz haq-o-batil quwwat-tst.
Sulah Shair gardad cho maqsood ast ghair
Gar Khuda bashad gharaz jangast khair.
Gar na gardad haq za tegh-e-ma buland
Jan bashad qaum ra na arjumand.
Har ke khanjar bhare-ghairullah kasheed
Tegh-e- oo dar seena-e-oo armed.
Tegh behar izzat-e- deenast wa bas.
Maqsad-e-oo hifz-e- aeen ast wa bas.
Life is won on the battlefield by power
Power separates Truth from untruth
If against the Divine peace is evil
If for the Divine war is good
If sword hath not established Truth
In danger the nobles would have been
If sword is picked for other than God
It is as if you kill yourself
For dignity of Diin only is the sword
To protect Divine laws is its objective
This fact was most eloquently and in impressive words was
stated by the last Messenger. He was asked: one man fights for war
booty, one person fights for fame, one person fights for bravery,
one person fights for anger and revenge, amongst them whose Jihad
is right? And he replied:
Wa man qatala litakuna kalimatal lahi
hiyal uuliya fahua fii sabilillahi.
One who fights in order to ensure that Allah's law (of justice
and fairness) reign supreme then his Jihad is in Allah's way.