 |
literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org
Literature, Poetry, Essays, Dialogues, Philosophy, Theology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SFG75
Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 133
Location: Nebraska
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: Non-violence and Islam |
 |
|
Found a very interesting piece from
[url=http://www.liberalislam.net/]liberalislam.net[/url[ which is an
interesting website. The fellow who published these articles has some
interesting viewpoints. Unfortunately, it looks as if the site hasn't been
updated for quite awhile. :(
Here is a snippet of one article taken verbatim. The author is Zeeshan
Hasan.
| Quote: | Some of the most successful political movements in the twentieth
century have been based upon the principle of non-violence. However,
Islamic political movements have remained relatively unaffected by
widespread ideological moves towards non-violence, as these were
generally developed in non-Muslim contexts; Mahatma Gandhi's peaceful
resistance against the British, for example, was never integrated into a
Muslim religious framework. In the post 9/11 geopolitical scenario,
however, it is important to remember that Islam, like all great religious
traditions, contains a fundamental message of peace and tolerance; one
which can in fact be developed theologically into a full-blown Muslim
theory of non-violence. In examining this issue, first we need to look at
particular Qur'anic passages which support non-violence. Then we may try
to understand some of the historical reasons why Muslim ideals of
non-violence have not been realized.
My own development of an Islamic theory of non-violence will be based
on the Qur'anic story of Cain and Abel. Since Islam views itself as the
fulfillment of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Qur'an, which Muslims
believe to be the word of God as revealed to his prophet Muhammad, is
full of stories which are immediately recognizable from the Bible. The
Qur'anic stories are often similar to the Biblical ones, but in fact it is the
differences between Biblical and Qur'anic versions which are often the
most interesting in theological terms. The Cain and Abel story is
significant in that it tells of the first violent act in the Biblical narrative; the
murder of one of the sons of Adam by the other. As it contains the
prototypical act of violence, this story represents the ideal text from which
to develop non-violent theology.
Let us quickly go over the story of Adam's sons Cain and Abel as told in
the Bible:
'Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the
course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the
ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat
portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain
and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his
countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has
your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if
you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you
must master it." Cain said to his brother, Abel, "Let us go out to the field."
And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel,
and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:2-11)
Two themes of the above Biblical story bear elaboration, as they will
become very significant when we look at the same story in the Qur'an.
Most important is that the story is not just about murder, but about
sacrifice. Ritual sacrifice was an important part of religious practice in the
ancient near east. It often meant making burnt offerings of animals to the
gods, thus pleasing them and warding off floods and other forms of divine
punishment. For Israelite religion in particular, sacrifice involved making
burnt offerings at the Temple of Jerusalem in order to be absolved of
various types of uncleanliness or sin. The Cain and Abel story contains the
first occurrence of sacrifice in the story of the Bible, and thus was
important in establishing the Israelite ritual of sacrifice as primordial
practice. The Biblical Cain and Abel story also focuses on the merit of the
animal sacrifice of Abel versus the plant sacrifice of Cain, in accordance
with their distinct professions. The passage thus seems to reflect social
tensions between the sendentary farming and pastoral nomadic
communities of Biblical times.
Another important theme of the Biblical Cain and Abel story is that of
Cain's responsibility for his brother's death. This theme underlies Cain's
famous words that he is not his "brother's keeper", which is simply a false
denial of responsibility on his part. But in the end, Cain is punished
because he is in fact responsible for Abel's death. His punishment is the
loss of his ability to farm, which again returns us to the agrarian vs.
pastoral tension underlying the Biblical passage. A subsequent verse,
Genesis 4:20, mentions of one Cain's descendants that "he was the
ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock". So in effect Abel
has a pyrrhic victory, since his animal-rearing lifestyle wins out over
Cain's crop farming.
When we get to the Qur'anic account however, we find a very interesting
retelling that changes particular features pertaining to sacrifice as well as
the nature of Cain's responsibility for his dead brother.
'And recite thou to them the story of the two sons of Adam truthfully,
when they offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted of one of them, and not
accepted of the other. "I will surely slay thee," said one. "God accepts
only the godfearing," said the other. "Yet if thou stretchest out thy hand
against me, to slay me, I will not stretch out my hand against thee, to slay
thee; I fear God, the Lord of all Being. I desire that thou shouldst be
laden with my sin and thy sin, and so become an inhabitant of the Fire;
that is the recompense of the evildoers." Then his soul prompted him to
slay his brother, and he slew him, and became one of the losers.' (Qur'an
5:31-33)
In fact, the retelling of the Cain and Abel story in the Qur'an introduces a
new theological meaning to it; that of forgiveness of sin through
non-violent death. This interpretation hinges on the words that Abel utters
when he explains why he does not kill his brother rather than be killed by
him: "I desire that thou shouldst be laden with my sin and thy sin." The
second part of this statement is very clear; by killing Abel, Cain is
committing the sin of murder. Obviously, this is what Abel refers to as
Cain's sin. But Abel's first phrase, "I desire that thou shouldst be laden
with my sin", is altogether remarkable. How can Cain bear Abel's sin? The
Qur'anic message on ethics and moral responsibility is very clear and
repeated over and over; each person is responsible for his or her own
actions, and will be judged by God accordingly for any wrongdoing.
God charges no soul save to its capacity; standing to its account is what is
has earned, and against its account what it has merited. (Qur'an 2:286)
If each person can only be responsible for their own sins, what on earth is
Abel talking about? Interpretation does allow a way out of this, if we
realize that Cain's bearing of Abel's sin does not mean that Cain will be
punished for Abel's wrongdoing. Rather, Cain's bearing of Abel's sin
seems to mean that Abel, by allowing his brother to kill him and not
raising his hand in retaliation, is forgiven of his sins. The Cain and Abel
story in the Qur'an is thus transformed from a Biblical story about the
relative merits of Cain and Abel's plant and animal sacrifices into a story
about Abel's sacrifice of himself in order to be forgiven of his own sins.
This is a really remarkable theological development. Among other things,
it has the interesting consequence of bringing an element into Qur'anic
theology which is reminiscent of the Christian concept that Jesus accepted
death on the cross in order that humanity be forgiven of its sins through
the sacrifice of his life. The Qur'an never mentions this Christian doctrine
of forgiveness of humanity's sin through the crucifixion of Jesus. Although
this belief forms the basis of Christianity, Muslims tend to find it quite
bizarre as Qur'an explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus, and in fact views
him, Moses and Muhammad simply as human prophets of God. As a
result, there is no reason in Islam for Jesus' crucifixion to have the huge
theological impact that it does in the New Testament. Nonetheless, what
we see in the Qur'anic story of Cain and Abel is something very similar to
the sacrifice of Jesus wiping out the sins of humanity; but here the figure
of Abel is both the sacrifice and the recipient of divine forgiveness.
And Abel, of course, is the child of Adam, just as all people are meant to
be; so by extension, any other child of Adam should also be able to avail
of divine forgiveness by accepting death through non-violence. So the
Qur'anic Cain and Abel story gives us an interpretation of Islam which
holds that all of one's sins can be forgiven by acceptance of non-violent
death. This a far cry from common Western stereotyping of Islam, which
routinely "explains" terrorism and suicide bombing by citing the beliefs of
the radical fringe that such acts of violence result in the perpetrator's
access to heaven.
So it is certainly possible to develop an Qur'anic theory of non-violence.
The next question to ask is what problems arise in an Islamic context
when we try to apply non-violence as a religious principle? The difficulty
that one comes across is "jihad", which everyone is most likely familiar
with. Jihad is commonly translated as "holy war", and if such a concept as
holy war exists in Islam, any Muslim theory of non-violence will have to
deal with it. Let's take a quick look at the word "jihad". It comes from the
Arabic verbal root jahada, which means "to strive", or "to struggle", and
not just in a military sense. The Arabic word for Qur'anic interpretation,
ijtihad, is a derivative of the same root, since the act of interpretation
implies a debate within one's mind for the true or correct meaning of a
scriptural verse. In particular, the word jihad, commonly translated as
"holy war", simply means to struggle with another, and can be used to
describe a debate or disagreement as well as a physical struggle. So the
"holy war" interpretation of jihad comes not just from the linguistic
background of the word, but from its historical usage. Jihad is used in the
Qur'an to describe the conflicts which Muhammad and the early Muslim
community found themselves in. Its historical usage was later extended
beyond the lifetime of Muhammad, and applied to justify the expansionary
conquests of the early Islamic empire. Now the question to be answered
is, how "Islamic" were the wars of the early Muslim community, and the
subsequent Muslim empire-building? Is jihad in the sense of "holy war" a
necessary part of Islam?
This becomes a complex question, because the legacy of Islam is difficult
to separate from the religion's associations with statehood and empire.
The problem begins with Muhammad's own lifetime, during which he and
his early Muslim community were engaged in conflict with both pagan
Arab tribes of Mecca as well as Jewish tribes around Medina. Since these
battles were fought by Muhammad himself, and since Muslims regard the
example of his life in high esteem as the deeds of a divinely-guided
prophet, the battles of this formative period of Islam might seem to justify
a concept of "holy war" in Islam. However, when we look at the Qur'anic
verses which justified these battles, we do not find an unequivocal
justification of warfare.
Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not;
God loves not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon
them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more
grievous than slaying. (Qur'an 2:186-187)
If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace,
then God assigns not any way to you against them. (Qur'an 4:92)
In the first verses quoted above, the right to engage in battle is contingent
upon a greater good being served. In particular, the criterion which must
be met is the existence of "persecution" which can be ended by war. It is
made explicit that wars of aggression are not justified. The second verse
quoted is also explicit in denying justification to violence if peace is
offered as an alternative.
Given these Qur'anic restrictions on violence, an Islamic ideal of
non-violence is still feasible. In fact, any responsible ethic of non-violence
must deal with the fact that one's choice to be non-violent involves not
only to leaving oneself open to violent attack, but also in the vulnerability
of others who may be unable to defend themselves without one's forceful
assistance. Any ideal of non-violence will have to leave this judgement to
be made according to circumstances. In the case of Muhammad and his
early Muslim community, it is apparent that the Qur'anic view is that the
circumstances of persecution which resulted in the flight of Muslims from
Mecca to Medina constituted sufficient persecution to justify the
subsequent state of war between the two cities. However, this only means
that some wars (in particular, Muhammad's wars) may be justified under
some circumstances. But this is simply a commonsense observation. It
certainly does not imply that there is a general Qur'anic principal of
"jihad" by which any war against non-Muslims becomes a justified as a
"holy war". The citing of Muhammad's wars and warlike Qur'anic verses
out of their historical context by both Muslim radicals and Western
Islamophobes should accordingly be treated with skepticism.
Next, let us look at the question of whether or not holy war, as used to
describe the early Muslim imperial expansion after Muhammad, should be
considered "Islamic". The Muslim empire expanded rapidly after
Muhammad's death, and there can be no doubt that this expansion found
the history of Muhammad's wars to be a convenient example. The
resulting development of the concept of jihad as imperialist holy war
allowed huge accumulation of wealth and territories by expansionist
caliphs.
It should be recalled, however, that early Muslim empire-building was also
not a purely religious expansion. In fact, conquering Arab armies in the
early years of Islam tended to stay aloof and isolated in military
encampments from the people whom they conquered. Religious
conversion of the local populace was not the issue. The separation of the
conquering Muslims from the conquered non-Muslims allowed the
populace considerable freedom to continuing practicing their religion as
they saw fit. All that was demanded of them was a higher rate of tax,
which reveals the real motive of medieval Muslim "jihad"; namely
extraction of wealth from conquered territories. Since the primary
objective of the early Islamic wars was not correcting any situation of
"persecution", and especially since the motive was not to convert
conquered people to Islam in any case, the early Islamic empires
obviously had no legitimate claim to jihad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: Very interesting indeed! Thanks! |
|
|
| Very interesting indeed! Thanks! I must study this carefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The above blog states:
Just a note to say that I won't be using this space regularly any more. Instead, I'll be blogging at the http://progressiveislam.org site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Following links to his blog, I found this of interest
| Quote: |
Orhan Pamuk was born in Istanbul in 1952 and grew up in a large family
similar to those which he describes in his novels Cevdet Bey and His
Sons and The Black Book, in the wealthy westernised district of Nisantasi.
As he writes in his autobiographical book Istanbul, from his childhood until
the age of 22 he devoted himself largely to painting and dreamed of
becoming an artist. After graduating from the secular American Robert
College in Istanbul, he studied architecture at Istanbul Technical
University for three years, but abandoned the course when he gave up his
ambition to become an architect and artist. He went on to graduate in
journalism from Istanbul University, but never worked as a journalist. At
the age of 23 Pamuk decided to become a novelist, and giving up
everything else retreated into his flat and began to write.
His first novel Cevdet Bey and His Sons was published seven years later
in 1982. The novel is the story of three generations of a wealthy Istanbul
family living in Nisantasi, Pamuk's own home district. The novel was
awarded both the Orhan Kemal and Milliyet literary prizes. The following
year Pamuk published his novel The Silent House, which in French
translation won the 1991 Prix de la d�couverte europ�ene. The White
Castle (1985) about the frictions and friendship between a Venetian slave
and an Ottoman scholar was published in English and many other
languages from 1990 onwards, bringing Pamuk his first international
fame. The same year Pamuk went to America, where he was a visiting
scholar at Columbia University in New York from 1985 to 1988. It was
there that he wrote most of his novel The Black Book, in which the
streets, past, chemistry and texture of Istanbul are described through the
story of a lawyer seeking his missing wife. This novel was published in
Turkey in 1990, and in French translation won the Prix France Culture. The
Black Book enlarged Pamuk's fame both in Turkey and internationally as
an author at once popular and experimental, and able to write about past
and present with the same intensity. In 1991 Pamuk's daughter R�ya was
born. That year saw the production of a film Hidden Face, whose script by
Pamuk was based on a one-page story in The Black Book.
His novel The New Life, about young university students influenced by a
mysterious book, was published in Turkey in 1994 and became one of the
most widely read books in Turkish literature. My Name Is Red, about
Ottoman and Persian artists and their ways of seeing and portraying the
non-western world, told through a love story and family story, was
published in 1998. This novel won the French Prix Du Meilleur Livre
Etranger, the Italian Grinzane Cavour (2002) and the International IMPAC
Dublin literary award (2003). From the mid-1990s Pamuk took a critical
stance towards the Turkish state in articles about human rights and
freedom of thought, although he took little interest in politics. Snow, which
he describes as 'my first and last political novel,' was published in 2002.
In this book set in the small city of Kars in northeastern Turkey he
experimented with a new type of 'political novel,' telling the story of
violence and tension between political Islamists, soldiers, secularists, and
Kurdish and Turkish nationalists. In 1999 a selection of his articles on
literature and culture written for newspapers and magazines in Turkey
and abroad, together with a selection of writings from his private
notebooks, was published under the title Other Colours.
Pamuk's most recent book, Istanbul, is a poetical work that is hard to
classify, combining the author's early memoirs up to the age of 22, and an
essay about the city of Istanbul, illustrated with photographs from his
own album, and pictures by western painters and Turkish photographers.
Apart from three years in New York, Orhan Pamuk has spent all his life in
the same streets and district of Istanbul, and he now lives in the building
where he was raised. Pamuk has been writing novels for 30 years and
never done any other job except writing. His books have been translated
into more than 40 languages.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SFG75
Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 133
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Be sure to check out the white mosques discussion, very fascinating. In it, the author ruminates that white muslims in America would be of the Sufi variety as many have a thing for Rumi. I must admit, I have more than a few books on Sufi poetry and the writings of Rumi. I do find it very intriguing, though the more conservative beliefs of Islam limit my desire to learn more about it. These might be some interesting folks to invite over. :)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
