What would you say is the reason then? Most of the wars in sub Saharan Africa have had the opposing sides divided along ethnic lines? Fact!

Mariory:

What would you say is the reason then? Most of the wars in sub Saharan Africa have had the opposing sides divided along ethnic lines? Fact!

True and if you look within those ethnic groups, there are wars going on and even on that level they have other reasons such as family ties or even gender. Remove ethnicity and they will find something else. This is quite evident in our own country. People will fight and claim so many reasons, ethnicity, skin color, religion, money, politics, you name it. Are those then the reasons or is it deeper than that ?? There are many in the same ethnic factions who do not involve themselves in such fights. Does that then mean the problem is ethnic in nature??

RichyBlacK:

Actually, there are at least two stories in Yoruba mythology regarding Oduduwa and his coming to being:
1. That he came from the east (the direction of Mecca), with some speculating he came from Egypt.

The commonplace claims of origins in the East doesn't,in itself,support the viewpoint that the Yorubas are of Arabic origin.The "East" is a general description and can mean Jews,Persians,Berbers,Kurds,Copts,Maronites,e.t.c-effectively,anyone of hundreds of different ethnic nationalities,so merely claiming you come from the East doesn't make you an Arab.

Arabs took over Egypt in the 7th and 8th century so originating from Egypt won't make you Arab either.

@topic,
Quite thought provoking. Sure would like to hear from the muslim brothers in the house on the matter

Kobojunkie:

Wrong! the problem is persons who do not live it do not understand how it can work. I am telling you as a person who lives by a belief system it does not work that way for all and there is no place where it is written in stone that only those who identity themselves FIRST with there motherland are the most sane. So playing that card only flies for those who do not understand that there is no right and wrong when it comes to how one chooses to see self in this case.

Before we waste so much time arguing our points based on misunderstood issues, let me restate the issue here, ie: One is first identified as coming from a certain part of Africa, before being identified religiously.

It does not matter how you chose to identify yourself, the fact remains very clearly spelt out in sociological circules that one's ethnic affiliation comes before religion.

No question if you chose to identify yourself as a christian, muslim, or jewish Igbo, etc., but the correct point is to identify yourself as Igbo christians, for example.

You can make all the arguements you want, but the facts are filled with instances where people are identified as Russian Jews, American Muslims, Chinese Muslims, etc.

If you chose to change this long held view of ethno-religious description, that would be up to you, but you would have no academic facts to win the arguement.

naijaking1:

Before we waste so much time arguing our points based on misunderstood issues, let me restate the issue here, ie: One is first identified as coming from a certain part of Africa, before being identified religiously.

It does not matter how you chose to identify yourself, the fact remains very clearly spelt out in sociological circules that one's ethnic affiliation comes before religion.

No question if you chose to identify yourself as a christian, muslim, or jewish Igbo, etc., but the correct point is to identify yourself as Igbo christians, for example.

You can make all the arguements you want, but the facts are filled with instances where people are identified as Russian Jews, American Muslims, Chinese Muslims, etc.

If you chose to change this long held view of ethno-religious description, that would be up to you, but you would have no academic facts to win the arguement.

The portion of your post which is in bold spells out where this applies. Does not mean it applies in ALL circles. Facts filled with instances where people are identified as Russion jews, American muslims and what not does NOT hold for all circles. So to say it applies everywhere would be a false statement and like you mentioned it is dependent on what circle you find yourself in. I have NEVER been refered to as an African Christian, NEVER but I have been refered to in circles as a Software Developer, and even as simply a Christian but NEVER an african Christian or Black Christian. Why ?? Cause I have never found myself in a place where that would have to be applied to me. Now if I did find myself in such a gathering or being discussed in such light, then that is different but it remains that this sort of classification does not apply in all settings. This to me would be a good reason why when filling out applications here in the States, in most companies, you revealing your ethnicity is not made mandatory.

Nothing applies in all situations, we're talking about the generality here.

Even in Sudan-Darfur, there is constant reference to Sudanese-christians and Sudanese-muslims, not christian Sudanese.

Back in Nigeria, I remember the NYSC oath saying that 'I shall always see myself as a Nigerian first, before identifing myself with my religion'- I remember a few Muslim corpers disagreeing with this line of the oath just like you.

Like those guys, you're free to identify yourself however you chose, but that doesn't make it correct.

naijaking1:

Nothing applies in all situations, we're talking about the generality here.

Even in Sudan-Darfur, there is constant reference to Sudanese-christians and Sudanese-muslims, not christian Sudanese.

Back in Nigeria, I remember the NYSC oath saying that 'I shall always see myself as a Nigerian first, before identifing myself with my religion'- I remember a few Muslim corpers disagreeing with this line of the oath just like you.

Like those guys, you're free to identify yourself however you chose, but that doesn't make it correct.

That is my point. People are allowed to choose how to identify self. There is no Problem with identifying with one's religion at all. That has never posed a problem in society and there is no need to make it an issue even in this case. If a person chooses to identify self first as a muslim and second as a Nigerian or african, it is not a problem at all and definitely not a crime or a sign of ignorance or illiteracy in any way. It is simply the person choosing to put on the religion Tag before pinning on the Ethnic Tag. Others can choose to put on the ethnic Tag first and then religion and other tags later on but that act in itself is not an issue, has never been and is not the issue in this case.

ie. The Order in which you choose to pin on those Labels /Tags on self, is not of great importance.

You're free to id yourself according to your own rules, but there is only one socially, culturally and even academically accepted rule, and that's the rule I stated in my earlier post.

Just like grammar, there is only one acceptable method of constructing a grammertically correct sentence, you can of course make your own rules, but there is only acceptable method.

naijaking1:

You're free to id yourself according to your own rules, but there is only one socially, culturally and even academically accepted rule, and that's the rule I stated in my earlier post.

Just like grammar, there is only one acceptable method of constructing a grammertically correct sentence, you can of course make your own rules, but there is only acceptable method.

Again,  it may be socially accepted in the circle which you role in but you have to understand that that is not the case for all and is not necessarily the majority in any case. Considering that the religious circle happens to be the largest in the world today, I believe you would be told that your choice there is necessarily the accepted rule. Grammar or not, it is not the way it goes. Even in Academics, you are either of one course or another, You are not necessarily listed as a Chinese Lecturer but more on the department you belong to.

So those claims you make there do not hold water when you consider all. Again there is no writing in stone that it has to be the way you state it is there. People and even companies and organizations create their own method of classification and it is accepted as long as it does not cross legal lines.

Majority of the people id themselves ethnically first and then religious second, so the title says 'black muslims' and not muslim blacks.

Your religious favor seems to be clouding your rational thoughts in this issue. There is a correct way, and there is wrong way. You are free to adopt your own wrong way, religiously or not.

Islam is a deadly fraud.

naijaking1:

Majority of the people id themselves ethnically first and then religious second, so the title says 'black muslims' and not muslim blacks.

Your religious favor seems to be clouding your rational thoughts in this issue. There is a correct way, and there is wrong way. You are free to adopt your own wrong way, religiously or not.

Notice here that I am not the one claiming MY WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY AND THE ACCEPTABLE WAY!!! The term 'Black Muslims' has more to do with SKIN COLOR (RACE) which is not even in line with the one you proclaim to be the RIGHT and ACCEPTABLE WAY. I am saying again,  that JUST CAUSE those you hang around choose to do it one way are doing it one way does not mean it is the most ACCEPTABLE way to do it. IT IS NO WRITTEN in STONE that that is the MOST ACCEPTABLE WAY to do it . It is however of law that ANY WAY is ACCEPTABLE as long as it does not Cross the Legal Lines stipulated and it VARIES from Country to Country, from company to Company from people to people. SIMPLE!! Don't you see what you are doing here

The Poster choose to use BLACK MUSLIMS in his Article. Another will Choose to Address SUNNI MUSLIMS ,  Another Might choose to use the LABEL MODERATE muslims AND ANOTHER MAY simply choose the label MUSLIMS. ALL are acceptable and apply where needed. NO ONE way is the THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE WAY! By the way, there are Black Arab Muslims.

Kobojunkie:

Notice here that I am not the one claiming MY WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY AND THE ACCEPTABLE WAY!!! The term 'Black Muslims' has more to do with SKIN COLOR (RACE) which is not even in line with the one you proclaim to be the RIGHT and ACCEPTABLE WAY. I am saying again, that JUST CAUSE those you hang around choose to do it one way are doing it one way does not mean it is the most ACCEPTABLE way to do it. IT IS NO WRITTEN in STONE that that is the MOST ACCEPTABLE WAY to do it . It is however of law that ANY WAY is ACCEPTABLE as long as it does not Cross the Legal Lines stipulated and it VARIES from Country to Country, from company to Company from people to people. SIMPLE!! Don't you see what you are doing here

The Poster choose to use BLACK MUSLIMS in his Article. Another will Choose to Address SUNNI MUSLIMS , Another Might choose to use the LABEL MODERATE muslims AND ANOTHER MAY simply choose the label MUSLIMS. ALL are acceptable and apply where needed. NO ONE way is the THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE WAY! By the way, there are Black Arab Muslims.

Note that this arguement has left the religious realm and is now in the domain of acceptable written and spoken English language.

Proper ethinicity-religious identification has nothing to do with the people I hang out with as you wrongly said, and you should not make it sound very subjective.

It's an absolutely objective form of communication, you can't change the rules simply because of your religious understanding.

Even your example of black arab muslims doesn't say muslim black arabs? I understand your desperate need to have the last word, but you need to have it with the correct conclusion.

naijaking1:

Note that this arguement has left the religious realm and is now in the domain of acceptable written and spoken English language.

Proper ethinicity-religious identification has nothing to do with the people I hang out with as you wrongly said, and you should not make it sound very subjective.

It's an absolutely objective form of communication, you can't change the rules simply because of your religious understanding.

Even your example of black arab muslims doesn't say muslim black arabs? I understand your desperate need to have the last word, but you need to have it with the correct conclusion.

I chose to move on cause it seems you are so stuck in your way on this one that you are willing to play Words games to prove you are right. jeeezzzzz WHOEVER heard of PROPER ETHNICITY-RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION?? LMAO!!

Kobojunkie:

I chose to move on cause it seems you are so stuck in your way on this one that you are willing to play Words games to prove you are right. jeeezzzzz WHOEVER heard of PROPER ETHNICITY-RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION?? LMAO!!

It depends on your level of education.

Proper identification and classification have been known to cause considerable confusion among students of English language.

naijaking1:

It depends on your level of education.

Proper identification and classification have been known to cause considerable confusion among students of English language.

Trying to make it seem you are more educated than I am is not going to help your case here. The Fact remains, when it comes to classification it is all a matter of what rolls off the tongue better and none of the claims you have been making all this while. Please stop making things up already. You have no case here just bogus claims. Again, no where is it LAW that a person be first identified by ethnic background, and then religion. It just rolls off the tongue better is all. I mean what would you say to the media using the label EVANGELICAL AMERICANS OR MUSLIM ARABS? Are they WRONG THEN JEeezzz Quit MAKING things up Muslim

the whole darfur issue makes no sense to me.
africans need to unite and save the future

Kobojunkie:

Trying to make it seem you are more educated than I am is not going to help your case here. The Fact remains, when it comes to classification it is all a matter of what rolls off the tongue better and none of the claims you have been making all this while. Please stop making things up already. You have no case here just bogus claims. Again, no where is it LAW that a person be first identified by ethnic background, and then religion. It just rolls off the tongue better is all. I mean what would you say to the media using the label EVANGELICAL AMERICANS OR MUSLIM ARABS? Are they WRONG THEN JEeezzz Quit MAKING things up Muslim

You decided to make this word game, so word game you shall have.

Remember how it all got started?

My friend, classification is not based on what rolls off your tongue better, there is actually a method to it.

Sadly, you just don't seem to understand this method, and you wouldn't even admit it.

Depilot:

the whole darfur issue makes no sense to me.
africans need to unite and save the future

I doubt Africa is going to unite and stand together anytime soon. We are divided in basically every which way you can cut. I do believe it is possible for Africa to save the future and even the day and it only takes a few africans to lead the many.

Depilot:

the whole darfur issue makes no sense to me.
africans need to unite and save the future

Yes, we need to unite and save ourselves, because whatever happens in Darfur, may not be too far from happening in Nigeria.

naijaking1:

You decided to make this word game, so word game you shall have.

Remember how it all got started?

My friend, classification is not based on what rolls off your tongue better, there is actually a method to it.

Sadly, you just don't seem to understand this method, and you wouldn't even admit it.

Then please show me some proof for your claim. If the label MUSLIM ARABS is different from the label ARAB MUSLIMS, Please share how. Educate us!!

Kobojunkie:


Then please show me some proof for your claim. If the label MUSLIM ARABS is different from the label ARAB MUSLIMS, Please share how. Educate us!!

In this World, there is the right way, and there is the wrong way.

Arab muslims, Nigerian Muslims, Russian Muslims is the right form.

It doesn't even matter how you personally choose to express your ethnic vs. religious identification.

The difference between Muslim Arabs and Arab Muslims, my friend, is called confusion and grammertically incorrect expression.

oh boy!!!

Kobojunkie:


Then please show me some proof for your claim. If the label MUSLIM ARABS is different from the label ARAB MUSLIMS, Please share how. Educate us!!

There is reason why you are more likely to hear the latter than the former.

I-man:

There is reason why you are more likely to hear the latter than the former.

Pray tell !

Because people are more likely to identify themselves or be identified by their ethnic nationality first.

I-man:

Because people are more likely to identify themselves or be identified by their ethnic nationality first.

Well,  the debate is not that people do not do that. If you go back and read this conversation from page one, you will see that my arguement is that anyway is acceptable and it is not written in stone that it has to be a certain way to be CORRECT. That is why I gave him the MUSLIM ARABS and the ARAB MUSLIMS example. Both are used by the media, politicians and people too. Does it mean they are saying exactly different things?? Are those who use one more CORRECT than the others??  People can choose to identify by their ethnic nationality but we can equally say that some people choose to identify themselves by their sexuality or skin color or religious affinity first.

I for one have been in here among Nigerians for months and not once have I uttered information about where in nigeria I am from or what ethnic group I belong to but I do know I have posted many a times that I happen to be a Christian. To each his own. No man is more correct than the other though.

Kobojunkie:

Well,  the debate is not that people do not do that. If you go back and read this conversation from page one, you will see that my arguement is that anyway is acceptable and it is not written in stone that it has to be a certain way to be CORRECT. That is why I gave him the MUSLIM ARABS and the ARAB MUSLIMS example. Both are used by the media, politicians and people too. Does it mean they are saying exactly different things?? Are those who use one more CORRECT than the others??  People can choose to identify by their ethnic nationality but we can equally say that some people choose to identify themselves by their sexuality or skin color or religious affinity first.

I for one have been in here among Nigerians for months and not once have I uttered information about where in nigeria I am from or what ethnic group I belong to but I do know I have posted many a times that I happen to be a Christian. To each his own. No man is more correct than the other though.

Just wondering, could it be because you dislike your Black heritage and want to be a White woman? Again, just wondering.

ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Non-violence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. Non-violence is action in the full sense of the word. Rather it is more forceful an action than that of violence. It is a fact that non-violent activism is more powerful and effective than violent activism.

Non-violent activism is not limited in its sphere. It is a course of action which may be followed in all matters.

Whenever individuals, groups or communities are faced with a problem, one way to solve it is by resorting to violence. The better way is to attempt to solve the problem by peaceful means, avoiding violence and confrontation. Peaceful means may take various forms. In fact, it is the nature of the problem which will determine which of these peaceful methods is applicable to the given situation.

Islam is a religion which teaches non-violence. According to the Qur’an, God does not love fasad, violence. What is meant here by fasad is clearly expressed in verse 205 of the second Surah. Basically, fasad is that action which results in disruption of the social system, causing huge losses in terms of lives and property.

Conversely, we can say with certainty that God loves non-violence. He abhors violent activity being indulged in human society, as a result of which people have to pay the price with their possessions and lives. This is supported by other statements in the Qur’an. For instance, we are told in the Qur’an that peace is one of God’s names (59:23). Those who seek to please God are assured by verse 5 of the sixteenth surah that they will be guided by Him to "the paths of peace." Paradise, which is the final destination of the society of God’s choice, is referred to in the Qur’an as "the home of peace" (89:30), etc.

The entire spirit of the Qur’an is in consonance with this concept. For instance, the Qur’an attaches great importance to patience. In fact, patience is set above all other Islamic virtues with the exceptional promise of reward beyond measure. (39:10)

Patience implies a peaceful response or reaction, whereas impatience implies a violent response. The word Sabr exactly expresses the notion of non-violence as it is understood in modern times. That patient action is non-violent action has been clearly expressed in the Qur’an. According to one tradition, the Prophet of Islam observed: God grants to rifq (gentleness) what he does not grant to unf (violence). (Sunan, Abu Dawood, 4/255)

The word rifq has been used in this hadith as an antithesis to unf. These terms convey exactly what is meant by violence and non-violence in present times. This hadith clearly indicates the superiority of the non-violent method.

God grants on non-violence what He does not grant to violence is no simple matter. It has very wide and deep implications. It embodies an eternal law of nature. By the very law of nature all bad things are associated with violence, while all good things are associated with non-violence.

Violent activities breed hatred in society, while non-violent activities elicit love. Violence is the way of destruction while non-violence is the way of construction. In an atmosphere of violence, it is enmity which flourishes, while in an atmosphere of non-violence, it is friendship which flourishes. The method of violence gives way to negative values while the method of non-violence is marked by positive values. The method of violence embroils people in problems, while the method of non-violence leads people to the exploiting of opportunities. In short, violence is death, non-violence is life.

Both the Qur’an and the hadith have attached great importance to jihad. What is jihad? Jihad means struggle, to struggle one’s utmost. It must be appreciated at the outset that this word is used for non-violent struggle as opposed to violent struggle. One clear proof of this is the verse of the Qur’an (25:52) which says: Perform jihad with this (i.e. the word of the Qur’an) most strenuously.

The Qur’an is not a sword or a gun. It is a book of ideology. In such a case performing jihad with the Qur’an would mean an ideological struggle to conquer peoples’ hearts and minds through Islam’s superior philosophy.

In the light of this verse of the Qur’an, jihad in actual fact is another name for peaceful activism or non-violent activism. Where qital is violent activism, jihad is non-violent activism.

Peaceful Beginning

When the Qur’an began to be revealed, the first verse of the revelation conveyed the injunction: ‘Read!’ (Iqra) (96:1). By perusing this verse we learn about the initiation of Islamic action. It begins from the point where there is hope of continuing the movement along peaceful lines, and not from that point where there are chances of its being marred by violence.

When the command of ‘Iqra’ was revealed, there were many options available in Mecca as starting points for a movement. For instance, one possible starting point was to launch a movement to purify the Kabah of the 360 idols installed in it. But, by pursuing such a course the Islamic movement would certainly have had to face a violent reaction from the Quraysh. An alternative starting point could have been an attempt to secure a seat in the Dar-al-Nadwa (Mecca’s parliament). At that time almost the whole of Arabia was under the direct or indirect influence of the Roman and Sasanid empires. If the freeing of Arabia from this influence had been made the starting point, this would also have been met with an immediate violent reaction on the part of the Quraysh.

Leaving aside these options, the path followed was that of reading the Qur’an, an activity that could be with certainty continued along peaceful lines: no violent reaction would ensue from engaging in such an activity.

The Prophet of Islam followed this principle throughout his life. His policy was that of adopting non-violent methods in preference to violent methods. It is this policy which was referred to by Aishah, the Prophet’s wife, in these words: Whenever the Prophet had to opt for one of two ways, he almost always opted for the easier one. (Fathul Bari 6/654)

What are the advantages of non-violent activism over violent activism? They are briefly stated as under:

According to the Qur’an there are two faculties in every human being which are mutually antipathetic. One is the ego, and the other is the conscience called respectively nafs ammara and nafs lawwama. (The Qur’an, 12:53; 75:26) What the violent method invariably does is to awaken the ego which necessarily results in a breakdown of social equilibrium. On the other hand, non-violent activism awakens the conscience. From this results an awakening in people of introspection and self-appraisal. And according to the Qur’an, the miraculous outcome of this is that "he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend." (41:34)
A great advantage of the non-violent method is that, by following it, no part of one’s time is wasted. The opportunities available in any given situation may then be exploited to the fullest extent—as happened after the no-war pact of Hudaybiya. This peace treaty enabled the energies of the believers to be utilized in peaceful constructive activities instead of being dissipated in a futile armed encounter. One great harm done by violent activism is the breaking of social traditions in the launching of militant movements. Conversely, the great benefit that accrues from non-violent activism is that it can be initiated and prolonged with no damage to tradition.
Generally speaking, attempts to improve or replace existing systems by violent activism are counter-productive. One coup d’état is often the signal for a series of coups and counter-coups, none of which benefit the common man. The truly desirable revolution is that which permits gradual and beneficial changes. And this can be achieved only on the basis of non-violence.

Success Through the Non-violence Method

All the great successes of the first phase of Islam as well as the succeeding periods were achieved by non-violent methods. Listed below are some examples of these successes.

Of the 23 year period of prophethood, the initial 13 years were spent by the Prophet in Mecca. The Prophet fully adopted the way of pacifism or non-violence during this time. There were many such issues in Mecca at that time which could have been the subject of clash and confrontation. But, sedulously avoiding all such issues, the Prophet of Islam strictly limited his sphere to peaceful propagation of the word of God. This resulted in Dawah work being performed in full force throughout this period. One of the great gains during these 13 years of dawah work was the entry into the Islamic fold of men of the highest moral caliber who were responsible for forming the history of Islam, for instance, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali, etc.
In Mecca when the Quraysh leaders were set to wage war against the Prophet, even then, instead of opting for the way of reaction and retaliation, what the Prophet did was to secretly migrate to Medina.
Migration, by its very nature, was a clear example of non-violent activism. This peaceful strategy enabled the Prophet and his followers, about two hundred in number, to form a powerful center of Islam in Medina. Had they adopted the path of confrontation instead of peaceful migration, the history of Islam might have been buried right there in Mecca shortly after its inception.

After the emigration, his antagonists took the unilateral decision to wage war against him. Consequently such bloody encounters as those of Badr and Uhud took place. Then the Prophet made a 10-year peace treaty known in history as Sulh al-Hudaybiya, by accepting all the conditions of his opponents. This has been called a ‘clear victory’ in the Qur’an. It is this peace treaty, paving the way for peaceful constructive activities which ultimately made possible the conquest of Mecca and the whole of Arabia.
By the end of the pious caliphate, a bloody encounter took place between the Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayya. This stopped the advance of Islam for a period of ten years. What set this process in motion once again was the voluntary withdrawal of Hasan ibn Ali (d. 50 A.H.) from the battlefield. This was undeniably a practical form of non-violent activism. This peaceful move on the part of Hasan ibn Ali re-opened to Islam the locked doors of progress.
During the last days of the Abbasid caliphate Mongol tribes attacked the Muslim world and right from Samarkand to Aleppo destroyed the entire Muslim world. The history of Islam had apparently come to a standstill. At that moment the spirit of dawah work was born within the Muslims. As a result, the majority of the Mongols converted to Islam. And that miracle took place which has been described by an orientalist in these words: "The religion of Muslims has conquered where their arms had failed."
Islamic history took a crucial turn when, in the years succeeding the pious caliphate, rot had set in the system of the government, and the caliphate had turned into monarchy. At that juncture, many factors emerged which would result in clash and confrontation between the ruler and the ruled. But, following the guidance of the Prophet, the Muslims totally avoided political confrontation. This history beginning with the Umayyad caliphate, continued for several centuries. This was possible because the tabieen (companions of the Prophet’s companions) and their succeeding generations, consisting of traditionalists, jurists, ulema, Sufis and other great religious scholars, all scrupulously avoided any clash or confrontation with the rulers.
It was during this period that peaceful dawah work was started in various countries and the disciplines of hadith, fiqh and other Islamic sciences came into existence on a large scale after a long period of great ideological struggle. All the precious books which adorn our libraries, all the classical literature of Islam are the result of these peaceful activities.

For instance, the hadith as a source of shariah is second only to the Qur’an in Islam. These traditions now exist in the form of printed books. These books are so precious that, without them, it would not have been possible to develop Islam into a complete system as it exists today. During the Umayyads and Abbasids, when the political system had begun to deteriorate, where were these tens of thousands of traditions. All of them existed in the memory of the religious scholars, whose names are mentioned in the books as chains in the link of authorities who have handed this legacy down to us. Had they adopted the principle of violent activism and clashed with the ‘oppressive’ rulers, they would all have been slaughtered by them and the entire legacy of traditions instead of finding a place on the pages of books, would have been buried along with them in the graveyards. It is by the miracle of having adopted non-violence instead of violence that the precious sources of our traditions have survived in book form and, till today, adorn our libraries.

for more info visit:


http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/papers/nonviolence.htm

The Command of War in Islam

It is a fact that certain verses in the Qur’an convey the command to do battle (qital) (22:39). What the special circumstances are which justify the issuance of and compliance with this command we learn from our study of the Qur’an.

The first point to be noted is that aggression or the launching of an offensive by the believers is not totally forbidden. It is permissible, but with certain provisos. We are clearly commanded in the Qur’an: Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not be aggressive. (2:190)
Only defensive war is permitted in Islam. Such a war is one in which aggression is committed by some other party so that the believers have to fight in self-defense. Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Qur’an says: "They were the first to attack you." (9:13)
Furthermore, even in the case of the offensive being launched by an opposing group, the believers are not supposed to retaliate immediately. Rather in the beginning all efforts are to be made to avert war, and only when avoidance has become impossible is battle to be resorted to inevitably in defense.

3. According to the Qur’an there was one form of war which was time- bound strictly in relation to its purpose. This was to put an end to fitna ‘Fight against them until fitna is no more.’ (2:193) In this verse fitna signifies that coercive system which had reached the extremes of religious persecution. In ancient times this coercive political system prevailed all over the world. This absolutism had closed all the doors of progress, both spiritual and material. At that time God commanded the believers to break this coercive system in order to usher in freedom, so that all doors of spiritual and material progress might be opened to man.

This mission was undertaken and brought to a successful conclusion at the internal level within Arabia during the life of the Prophet. Later, during the pious caliphate, the Sasanid and Byzantine empires were dismantled with special divine succor. Consequently, intellectual oppression at the international level was replaced by intellectual freedom.

In this connection those traditions are worth noting which are enshrined in Sahih al-Bukhari. When, after the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, political conflict ensued between Abdullah ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads, Abdullah ibn Umar, the seniormost companion of the Prophet held himself aloof from the battle. People approached him and, quoting the verse of qital-e-fitna, asked him why he was not joining in the battle. Abdullah ibn Umar replied that ‘fitna’ as mentioned in the Qur’an did not refer to political infighting, but rather to the religious coercive system, that had already been put to an end by them. (Fathul Bari, 8/60)

From this we learn that the war against fitna was a war of limited duration, meant to be engaged in only until its specific purpose had been served.

Invoking the Quranic exhortation to do battle against fitna in order to validate acts of war which had quite other aims was improper. This verse could be cited only if the same state of affairs as existed at the time of its revelation, were to prevail once again.

The biographers of the Prophet of Islam have put the number of Ghazwa (battle) at more than 80. This gives the impression that the Prophet of Islam in his 23-year prophetic career waged about four battles in a year. But this impression is entirely baseless. The truth is that the Prophet of Islam in his entire prophetic life, engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as Ghazwa were in actual fact examples of avoidance of war and not instances of involvement in battle.

For instance, in the books of seerah, the incident of Al-Ahzab is called a Ghazwa (battle), whereas the truth is that on this occasion the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Medina with all intentions of waging war, but the Prophet and his companions dug a deep trench between them, thus successfully preventing a battle from taking place. The same is the case with all the other incidents called Ghazwa. The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to get him embroiled in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort to some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation.

There were only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle—Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. But the events tell us that on all these occasions, war had become inevitable, so that the Prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defense. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning from noon and ending with the setting of the sun. Thus it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half. That is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year prophetic career, except for one and a half days.

The Islamic method, being based totally on the principle of non-violence, it is unlawful for believers to initiate hostilities. Except in cases where self-defense has become inevitable, the Qur’an in no circumstance gives permission for violence.