and ultimately self-destructive. His public commitment inspired his sons to refuse compulsory service in the Syrian army, and they paid for their courage by being denied the right to graduate from the University of Damascus. Other prominent individuals who have spoken out in favor of Islamic non-violence include Iranian Ayatollah Mohammad ash-Shirazi, Saudi doctor Khalis Jalabi, Iraqi writer Khalid Kishtainy, and Indian scholar Asghar Ali Engineer. Most have preferred the more active term “civic jihad” to the passive-sounding “non-violence.”
Did any prominent Muslims denounce the atrocities of 9/11/2001 immediately after those events occurred?
Yes, there were many such denunciations, though the American press made virtually no mention of them. Two statements issued within forty-eight hours of the tragic events stand out especially, precisely because they were by individuals whose public positions might make many Americans think they would be prime examples of the last Muslims one might expect to make such statements. The first was from Shaykh Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi, the rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the premier academic institution of traditional Sunni Islamic teaching. Shaykh Tantawi, a conservative cleric by any measure, delivered a weekly sermon in Cairo to an audience of thousands, insisting that God would punish all who attack innocent people. Such attacks, he argued, display only cowardice and stupidity and will result in their perpetrators facing a harsh judgment in the next life.
What about larger-scale, so-called “peace movements” that are more recent?
Again there have been more than a few such contemporary movements. Three stand out and exemplify their presence in various parts of the world. One takes its inspiration from twentieth-century Kurdish/Turkish thinker Said Nursi. His monumental Quran commentary the Treatise (or Epistle) of Light (Risale-i Nur) is the key text for the movement’s nine million followers now spread across the globe. Another arises from the thought of contemporary Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and focuses on developing intercultural connections especially through engagement in education. Members of the organization tend to be highly educated professionals, including physicians, lawyers, and engineers, as well as academics spread across a broad range of disciplines. Another important movement is called the Asian Muslim Action Network (AMAN), whose presence impacts more than eighteen Asian nations through a host of social projects. None of these movements identifies itself explicitly with terms such as “peace-oriented,” “non-violent,” or “pacifist.” By calling themselves “Islamic” they intend to communicate an inherent concern and even active drive toward the peace that that name implies for the vast majority of Muslims. Among the more striking features of these developments are their truly international scope and diversity and the overwhelmingly positive impulse that has given rise to them.
Bawa Muhaiyaddeen was a Sufi shaykh from Sri Lanka who preached peace among Muslims and non-Muslims.
Are there any examples of contemporary Sufi views of war and violence?
A Sri Lankan Sufi named Bawa Muhaiyaddeen (d. 1986), who lived much of his adult life in the United States, is known for his efforts to teach peace to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. His writing establishes a thoroughly positive and irenic tone, facing head on that most intractable of problems, the fate of Jerusalem. After a lengthy and eyeopening chronology of the city’s changing fortunes over the centuries, the author appeals to world leaders to struggle against factionalism and enmity. Bawa bases his pacifist spirituality on the grounds of the rights of all to justice, on faith and the virtues of patience and trust in God, and on God as source of all peace. His treatment of Jihad in general likewise focuses entirely on the inward dimension, the “Greater Struggle” of self-conquest fought with the weapons of patience, gratitude, trust, and praise. In his writings, Bawa makes an idealistic distinction between the wars Muhammad fought and those that modern states wage against one another: the former served the spread of truth, the latter only promote mindless bloodshed. He treats the nasty business of outward warfare by referring to the strictures with which Islamic tradition has sought to limit the practice of justifiable conflict. He emphasizes how the Prophet prayed while others did battle, how he counseled lenience toward captives, and restraint.
What does Bawa Muhaiyaddeen think Islam’s positive role should be?
In Bawa Muhaiyaddeen’s strikingly non-triumphalistic view, Islam’s task is to unify humanity in an inclusivist fashion. He thus considers virtually all scriptures as divine Word (including the Hindu Puranas and Zoroastrian Avesta). People must seek to view the world as God sees it rather than from partisan perspectives. He stands thus at the opposite end of the spectrum from, say, Sayyid Qutb and other recent “radicals,” who have had enough of patience and long-suffering. But Bawa’s efforts to build a community of peace-seekers near Philadelphia provides a wonderful example of one contemporary Muslim spirituality and will offer every reader much to ponder.
Where, in general, do religion and political power come together?
Virtually every religious tradition has had to come to terms with its relationship to civil authority and power. As often as not, the relationship varies at least slightly from one political setting to another. Even in the United States many traditions have shifted their positions historically. Even the standard and seemingly straightforward principle of “separation of church and state” has been reinterpreted in various ways, with prominent religious figures seeking and winning national elected office as high as the U.S. Senate. The situation has historically been still more complex where political rulers have declared one religious tradition the “state creed.” That has often meant hard times for members of faith communities that have not enjoyed official patronage and protection. Popular perception nowadays tends to label Islam as the tradition most likely to take political shape, as though no other has ever done so. But ample data from the history of religion suggests that questions the relationship of temporal to spiritual power have arisen for virtually every major tradition at some time or other.
Are there characteristically Muslim views about the convergence of religion and political power?
Muslims often describe their tradition as a “total way of life,” a comprehensive approach that goes far beyond mere ritual observance or showing up at the mosque once a week. Some believe that such an all-encompassing teaching must ultimately be expressed in political terms, referring to early Muslim community life under the Prophet’s leadership in Medina as the ideal. Throughout history Muslims have experimented with various models for balancing or integrating religious and civil authority. Some have worked well enough, allowing for freedom of religious practice and expression among members of religious minorities under Muslim rule. In fact, the historical record suggests that Muslims have been at least as successful as any other group at administering religiously sponsored regimes fairly and evenhandedly. Muslims in various parts of the world today continue to believe that an Islamic government represents the best hope of justice in a troubled world. But in a world where religious pluralism is increasingly evident, dividing humankind along religious lines seems a less than desirable option. The challenge now, as in the past, is to live by the Quranic dictum “There is no compulsion in religion.”
Is it ever really useful to label conflicts as “religious wars”?
Wars are very seldom fought for purely religious reasons. Communities of faith often develop side-by-side in relative harmony. When problems arise, they are almost always initially political, economic, and social. Then, often enough, those who wish to keep the pot boiling invoke age-old religious differences as though they were the cause of every conflict. They remind their constituents that if they really want to be loyal, they will not rest until some ancient slight to the faith has been set right. Underneath it all is the awareness that wanting to destroy
