The Theological and Linguistic Architecture of Peace (Salam)
The fundamental nature of Islam as a submission to the Divine Will is intrinsically linked to the concept of peace. This connection is not merely incidental but is embedded within the very linguistic structure and core theological nomenclature of the religion. The edifice of Islam, therefore, stands upon a foundation stone that structurally necessitates tranquillity and harmony.
A. Etymological Analysis of the Triliteral Root S-L-M
The Arabic word Islam is derived from the triliteral root S-L-M (س ل م). Academic linguistic analysis confirms that Islam literally translates to "submission" (to the will of God). Crucially, this submission is causatively related to salima, meaning "he was safe," and salam, meaning "peace". This etymological relationship establishes a profound theological principle: true, lasting safety and security—both internal and societal—are achieved only through principled submission to the Divine legal and moral framework. Any action resulting in harm or injustice intrinsically contradicts the objective safety (salama) that Islam is meant to produce.
The derivatives of this root further underscore the centrality of peace. Salam itself denotes protection, completeness, security, and a danger-free existence. Consequently, a person embracing Islam is termed a Muslim—one who submits and enters into this fold of security—or a Momin (faithful). The expectation is that this individual, having attained internal peace through submission, must develop into a "source and fountainhead of peace," extending that security universally, irrespective of color, race, or creed.
B. As-Salam as a Divine Attribute and Spiritual Aspiration
The theological weight placed upon peace is cemented by the attribution of Salam as one of the Divine Names. Allah Almighty is designated in the Holy Qur'an as As-Salam (The Giver of Peace and the Keeper of Faith) (Q 59:24). The identification of the Divine Essence with peace makes harmony a non-negotiable attribute of the faith itself.
Furthermore, the ultimate spiritual objective for believers is framed in terms of eternal security: Dar-us-Salam (The House of Serenity and Tranquillity). This aspiration to achieve the "house of peace" in the hereafter influences daily devotion. This is exemplified by the global Muslim tradition of concluding the five daily prayers by asking Allah Almighty for peace: "O Allah! The Giver and Keeper of peace, keep us alive in peace and admit us into the house of peace (in the life hereafter)" (Muslim V.1, P:218, cited in the original text). This continuous, ritualized aspiration confirms that the pursuit and realization of peace are integral to both the life experience and the eternal reward of the believer.
C. The Definition of a Believer (Momin) as a Source of Security
The authenticity of faith (Iman) is measured explicitly by its social and ethical output. The Prophetic tradition provides a public, verifiable ethical benchmark for the faithful, stating: "The faithful is he, in whom people repose their confidence about their property and life" (Tirmzi V.2, P:90).
This definition establishes a crucial causal relationship: the internal moral alignment achieved through submission must manifest as external societal security. A self-proclaimed Muslim or Momin who generates instability or fails to guarantee the safety of others' lives and property fundamentally refutes this core benchmark. The implication is that any action promoting terror or oppression, regardless of the perpetrator’s claim, is inconsistent with the foundational definition of faith and theological fidelity.
Jurisprudence of Conflict Resolution and Ethical Warfare (Jihad and Qital)
The Islamic ethical framework, or Fiqh, systematically regulates the use of force, prioritizing the sanctity of life and establishing strict constraints on armed engagement. The principles governing conflict demonstrate an intrinsic commitment to proportionality, restraint, and the preservation of non-combatants and the environment, concepts that bear conceptual resemblance to modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
A. The Fundamental Value of Human Life and Non-Aggression
The ethical prohibition against homicide is articulated with powerful universality in the Qur’an. Q 5:32 asserts that the taking of even one human life unjustly is equated with "killing all of humanity". This declaration provides an absolute standard for the protection of life, extending beyond sectarian or national boundaries. The only exception recognized is the judicial administration of capital punishment by a proper and competent court to uphold the rule of law, peace, and security of the society.
Furthermore, the foundational legal maxim in Islamic jurisprudence governing interpersonal conduct is the Prophetic tradition: "Do not cause harm or return harm" (La Darara wa la Dirar). This principle, derived from the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), prohibits both initiating aggression and escalating conflict through reciprocal injury. This mandate to refrain from harming people is deemed a "charity due upon yourself," elevating non-harm to an act of spiritual fulfillment.
Historically, this respect for life was applied even in complex political situations. Despite strong condemnation in the Qur'an for their activities, the leader of the hypocrites, Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, and his followers were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim community. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) even led the funeral prayer for the leader upon his death at the request of his son, showcasing a profound level of tolerance and respect for human life that transcended factional strife.
B. Jihad: The Ethical Hierarchy of Struggle
The concept of Jihad (جِهَاد) is frequently misinterpreted in contemporary discourse. Derived from the Arabic root jahada, meaning "to exert strength and effort," Jihad signifies a "struggle" or "striving" towards a praiseworthy aim. Academic scholarship defines Jihad as the exertion of one's power in Allah’s path, involving the spread of belief and making the Divine word supreme.
The term is traditionally classified into a strict ethical hierarchy:
Jihad al-Akbar (The Greater Jihad): This refers to the personal, moral, and spiritual struggle against one's own passions, impulses, and evil inclinations. This internal struggle is considered the paramount obligation, establishing the supremacy of inner virtue over external confrontation.
Jihad al-Asghar (The Lesser Jihad): This encompasses the external struggle, which is further subdivided:
- Jihad bil Lisan (by the tongue/pen): Spreading the word of Islam through debate and persuasion.
- Jihad bil Yad (by the hand): Choosing to do what is right and combatting injustice through action.
- Jihad bis Saif (Qital fi Sabilillah): Armed fighting in the way of God, or warfare.
Theological placement of Jihad al-Akbar over Jihad al-Asghar inherently prioritizes moral and spiritual improvement over physical conflict. Proponents of peaceful interpretation consistently deduce from this hierarchy that violence (Qital) is the most restrictive form of Jihad and holds the least importance relative to spiritual and moral attainment.
C. Classical Constraints on Warfare and Civilian Protection
Armed conflict (Qital) is not an open-ended concept but is bound by rigorous legal and ethical constraints developed in early Islamic jurisprudence. This underscores the structural limitation of war as an exceptional act of state defense, not a methodology for aggressive expansion or theological coercion.
The foremost legal constraint is the requirement of state authority. Classical Islamic law dictates that Qital is a collective duty falling upon the state and must be declared by the ruler or head of state. This legal mandate explicitly invalidates any self-appointed individual or non-state group from unilaterally declaring or prosecuting armed conflict in the name of the faith.
Furthermore, classical rulings established clear criteria for conduct during hostilities, exhibiting an early commitment to non-combatant immunity. Prohibitions existed against targeting those who had not taken up arms, including women, children, the elderly, those in religious seclusion, and those dedicated to their faith.
Crucially, Islamic military jurisprudence extended ethical protections to the living environment and civilian infrastructure. Early jurists prohibited actions causing systemic environmental harm during wartime, such as cutting down trees, burning orchards and residential areas, destroying agricultural produce, killing animals, and poisoning water sources. For instance, while some jurists permitted tactics to force surrender, such as cutting off water supply to fortifications, the majority rationale emphasized avoiding unlawful loss of life and damage to civilian objects, including the natural environment. These 7th and 8th-century stipulations reflect a profound commitment to preservation that aligns conceptually with the proportionality and protection of civilian objects mandated by modern IHL. This framework confirms that warfare must be limited to repelling an immediate threat and cannot justify wanton destruction or ecological devastation.
The Historical Manifestation of Tolerance, Dialogue, and Forgiveness
The theological commitment to peace found in the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition was translated into tangible political and social systems characterized by diplomacy, institutionalized tolerance, and remarkable acts of clemency.
A. Institutionalizing Tolerance: The Rights of Protected Minorities
Islam was revealed in an environment shared by other monotheistic faiths. From the beginning, Islam officially granted a legal status—known as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), including Jews and Christians—to followers of revealed scriptures. This acknowledgment extended to a legal framework that ensured protection and rights for these communities.
The religious freedom of non-Muslims is a foundational principle, reinforced by the Qur’anic command: "And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best" (Q 29:46). Most notably, the principle of non-compulsion in religion is asserted: "And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" (Q 10:99). This mandate against coercion confirms that belief must stem from free will.
Furthermore, historical treaties demonstrated an active institutionalized obligation for security. Agreements, such as the treaty with the Christians of Najran, stipulated that Christians were exempt from participating in or contributing to Muslim military efforts. Instead, the Muslims were explicitly charged with the duty of protecting their non-Muslim brethren with the same vigor used to defend themselves. This provision illustrates that minority rights were not merely tolerated but were actively and financially guaranteed by the Muslim state, elevating citizenship security over sectarian differences.
B. Diplomatic Precedents and Peacemaking Initiatives
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) established a clear trajectory of seeking peaceful resolution through strategic diplomacy and treaty-making, often prioritizing negotiation over conflict. Key examples include:
- The Agreement of Hilf-al-Fudul (The League of the Virtuous): A pact dating from before the Prophet's mission, which he later championed, emphasizing justice and mutual protection.
- The Covenant of Medina (Misaq-e-Madina): An agreement establishing the first Islamic city-state where various tribes and faiths (including Jews) could coexist peacefully under a shared framework of political identity and mutual defense.
- The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: A strategically difficult treaty that prioritized a decade of peace over an immediate, potentially devastating conflict.
These engagements consistently promoted religious freedom, advanced interfaith harmony, and encouraged unity, such as the reconciliation of the long-warring Aws and Khazraj tribes. This history documents the Prophet’s role not merely as a religious figure but as a statesman who successfully navigated conflict through proactive diplomatic engagement.
C. The Conquest of Mecca: Victory Over Self and Unprecedented Mercy
The Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) conduct during the Conquest of Mecca (630 CE) remains an unparalleled demonstration of mercy in military history. Following years of persecution and warfare initiated by the Quraysh, the Prophet entered his native city not with vengeance, but with overwhelming forgiveness.
The British orientalist Stanley Lane-Poole, in The Speeches and Table Talk of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, attested to the extraordinary nature of this event, observing: "The day of Muhammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself". He further noted that the Prophet "freely forgave the Quraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him, and he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Makkah".
Lane-Poole's account stresses the remarkable discipline of the entering army: "The army followed his example and entered quietly and peaceably. No house was robbed, no woman insulted… It was thus that Muhammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry comparable to this one". This historical instance demonstrates that mercy and restraint were not accidental but were deliberate, calculated ethical and political maneuvers that prioritized long-term reconciliation over punitive retribution.
D. The Historical Critique of Conquest Cruelty
The ethical singularity of the Prophet’s conduct at Mecca is further highlighted by external historians drawing comparisons with the acts of cruelty committed in the name of other faiths. Arthur Gilman, an American writer, in his work The Saracens, explicitly contrasted the Prophet’s mercy with instances of brutality conducted by those acting under the banner of Christianity. Gilman meticulously compared the bloodless entry into Mecca (630 CE), where amnesty was granted , with events such as the atrocities committed by the Crusaders who, in 1099, "put seventy thousand Muslims, men, women and helpless children to death when Jerusalem fell into their hands". He also contrasted it with the actions of the English army, "also fighting under the Cross," which, in 1874, "burned an African capital" during a war on the Gold Coast. Gilman concluded that, in comparison to these historical acts of imperial cruelty, Muhammad's victory was "in very truth one of religion and not of politics". The Prophet rejected tokens of personal homage and declined regal authority, affirming his role as a spiritual and ethical guide rather than a temporal conqueror driven by territorial ambition. This comparative analysis underscores how the Prophet’s restraint—a general amnesty and a bloodless entry—stands as a profound ethical and political maneuver, contrasting sharply with military victories driven by punitive retribution and imperial cruelty.
Geopolitical Narratives, Extremism, and the Distortion of Islam
Despite the foundational principles of peace and the historical precedents of tolerance, Islam frequently finds itself subjected to intensive public scrutiny and distorted media representation, particularly following major acts of global terrorism. This distortion often flows from geopolitical anxiety rather than theological reality.
A. Deconstructing the "Islamic Threat" Narrative
The aggressive campaign of propaganda against Islam, particularly post-September 11 events, is often not motivated by hatred against the religion per se, but by "fears and apprehensions regarding Islamic revival as a political power". Western security analysts and policymakers frequently employ policies born of "an exaggerated fear of a seemingly monolithic force".
This pervasive anxiety results in a critical failure to differentiate nuances within Muslim political consciousness. Analysts often conflate Islamic Revivalism, an internal movement seeking socio-religious renewal within the community, with Islamic Fundamentalism, a reactive, often militant ideology responding to perceived external threats. By treating these diverse movements as a single existential threat, Western policy often defaults to a simplistic and politically convenient "good Muslim" (secular, moderate, pro-American) versus "bad Muslim" (militant, backward, anti-American) dichotomy.
This fear-driven policy has tangible consequences, leading Western governments to violate their own democratic values by supporting tyrannical dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries, under the guise of guarding "National Interest". Such unjust policies often increase resentment, reaction, and instability, inadvertently fueling the very extremism they claim to combat.
B. Media and the Perpetuation of Orientalist Stereotypes
The distortion of Islam is systematically reinforced by contemporary media. Modern coverage often relies on the resurgence of classical Orientalist tropes, wherein Muslims and Arabs are positioned as the exotic, uncivilized, and "dangerous other". This framework contributes to the presumption that Islam itself is "inherently violent, alien, and unassimilable".
A significant problem lies in the symbiotic relationship between media and terrorism coverage. Media organizations have a financial incentive to sensationalize terrorism, as coverage boosts viewership and profits. This leads to irresponsible reporting where the actions of extremist groups are generalized to the entire faith. When an attack occurs, mainstream media outlets are quick to associate destruction with terms such as "Islamist extremists," "Muslim terrorists," and "religious fundamentalists," directly linking the entire religion to violence and threat.
This concentrated focus on "Islamist extremism" systematically distorts the public's perception of security threats. The result is a skewed public debate that emphasizes "Islamist extremism" while often minimizing or contextualizing other ideological forms of terrorism, such as those propagated by the extreme right. This biased representation contributes significantly to the prevalence of Islamophobia and prejudices globally.
C. The Juridical and Theological Rejection of Extremism
The assertion that a true Muslim could commit horrendous acts of violence is logically and theologically impossible, as such actions constitute a negation of the religion's true spirit. Terrorism is not an outgrowth of classical Islamic law but a profound deviation from it, primarily because terrorist groups usurp the authority reserved for the state and violate the strictest rules of warfare.
Extremist groups violate established Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) by claiming the right to unilaterally declare Jihad (Qital), which is exclusively a collective duty belonging to the head of state. Moreover, they fundamentally reject classical Islamic law's regulations regarding proportionality, the legitimate means of warfare, and the inviolable rule that innocent civilians must not be targeted. Their actions are thus judged by mainstream scholarship as heresy, not legitimate religious practice.
Consequently, major Islamic institutions worldwide have issued unequivocal condemnations. Following 9/11, scholars have utilized the religion’s internal legal standards to delegitimize terrorist violence. For example, the influential Islamic Seminary Darul-Uloom Deoband issued a major Fatwa against terrorism, categorically declaring violence to be un-Islamic. Prominent Muslim figures have stated explicitly that perpetrators of suicide bombings "become heroes of hellfire," and their acts must never be considered jihad. Mainstream organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) consistently condemn "all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state," promoting dialogue and tolerance as core values. These authoritative pronouncements confirm that terrorist ideology operates outside the boundaries of normative Islamic theology and law.
Reaffirming the Foundational Role of Peace and Future Recommendations
The foundational texts of Islam establish a theological and legal structure built upon Salam (peace and security). The faith's name, its highest Divine attribute, and the ethical definition of its followers all converge on the mandatory establishment of universal security and trust. Islamic jurisprudence rigorously protects life (Q 5:32) and the environment, ensuring that warfare (Qital) is constrained to an exceptional, defensive, and proportional necessity managed by the state. Historical accounts, validated by external scholars, confirm this commitment through precedents of state tolerance, diplomacy, and profound mercy, such as the Conquest of Mecca.
A. The Mandate for Proactive Peace: Interfaith Dialogue (Al-Hiwar)
The theological commitment to tolerance requires proactive engagement. The Qur'an and Sunnah guide Muslims to maintain cordial relations, promote peace, tolerance, and respect for other religions. This is achieved through interfaith dialogue, known in Arabic as Al-Hiwar.
Dialogue serves a critical, dual purpose: it drives out misconceptions and builds bridges of understanding and social cohesion. By engaging with individuals from diverse religious backgrounds, Muslims can share their faith, clarify misunderstandings, and collaboratively address common global challenges such as poverty, injustice, and environmental degradation, transcending religious boundaries for the common good of humanity.
B. Recommendations for a Realistic Approach
A realistic approach to mitigating global conflict demands a move away from prejudicial narratives toward objective analysis. This necessitates several critical shifts:
- Policy Nuance: Policymakers must recognize the heterogeneity within the global Muslim community (Ummah) and abandon the damaging simplification of the 'Good Muslim/Bad Muslim' dichotomy. Policies must differentiate between legitimate religious and political revival movements and violent extremist fringe groups, thereby reducing the destabilizing effects of interventionism driven by fear.
- Media Accountability: Responsible journalism is required to accurately reflect the overwhelming global scholarly consensus against terrorism, which has been legally and theologically denounced by major institutions. Dismantling prejudiced depictions is essential to reducing Islamophobia and fostering genuine security.
- Restoration of Values: The core ethical mandate of Islam must be universally reaffirmed: violence against innocents is a direct negation of the foundational spirit of the faith. The ultimate measure of religious adherence lies in the believer's capacity to be a source of security, upholding the principle that life may be worth living in this world.
Comments
Post a Comment