Key Words: islam, peace, nonviolence, jihad (sacred struggle), reconciliation (Sulha), Abdul Ghaffir Khan, just war.

1- Introduction

Although the Western paradigm in peace studies has been based on modernization, secularization, democratization, and rational choice, we have witnessed a resurrection and revival of religious thoughts and actions in both conflict and peace studies. There have increasingly come more insights and practical lessons from religion and theological studies into peace studies and conflict resolution. Most scholars focus on the role of the religion in peace-building, reconciliation, and peace-making. Also, religious aspects, insights, and praxis of the conflict have increasingly played an important role in the understanding of the conflicts in post-Cold War world. In other words, religion has been a major contributor to war, bloodshed, hatred, and intolerance. Yet, religion has provided the values of empathy, nonviolence, sanctity of life, inferiority, and compassion.

With the introduction of the Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" thesis, some scholars believe that civilizations-not individuals or states- become the most significant unit of analysis. They conclude that the international system will move towards the clash of civilizations. In this analysis, Islamic civilization emerges as a potential threat to "Western interests, values, and power" in a New World order (Huntington, 1993, p.45). However, it is misleading to speak of an Islamic "civilization" as a monolithic and holistic force in international relations. It is important to emphasize that Islamic thought is based on unity as well as diversity that lead to different approaches and schools in Islamic social sciences.

The contemporary resurgence of Islamic social sciences has focused our attention on the traditions of peace, war, and nonviolence in Islamic political thought and culture. Unfortunately, the Islamic contributions to peace and conflict studies are not in proportion to Islam’s potential as a source of nonviolent social change and as a force that could influence the behavior of states in the international system. In this paper, I would like to present Islam as a nonviolent and peaceful tradition of social change in international conflict.

This paper will examine the Islamic contributions in the areas of peace, war, nonviolence, and social change. My intention is to present the range of ideas that characterize both historical and contemporary Islamic thought in terms of peace, war and nonviolence, to show that there is a need for a reinterpretation and redefinition of the Islamic medieval theory and for the application of the Islamic concepts to contemporary events. Although the Islamic political thought has been used for undermining the state’s sovereignty and accomplishing the violent social change by fundamentalists, the modernist school has challenged both traditionalists and fundamentalists in order to create more contemporary interpretations of the Islamic understanding of war, peace, and nonviolence.

There are myriad of questions about war and peace in Islamic thought and philosophy. How does an Islamic perspective on life help us interpret and respond to international conflict? What is the definition of "Islamic peace paradigm" and how is Islam related to nonviolence? What is the definition of jihad? Can jihad be explained as an act of nonviolence despite the fact that most of the Western world is convinced that jihad is a state of war, a holy war? Regardless of the nonviolent components, what is the place of violence in Islam? Can Islam be defined as a connecting force between the punishing God of Judaism and turn the other cheek mentality of Christianity? What are the methods that can be used in Islamic nonviolent struggle? How can the Islamic concepts such as jihad (sacred struggle), sabr (patience), adl (justice), umma (community), sulha (reconciliation) and so on., contribute to the Islamic peace paradigm? What would be the contribution of Islam into the peace-building efforts within Muslim societies and globally?

In the first part of the paper, I will explain the Islamic peace paradigm with the emphasis on the Islamic understandings about peace, war, and nonviolence. I will first give a short history of Islam. Second, I will attempt to explain the Islamic conceptions of war, focusing on especially the idea of jihad (sacred struggle). In the next section, I will closely look at Islam as a religion of peace and nonviolence. I will focus on the Islamic concepts related to peace such as sabr (patience), hijra (exodus), diversity, and tolerance. The following section will examine how nonviolent action is the rule rather than exception in the Islamic peace paradigm and what the Islamic nonviolent movements are such as Abdul Ghaffir Khan in Afghanistan, Intifada in Palestine, and Kosovo National Movement during 1990s. This paper will support the idea that the nonviolence struggle is not only the primary tool for jihad, but also the essence of the Islamic faith. In the conclusion of this part, I will emphasize the importance role of peace and nonviolence in the Islamic ethics, tradition, and social science.

There are two essential sources for any debate about Islamic war and peace, the Qur’an and the Hadith (the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad). Together they provide the sources for the Islamic Shari’a (the constitution of Islam). Basically, quotations from the Qur’an serve as the point of departure for discussions of Islamic war and peace. The common foundations for all Islamic concepts of war and peace are based on the traditionalists’ interpretations and discourse. All Islamic scholars believe that the Qur’an and the Hadith are open to interpretation (tafsir) and re-interpretation (ijtihad and qiyas). The classical schools of Islamic thought mostly deal with the legalistic and judicial issues. In Sunni Islam, there are two principles of the Islamic traditionalists: the literal interpretation of the Qur’an and predeterminism. In contrary to the traditionalists, the modernists and fundamentalists resort to the instruments of the earliest Muslim jurists: ijtihad (legal judgement based on human reasoning), qiyas (legal interpretation based on analogy), ijma (consensus of the jurists), the principles of equity and public interest (maslaha). Also, the modernists believe that human beings have moral responsibility for his/her own fate.

Although there is only a doctrinal division between the Sunnis and Shias, this paper will focus on the Sunni tradition of the Islamic ethics for war, peace, and nonviolence. Also, it should be emphasized that the conceptualization of the Islamic concepts is just a theoretical construct and is not reflected in the actual real life situation. Many works of the Islamic scholars should be studied in the context of their time and space.

The Qur’an contains some general provisions on the initiation of hostilities, the grounds for war, conduct of war, the termination of war, and the general nature of treaties. These also created the foundations of Islamic international law (siyar) (Hashmi, 1998, p.221). According the traditionalist scholars, the world was separated into two spheres: the land or abode of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the land or abode of war (dar-al harb). Dar-al Islam covered any territory where Islamic law was held and where the lives of Muslims were secure. It could also have referred to any country ruled by a Muslim. Non-Muslims were under the protection of the Muslim state. They should have submitted Islam either by conversion or by accepting the status of a religion minority (dhimmi). If they were the People of the Book-Christians, Jews, Sabeans, and Zoroastrians- (ehl al-kitab), they can have lived peacefully unless if they didn’t accept the Muslim rule and the payment of poll tax (jizya). Idolaters were not tolerated in theory, but in practice they lived peacefully. Dar-al harb was territory not under Muslim rule. Theoretically, dar-al Islam and dar-al harb were constantly in a state of war and there was no peace between them. (Ibid, p.l221, Salmi, et.al., 1998, pp.72-73). Today, some scholars introduce another term, the land of neutrality (dar al-sulh or dar al-hiyad) where there is a secular state that is not inimical to Islam and does not persecute the Muslims. Dar al-sulh refers to the territories where there is no Islamic governance, but where there is a state of peace between the two domains based on treaties, alliances, and cooperation. Also, this situation is permitted when Muslim power is weak and a "temporary peace" (hudna) is preferred. (Tibi, 1996, p.130, Muqtedar Khan, 1997, p.182, Salmi, et.al., 1998, p.74).

The just war tradition in the West distinguishes between two notions: the justification of the war as a last resort (jus in bellum), and the limitations of the conduct of the war (jus in bello). The jus in bellum requires a right authority to initiate force, a justifying cause, and a right intention toward the enemy. The jus in bello set limits on who might legitimately be attacked (the idea of noncombatant immunity) and the means that could be legitimately employed (the principle of proportionality) (Johnson, 1997, p.43).

The Western notion of the just war (jus in bellum and jus in bello) can be applied to Islamic notions of jihad (sacred struggle) and qital (fighting). The word "jihad" appears thirty-six times in the Qur’an, whereas the term qital refers to the practice of warfare. There are four types of jihad: jihad with the heart (faith), the tongue (speech), the hand (good deeds), and the sword (holy war). For traditionalists, jihad is a sacred struggle to establish an Islamic rule by means other than self-discipline, persuasion, and example. They believe that jihad as a defensive military action is a collective duty of the Muslim community and jihad can be carried out by the khalifah or imam, the religious and political leader of the Islamic community. The Khalifah or imam should decide when to initiate such fighting, when to avoid it, and when to bring it to an end (Ibid, p.62). Also, some traditionalists claim that any war against unbelievers is morally justified. In Islamic sense, when the Muslims wage a war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, the opening of the world through the use of force); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war (idwan) (Tibi, 1996, p.131).

The traditionalists distinguish four types of war. The first type is called "illegitimate wars" that consist of squirmeshes between rival families or neighboring tribes and the desire for plunder among "savage peoples". The legitimate wars have two types: jihad and wars to suppress internal rebellion. The jihad has two components. The first is literal war, fighting or battle (qital), which is a last resort for the small jihad (armed jihad). Second, it is metaphorical: war as a permanent condition between the Muslims and non-believers. The Qur’an distinguishes between defensive war (small jihad or qital), and aggressive and offensive war (idwan). The Qur’an specifically forbids aggression, but it orders fight against aggressors: "Fight for the sake of Allah (God) against those who fight against you but do not be violent because Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190) (Ibid, p.131).

As another classification, scholars make an effort to distinguish between wars in terms of motivations and objectives as good and bad wars. The ‘good’ wars have the purposes of conquest called as futuh, "openings" (that is, God helped the believers ‘open’ or conquer a given territory for the imposition of divine law and Islamic rule). On the other hand, the ‘bad’ wars called "fitan, "temptations" that can create the instability in Islamic community (umma), obscure solidarity among Muslims, and destroy the Islamic rule in a Muslim state.

In summary, the classical traditionalists are in agreement that fighting or waging war is permissible when there is a threat to the umma, and when the hostilities were directed against polytheists, idolaters, and the "enemies of Islam". This kind of jihad or qital is defined as "defensive struggle or jihad", that is, as war undertaken strictly to safeguard Muslim lives and property from external aggression. Thus, the Muslims may wage war for self-defense. On the other hand, war between the Muslim parties is classified a separate category: fitna. Because intra-Muslim conflicts are viewed as internal strife, they should be resolved quickly by the ruling authorities. Therefore, the Islamic arbitration (tahkim) has played an important role during the Islamic history to solve intra- as well as inter-Muslim conflicts. But, some scholars believe that the armed struggle and fighting is permissible if there are Muslims who are apostates, dissenters, rebels, and simple bandits, and so on, who deny Islamic faith and disturb the Pax Islamica (Johnson, 1997, p.67).

On the other hand, some scholars believe that jihad is equalivant of the just war in the West. The term jihad is used for the reasons of the assassination of Anwar al-Sadat, the war against Israel, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, the Bosnian War, and so on. For example, in the Gulf War Iraqi Leader Saddam Hussein termed the struggle a jihad against the forces of the West, while the Saudi ulama (assembly of clergy) declared a jihad against Saddam. Therefore, the explanation and understanding of the Islamic concepts may be helpful to bring peace, stability and justice to deep-rooted and protracted conflicts in the Islamic world. In short, there are four requirements for the use of force in the quest for peace in Islam (Kelsay, 1993, p.35):

The modernist approach basically rejects the traditionalist interpretations of the Islamic concepts about war and peace and emphasizes the reinterpretations of these concepts in terms of non-violence and peaceful resolution of the conflicts. For example, Fazlur Rahman argues that the Qur’anic message should not be seen as a series of legal pronouncements, but as a moral code on which a legal system can be constructed. He rejects the idea that the Qur’an is a lawbook and sees it as the religious source of the law (Rahman, 1980, p.47). Similarly, the Islamic revival can be observed among the fundamentalist thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb, Abu al-Ala Mahdudi, and Hassan Al-Banna. They are concerned about the malaise afflicting Islamic civilization. Like the modernists, they also see ijtihad as a necessary instrument for rethinking Islam. However, they conclude that their reinterpretation aims not to generate a moral code or an ethical framework, but to confirm the divine law and the "authentic" message of the Qur’an.

The modernists point out that the term dar al-harb is not mentioned in the Qur’an and the categorization of the world into the two spheres have no Qur’anic basis. They believe that this theory is only the reflection of the historical circumstances in medieval time and it cannot be applied in modern times (al-Ghunaimi, 1968, p.104). On the other hand, the fundamentalists introduce a new term: dar al-nifaq (the land of hypocrisy). They argue that dar al-harb is a state which active oppression, corruption, and injustice are found even in a Muslim state. Because the Shari’a is today enforced in only a few Muslim states and Muslim rulers have allied themselves with the West, there has been a revolutionary struggle going on between the powerful and the oppressed people within the Islamic community (umma). Therefore, there is a need for armed jihad against the Muslim rulers and the West. (Hashmi, 1998, p.227).

Today there are two contrary positions on the Islamic notions of war and peace among the modernists and fundamentalists. As a representative of the modernist school, the Sunni Islamic scholars, especially al-Azhar University, produce the notion of jihad that discourages the use of force and emphasizes the non-violent means for conflict resolution in the realist international system. In contrast to this peaceful interpretation of Islamic war and peace, Islamic fundamentalists have focused on the armed jihad in the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb environment.

According to the Al-Azhar interpretation, there are different kinds of jihad. They distinguish "armed jihad" or "low jihad" (al-masallah) from the high jihad that means everyday jihad against ignorance, jihad against poverty, jihad against illness and disease…The search for knowledge is the highest level of jihad. Therefore, the call to Islam (dawa) can be pursued without fighting (qital). Earlier Meccan verses are quoted again and again in an effort to separate the call to Islam (dawa) from any notion of qital or armed jihad. In the Qur’an: "Had Allah (God) wanted, all people of the earth would have believed in Him, would you then dare to force faith upon them? (10:99). The modernist scholars believe that in the modern age, communication networks offer a much better mean than armed conflicts for the pursuit of the dawa. Also, they support the idea of creating treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, they took the Treaty of Hudaybiya between the Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe as a model for the contemporary issues. They conclude from this precedence that an armistice (hudna) can be valid for a period of no more than ten years between the Muslims and non-Muslims.

Unlike the modernists, the fundamentalists are inclined to the use Islamic texts in support of their view about jihad. For example, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Banna concludes that the jihad is an "obligation of every Muslim" (Tibi, 1996, p.137). For them, Jihad and qital both have same meaning: ‘the use of force’. It can be pursued against existing regimes as a resistance or against unbelievers as a waging war. In contrast to traditionalists, who distinguish between the use of force for just cause and wars of aggression or unjust wars (idwan), fundamentalists apply the word jihad indiscriminately to any use of force, whether against unbelievers or against Muslims who use their power for the oppression and injustice. They quote verses from the Qur’an as: "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it" (2:216). Or as, "If you should die or be slain in the cause of Allah, his mercy will surely be better than all the riches you amass" (3:158). Similarly, another fundamentalist authority, Sayyid Qutb, indicates that war against "unbelivers" is a religious duty for Muslims. For him, modernity is a new form of jahilliyya (the pre-Islamic age of ignorance). Therefore, there is a battle against the enemy of believers and the international society of ignorance (Ibid, p.139). It is clear that for fundamentalists, peace is possible only under the banner of Islam. Non-Muslims should be permitted to live only as members of protected minorities (dhimmis) under Islamic rule. In all other cases, war against unbelievers is a religious duty of Muslims. They quote the Qur’an: "Fight against the unbelievers in their entirety as they fight against you in your entirety" (9:36). Although, the fundamentalists share the view of traditionalists in that they see war as a last resort for the defense of Muslim lands, they also add offensive component to the armed jihad.

Jihad, like just war, is conceived as means to outline the legitimate reasons for war to reach peace. However, Islam sees the peaceful inter-societal relations by obeying the divine law. This divine law is propagated by peaceful means if possible or by violent means if necessary. No war is jihad unless it is undertaken with right intent and as a last resort and declared by right authority. Most Muslims today renounce to call the Islam by force and limit jihad to self-defense. Even some scholars believe that nonviolent jihad is possible and necessary in the contemporary world.

In Islamic tradition, it is hard to point out a solid picture of the concepts of war, peace, and nonviolence. The basic controversy is between the Qur’anic "verses of peace" and "verses of the sword". In the Qur’an: If they incline toward peace, incline toward it, and trust in God; verily. He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing" (8:61). However, in other part of the Qur’an we encounter the following precepts: "And so, when the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place" (9:5); and

"Fight against those who- despite having been given revelation before- do not believe in God nor in the last day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing hand, having been subdued". (9:29).

The Qur’an emphasizes that peace is a basic Islamic value. The value of peace manifests itself in the messages of the Qur’an. It treats peace the desired way as well as a value or reward for righteousness. The Qur’an describes Islam as the abode of peace: "And Allah summons to the abode of peace, and leads whom He wills to the straight path" (10:1). Indeed the world Islam, which means submission, is a derivative of the word salaam meaning peace. Islam is peace with God, peace with man, and peace with one’s own self. Moreover, the Muslim greeting consists of the word salaam (peace). Muslims greet each other by wishing and/or praying for peace for each other- Assalamu Alaykum. (May Peace be upon you)! It is a practice based on the injunctions of the Qur’an. The Qur’an states that the greeting of those who are righteous and have been admitted to the heavens is "Peace!" (14:23).

There are other concepts in consonance with peace. For instance, the Qur’an attaches great importance to patience (sabr). Patience implies reaction, whereas impatience implies a violent response. The word sabr (patience) exactly express the notion of nonviolence as it is understood in modern times. It has been pointed out that the incident of Hijra (exodus) is a nonviolent act which avoids conflict. The Hijra (exodus) is an example of the withdrawal and non-cooperation as protest and the practice of escaping from repression. Moreover, throughout his life, the Prophet Muhammad never separated from the path of peace, and nonviolent struggle except when God (Allah) ordered him to engage in war on specific occasions- Badr, Uhud, and Hunayn. The Qur’an is a strong advocate of peace but permits Muslims to fight to protect their faith, their freedom, and their lands, and their property. When means of peaceful change are pursued, violence is used as the last resort. The Qur’an forbids Muslims from initiating aggression or causing fitna (mischief, rioting), on earth and exhorts them to make peace with their enemies if they are inclined towards peace.

Second, the Islamic tradition connects peace with justice and peace should help the mankind to create justice in the world. Peace, therefore, becomes a means to create a just social order. In this sense, justice is the goal of life and peace is the form of justice. The personal and the collective struggle to build justice on earth is the essence of jihad. The objective of war, therefore, is neither to propagate Islam, nor is it to gain territory for the Islamic state. Rather, the war aims to establish and assure justice and to annihilate oppression and tyranny. Peace in Islam does not mean the absence of war, but the absence of oppression and tyranny. Islam considers that perpetual peace can only be attained when justice prevails. Islam, therefore, allows war against regimes that prevent people from choosing their ideals and practicing their beliefs (Safi, 1996, p.43).

Islam also stresses the importance of positive peace (the absence of structural violence). It is responsibility of the individuals as well as the state to provide the distributive justice and social welfare. This principle has created one of the five "pillars of faith" in Islam. It is the duty of the Muslims to pay a tax on surplus wealth (zakat) to the society and the state for the improvement of the conditions of the poorest members in the society.

In the 23 year of prophethood, the Prophet spent the initial 13 years in Mecca. The Prophet fully adopted the way of active pacifism or nonviolence during this time. There were many such issues in Mecca at that time which could have developed into confrontation and violence. But, the Prophet Muhammad strictly limited his sphere to peaceful propagation of the word of God. This resulted in the call to Islam (dawa) that is performed by peaceful means. Even when in Mecca the Quraysh tribe leaders were set to wage war against the Prophet, the Prophet consciously selected the Hijra (exodus) to Medina instead of reaction and retaliation. Hijra (Migration) was a clear example of nonviolent activism. After the migration, his antagonists again took the unilateral decision to wage war against him, God ordered him to armed jihad and there were four bloody wars in Arabian Peninsula. After the wars, the Prophet still preferred the peace against war and he signed a ten-years peace treaty known as Sulh al-Hudaybiya, and accepted all the conditions of his opponents (Wahiddudin Khan, 1997, p.3).

Following the Hijra (exodus) of the Islamic Prophet and his supporters in 622, the first Islamic community (umma) was established in Medina. The relations between this first Islamic state and the surrounding tribes have to be defined in terms of gradual nonviolence to violence. All Qur’anic verses revealed between 622 and 632 (the Medinan period) are the expression of the non-violent and/or violent struggle against the surrounding enemies. Thus, there are important differences in teachings on violence and nonviolence between the Meccan and Medinan parts of the Qur’an and Islamic history.

The Meccan period was totally based on nonviolent resistance and the virtues of patience (sabr), and steadfastness. In the Medinan period, Muslims established the first Islamic state and community (umma), and jihad moved from the nonviolent resistance to an armed struggle. During the Meccan period, the Qur’an has mostly dealt with the spiritual issues and ordered the jihad with the heart and the mouth. Also, during this period, the Prophet showed no inclination toward the use of force in any form, even for self-defense. He followed a policy described as nonviolent resistance in spite of escalating physical attacks directed at his followers and at him personally. The Prophet insisted that the use of force was a last resort. He even ordered the most vulnerable Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia (Ethopia). In the Meccan period, the Prophet’s practices are defined as active nonviolent resistance and open defiance of pagan persecution (Hashmi, 1996,p.153). In Medina, the Qur’an -rooted in its historical context- provided the precepts to jihad in the narrow meaning of qital as military fighting. Clearly, jihad in the thirteen years period of the Prophet’s life meant nonviolent resistance and there are many lessons to be learned from the Prophet’s decisions during these years.

One of these lessons is about the conducting a war. This guidance that contains how Muslims are to conduct themselves in war, is similar to the Western concept: jus in bello. Because the goal of jihad is the call to Islam, not territorial conquest or plunder, the Qur’an and the Prophet provide the basis for jus in bello. Jihad, like just war, lists strict limitations on the conduct of war and demands that proportionality and discrimination are two main principles in Islamic conceptions of war. The principle of proportionality implies that inhumane weapons in the battlefield are restricted. The principle of discrimination suggests that the parties in a conflict should discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. To quote the Qur’an: "And fight God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not transgress limits, for God loves not the transgressors" (2:190). Also, the first caliph, the successor of the Prophet, Abu Bakr enumerated the "ten commands" about the conduct of war:

The early traditionalist and juristic literature contains several examples of commands against killing women, children, and other non-combatants; similarly it hinders attacks on the enemy without first inviting them to embrace Islam, unintended affects and deaths against non-combatants (the modern term of collateral damage). Islam does not tolerate indiscriminate methods such as terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction. Nor it allows the destruction of God’s creations- human lives, trees, animals, and the environment. For example, the use of napalm is unacceptable, as are explosions in department stores, hijacking, killing hostages in any means of transportation, and bombing civilian targets (Satha-Anand, 1990, p.31).

One of the Islamic ideas about peace is related to Islamic universalism and Muslim solidarity. Because the Muslims constitute a political community (umma), modernist thinkers suggest that there is some degree of transnational cooperation among Muslims. Although they accept the idea that there may be territorial states in international system, it is still be possible to create a "Muslim League of Nations" that would be helpful to establish a peaceful co-existence between Islamic states. The existence of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that consist of fifty states and other multinational Islamic organizations is an example of the Islamic universality and solidarity.

Another idea in Islamic tradition about peace is tolerance and diversity. Although Islam emphasizes the importance of the order, similarities, and solidarity within the Muslims, it also advocates diversity and tolerance. In the earlier Meccan verses, the question of faith was decided by the right of free choice: "To you your religion and to me mine." (109). Even though Muhammad failed to convert pagan Meccans, Jews and Christians into Islam, the following verses were sent: "If it had been your Lord’s will, they would have all believed, all who are on earth. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe?" (10:99). However, this attitude shifted towards more of an intolerant and exclusivist discourse in the Medina period where the Qur’an gave permission to fight against non-Muslims, and even ordered not to take Jews and Christians (5:51) as allies or protectors. Some scholars argue that the Qur’an emphasizes the separate character of the Muslim community and distinguishes pagan Meccans, Jews, and Christians in both the Meccan and Medinan periods. But the Medinan chapters also contain verses about toleration: "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error" (2:256). Also, the Prophet himself has worked to sow the seeds of tolerance between Muslims and non-Muslims. In one instance, the Prophet Muhammad found some scrolls of the Torah among the things that the Muslims brought to him and he ordered that they should be returned to the Jews. In another instance, the Prophet was sitting when a Jewish funeral passed by. He stood up and his companions followed his example. He said: "Is it not a human soul? If you ever see a funeral, stand up." (Abu-Laila, 1991, p.66).

Throughout the human history, violence has been seen as the only effective means of action in deep-rooted and protracted conflict situations. However, there is another unwritten side in human history and that is nonviolent technique of struggle. In his outstanding book, Gene Sharp indicates the basis of nonviolence: "It is the belief that the exercise of power depends on the consent of ruled who, by withdrawing the consent, can control and even destroy the power of their opponent. In other words, nonviolent action is a technique used to control, combat and destroy the opponent’s power by nonviolent means of wielding power" (1973, p.4). Non-violence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent. Non-violence is action in full sense of the word. It is a forceful action that does not use violence. It is a fact that non-violent activism is more powerful and effective than violent activism. When human beings are faced with problems, they often resort to violence in order to solve it. However, it is better to solve the problem by peaceful means, avoiding violence, and confrontation.

Nonviolent techniques or nonviolent resistance includes public protest and persuasion, speeches, petitions, and symbolic acts; many forms of social, political, and economic non-cooperation or withdrawal and renunciation, such as refusal to pay taxes or obey unjust laws, strikes, and boycotts to improve conditions or gain greater power; as well as intervention and the use of independent political institutions, or establishing ‘parallel’ organs of government. These means of struggle involve protest and persuasion, challenge and repression, strategy and discipline (Sharp, 1973, pp.117-445).

The religion of Islam seeks for social change and justice through nonviolent means if possible. It is believed that nonviolence is a norm and rule and violence is an exception in the Islamic peace paradigm. Satha-Anand claims that jihad is considered as the sixth pillar of Islam and it can be used against tyranny, oppression, and injustice with the nonviolent means (1993, p.9). Wahid believes that the unity of umma creates a sense of collectivity for the Islamic nonviolent action and promotes the solidarity against oppressors (1993). Islam also balances the unity of Islamic community with equality, common purpose, and brotherhood with the encouragement of pluralism and tolerance.

Because of Islam’s commitment toward social and political justice through opposing injustice, corruption, and repression, Islam introduces active nonviolence in its institutions and practices. For example, fasting can be used for both the implementations of religious duty, and protest, boycott, and symbolic action (Crow, 1998, p.12). Also, the Friday prayer, the idea of the umma, and the jihad can be applied for communal purification, discipline and education in the nonviolent struggle. Zakat and waqf (charitable endowment) promote social justice and positive peace. Moreover, the concepts of reconciliation (sulha), forgiveness (afw), and patience (sabr) are important elements in the Islamic religion and practice for the active exercise of nonviolence (Ibid, Ozcelik, 1998).

However, many Muslims criticize nonviolence as a foreign concept and believe that there is a lack of theological and cultural bases about nonviolence in Islamic tradition. One of the Muslim scholars who has taken a bold position about nonviolence in Islam is Jawdat Said. In his work about the two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, Said shows us how God praised non-violent action. Cain, who wants to be accepted by God was rejected by Him, and resorted to a death threat against his brother. While the other son, Abel, was accepted by God and he responded to the death threat by saying: "If you stretch out you hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against you to kill you" (Qur’an, 5:28). Then Cain killed him and lost God’s grace and mercy and became remorseful. This nonviolent peaceful stand on the part of Abel is similar to the idea in Christianity about turn the other cheek. This stance announces that human beings are capable of resisting violence by nonviolence, and of transforming a violent person into a remorseful one. Said points out that even self-defense is prohibited by the Qur’an and when people are faced with the aggressive hostility against them, they should behave like Abel, the son of Adam! The Prophet said to his companions: "Be as the Son of Adam!" Said also concludes that this nonviolent strategy is not only a doctrine of the Prophet Muhammad, but also for the other Messengers. In other words, Said claims that the Prophetic paradigm -Abel’s abnegation of violence in the face of Cain’s murderous assault- is very important and asserts that even violence in self-defense is morally unjustifiable. (1998, pp.5-8).

Other scholars enumerate why nonviolent jihad (struggle) is necessary in Islam:

The remarkable work of Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988) presented an example for Islamic nonviolence. Although the Pathans faced executions, jail and persecution for years, they used jihad (sacred struggle) for peace. Abdul Ghaffar Khan was the leader of the Pathans (or Pashtuns) tribe in North India (today Afghanistan) and a Muslim follower of Mahatma Gandhi. He founded the Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God or Army of God), the world’s first nonviolent army and led from 1929-1938 (Flinders, 1990, p.187). He challenged existing social and economic institutions, uplifted peasants, introduced women into political action, and fueled anti-colonial activity. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, later known as Badshah Khan, was a religious figure and was influenced by Gandhi’s satyagraha, nonviolent civil resistance. He said: "[Nonviolence} was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet [Mohammed] all the time he was in Mecca… But we had so far forgotten it that when Gandhi placed it before us, we thought he was sponsoring a novel creed." (Easwaran, 1997, p.284). During the Indian independence movement, he and his followers have followed the nonviolence strategy. Badshah Khan shows us that three common myths are not true: (1) nonviolence is the weapon of the weak; (2) it works only against "civilized" adversaries; and (3) nonviolence is not part of Islam (Ibid, p.285). Mahatma Gandhi declared that he was able to perceive the origin of the doctrine of nonviolence and love for all living things not only in the sacred Hindu and Buddhist writings and the Bible, but also in the Qur’an (Doutgtherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1996, p.187).

Apart from this first modern nonviolent resistance example in Islam, there have been many cases in Muslim and Arab worlds: Egypt (1919-1922), Peshawar Pathan (Pashtun) Resistance (1930), Palestine General Strike (1936), Iraq Uprising (1948), Pattani Resistance in Thailand (1975), Iran Revolution (1978-1979), Golan Druze Resistance (1981-1982), Defense of Al-Aqsa Mosque-Jerusalem, Sudan Insurrection (1985), Palestinian nonviolent resistance-Intifada or "shaking off" (1987-89), Albanian National Movement in Kosovo (1989-1994). (Bennett, 1990, pp.41-57), Grant (1990, p.59), Biberaj, 1997, p.294).

In the following paragraph, I will briefly summarize the nonviolent cases: Intifada and Kosovo National Movement.

Palestinian National Movement has a long and violent history, but it also held some nonviolent struggles in 1980s and 90s. Up until the end of 1987, the Movement had focused on military, economic, and diplomatic means to achieve its goals by their leadership in exile, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). With the end of the Cold War, it was hard to continue an armed struggle against Israel in the Occupied Territories. As a result, the Palestinians began to struggle with the only weapons available- nonviolent means and stones- in December 1987. At first, the resistance was spontaneous and included nonviolent strategies such stone-throwing children, strikes, protests, demonstrations, marching in the streets, chanting slogans, waving the illegal Palestinian flag, and so on. Afterwards, it became an official policy in the Movement and proved that the nonviolent struggle in the Middle East is more successful and effective than violent means. Some lessons about nonviolent struggle in the Occupied Territories are as follows (Crow and Grant, 1990, pp.85-88):

There was also another nonviolent political movement organized by the Muslim majority of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo during 1990s. The movement, led by prominent literary critic Ibrahim Rugova, emerged in response to the termination of self-government in Kosovo. Serbian government suspended Kosovo’s autonomy and launched a policy of political, economic, and cultural marginalization of ethnic Albanians such as the closing of the Albanian-language university, TV, and newspapers. As a response to this nonviolent resistance created a state within a state. They established a Solidarity Fund for a private educational system in Albanian language. They also assisted people with financial needs because of political charges, and gave financial assistance to doctors and teachers from the Solidarity Fund. Rugova, the architect of the nonviolent resistance against Serbia, sees Kosovo struggle as a long-term process and stresses the importance of Albanian national institutions and self-confidence. In spite of the bloody violent resistance in 1999, he insisted that the use of nonviolent methods is necessary not to descent into the violence that has consumed Bosnia (Biberaj, 1997, p.295).

In conclusion, while the Qur’an does not prescribe an explicit ethic of nonviolence and peace, neither does it give higher value to actions of violence. In the Qur’an, there are no consistent or unequivocal general concepts for determining war, peace, and nonviolence. Each Qur’anic verse is related to some specific historical events. Thus, there are Qur’anic verses that call for nonviolence, while others call for war. This is not a contradiction, but a reflection of specific historical situations. For example, where most Meccan verses focus on spiritual issues, after the Hijra (migration) to Medina the Qur’an moved gradually-rooted in historical context- to provide precepts to "armed jihad", in the more narrow sense of qital as military fighting. On the other hand, if we take the consideration of time-space dimension and gradual changes in Islamic tradition, it becomes clear that Islam tends to give moral precedence to nonviolence. One can even conclude that the pursuit of religiously oriented or informal struggle (jihad) in the modern world by the methods of nonviolent action is fully consistent with in Islamic scripture and tradition.

The Qur’an makes references to "war" (harb), fighting (qital), and, even more frequent references to "struggle or striving" (jihad) that sometimes means "armed struggle". In some passages, the words sometimes have symbolic meanings. The Qur’anic verses have an ambivalent attitude toward violence and peace. On the one hand, oppression of the weak is condemned, and some passages state clearly that the believers are to fight only in self-defense. But a number of passages seem to provide explicit justification for the use of force (war and fighting) to call for Islam (Donner, 1991, p.47). It is hard to decide whether the Qur’an promotes offensive war or just defensive war. But in modern times, many Muslim scholars believe that Islamic public interest is necessitated with only defensive action because of the weapons of mass destruction and the Islamic ethic of war (jus in bellum and jus in bello in Islamic tradition). In Qur’an, for example, "Those who disbelieve and divert (others) from the way of God, He will lead their works astray… So when you meet those who disbelieve (during a military campaign), smite the necks; so that when you have overcome them, you may set (them) in bondage. Afterwards (free them) either as a favor or for ransom until the war (harb) puts down its weapons" (47: 1-4). Some verses imply that the war should be defensive in nature, that is, in order to prevent oppression: "And fight in God’s way against those who fight you, but do not act aggressively. Indeed God does not love those who act aggressively" (2:190). But the very next verse states: "And kill them wherever you overtake them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. For fitna (tempting people away from Islam) is worse than killing. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you in it; but if they do fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the unbelievers" (2:191). Therefore, many scholars accept that war and fighting are seen as a valid and necessary means in dealing with non-Muslims as a last resort to end oppression and injustice. But the Qur’an specifically prohibits any violent acts among Muslims and encourages the Islamic community to use non-violent and conflict resolution tools such as arbitration (tahkim), mediation (wasata), and reconciliation (sulha).

Although Islam is seen as a "religion of the sword" that is guided by conversion, coercion, and war in the Western media, the majority of the contemporary Muslim scholars and jurists restrict jihad only to a defensive act against outside attack toward Muslim nation-states and/or against internal subversion (Martin, 1991, p.108).

Abu-Laila, Muhammed. 1991. "Islam and Peace", The Islamic Quarterly, 1991, 35(1), pp. 55-69.

Abu-Nimer, Muhammad. 1996a "Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context", Peace & Change, (21)1, pp. 22-40.

Abu-Nimer, Muhammad. 1996b "Conflict Resolution Approaches: Western and Middle Eastern Lessons and Possibilities", American Journal of Economics and Sociology, (55)1, pp. 35-52.

Bennett, Brad. 1990. "Arab-Muslim Cases of Nonviolent Struggle", in Arab Nonviolent Political Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 41-59.

Biberaj, Elez. 1997. "Kosova, Albanian National Movement", in Protest, Power & Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from Act-up Women’s Suffrage", Powers and Vogele, eds., New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 294-296.

Crow, Karim D. 1998. Nonviolence and Islam, A Round-Table Workshop Held February 14th 1997 at the American University, Washington D.C., Nonviolence International.

Crow Ralph and Philip Grant. 1990. "Questions and Controversies about Nonviolent Struggle in the Middle East", in Arab Nonviolent Political Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 75-91.

Donner, Fred M. 1991. "The Sources of Islamic Conceptions of War", in Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson, New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 75-91.

Doutgtherty James E. and Robert L. Jr. Prfaltzgraff. 1996. Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey, New York: Longman Press.

Easwaran, Eknath. 1997. "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan", in Protest, Power & Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from Act-up Women’s Suffrage", Powers and Vogele, eds., New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 284-285.

Flinders, Timothy. 1990. "The Good Fight-Badshah Khan, the Frontier Gandhi", in Nonviolence in Theory and Practice, Robert Holmes, ed., CO: Woolsworth Publishing, pp. 187-191.

al-Ghunaimi, Muhammed Talat. 1968. "The Muslim Conception of International Law and the Western Approach, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Grant, Philip. 1990. "Nonviolent Political Struggle in the Occupied Territories", in Arab Nonviolent Political Struggle in the Middle East, Ralph E. Crow, et.al., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 59-75.

Hashmi, Sohail H. 1996. "Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace", in The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives, ed. Terry Nardin, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 146-166.

Hashmi, Sohail H. 1998. "Islamic Ethics in International Society", in International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, eds. David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 215-237.

Huntington, Samuel. 1993. "The Clash of Civilizations", Foreign Affairs, Summer, 72, pp. 22-49.

Johnson, Turner J. 1997. The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Kelsay, John. 1993. Islam and War: The Gulf War and Beyond-A Study in Comparative Ethics, Louisville, KT: John Knox Press.

Martin, Richard C. 1991. "The Religious Foundations of War, Peace, and Statecraft in Islam", in Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson, New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 31-71.

Muqtedar Khan, Muhammed A. 1997. "Islam as an Ethical Tradition of International Relations", Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, (8)2, pp. 173-188.

Ozcelik, Sezai. 1998. "Islam and Peace: A Dialogue", Frontline, Nonviolence International, (7)1: 3-4.