In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
(The success of non-violence as a tool to effect change would seem to depend upon the disposition of the reigning power. Civil disobedience may be fortunate against a civilized First-World power, especially if world attention is focused on the struggle. Against a ruthless Third- World dictatorship it may prove fatal).
A dazzling halo is hung over Jesus’ sermon on the Mount. Jesus was no pacifist. There is nothing docile or pacifistic about the leader who tells his followers to sell their coats and buy swords and to slay his enemies. While Jesus as prophet is expected to give moral teachings, many lose their lustre when viewed through the luminous lens of logic.
–Jesus says “resist not evil;” give the other cheek; give the plaintiff our cloak along with our coat in settlement, go an extra mile with the compeller (though he booted his compellers out the Temple–Matt. 5:39-41); so if John compels you to steal Mark’s chickens you are to voluntarily steal Luke’s chickens as well for him. It is doubtful an intelligent woman (and man) would give her daughter to be violated after she was; or would also give secret treasure to the robber, and give more to the plaintiff than his dues; or allow themselves to be pummeled if they have a measure of defense against the assailant. If one is to give the other cheek in all situations the Allies of WW II should have let Hitler become Emperor of Europe, Britain should have thrown in England or Scotland along with the Falklands to the Argentines, and America should have let the 9/11 attackers have a blast all over the U.S. Contrast this to Mohammad who taught through the Qur’an that there are times to give the other cheek and times to take an eye in return.
–Using as examples that the birds and the lilies and grass do not toil yet they survive as God takes care of them, Jesus says: “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.….for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”–(Matt. 6:25-34). There is no question the higher purpose of life is the Hereafter, and whereas God does provide for the birds and the lilies and the grass (and whereas the lilies and grass have no mobility and if water is not given to them they will wilt and die) the worm and berries do not go to the bird: the bird has to take flight and even battle other birds for the worm and berries. By telling man to pray only and leaving it all to God to send him groceries through handouts, the Christian’s God and son of God is teaching man to be loafers and mendicants. If America was to follow such a doctrine, instead of her being on the pinnacle of progress she would regress into the black-hole of backwardness. Contrast the Christians’ “God” and son of God, Jesus, with the injunctions of Allāh and His noble Messenger, Mohammad. While Islam does not allow pursuit of the material to the detriment of the spiritual; Allāh tells us that everything in the heavens and earth were created for our benefit and urges us to seek knowledge to put them to our service; and that after we finish offering our prayers to go into the land and seek of His bounties. And His magnanimous Messenger informs us we have a duty to Allāh, to ourselves, families, and the community. Earning bread honestly is a part of righteousness and an act of worship.
-Jesus says the “meek” (who may also be atheists shall inherit the earth; though it seems odd that atheists should inherit the earth) and “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Thus, if you are not “meek,” and righteous but not “persecuted” you get nothing–(Matt. 5:5, 10). Contrastingly, Mohammad taught us that the “meek” as well as the rich and poor who believe in Allāh and do good works shall inherit the “kingdom of heaven.” (Considering that there is no Gospel “according to” God or “according” to Jesus; or a “God’s Version” or a “Jesus’ Version”. One is hard pressed to not wonder if such Biblical delicacies were not baked in the human oven and fed into the mouth of Jesus in order to subdue, subjugate, and sack. Memory seems to recall the words of a negro lecturer in college who [regarding European presence in Africa] remarked in dark humor that the White man gave the African the Bible and took his gold).
-Jesus empowered his followers: “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”–(John 20:23). Thus, mass murderers who may be Christians can be forgiven by men–Hitler and his SS Officers may already be sitting with Jesus “at the right hand of God.” What if a Protestant priest should not forgive but if the criminal converts to Catholicism and is forgiven, whose office will be honored, Protestant or Catholic?
-Jesus advises: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison”–(Matt. 5:25.Wonder what Nelson Mandela, modern-day anti-Apartheid icon, would say about this dictum: he may have saved himself thirty years jail; and his brother-in-cause, Steve Biko, may be alive; and South Africa may still be in “prison”–Apartheid). So for fear of imprisonment, a Christian must agree to frame an innocent man for murder and send him to the gallows. The Christian nations that acquiesced to or supported German invasion were only following Jesus’ precept to “agree” with their “adversary.” And Christian individuals who handed Jews over to the Germans should be honored for obeying Jesus to “agree” with their adversary. (Perhaps this is why the Vatican was silent during Hitler’s reign, for fear of violating Jesus’ decree to agree with the adversary. As noted, Jesus taught to bring his enemies who did not want him to rule and slay them, and that he who is not with him is against him; perhaps these also are reasons why the Vatican was silent when “Christian” Europe was being purged of Jewish presence).Contrastingly, Mohammad/Allāh requires us to give justice even it be against one-self or parents, to aid not in sin and aggression, nor let hatred incite us to transgress–(Qur’an 4:135; 5:3). (See JESUS OR MOHAMMAD).
Much hoopla has also been heaped around Gandhi’s “non-violence.” With no disrespect to Gandhi, India did not achieve independence because of non-violence. But because of two intermingling factors: India was dealing with a civilized nation and world attention was focused on the struggle. The British respects world opinion. If Gandhi was dealing with a dictator they would have made “stew” of his “non-violence.”
That world attention was a major factor in India achieving independence can be gleaned from the fact that Britain was also in Kenya; but there was no public eye on Kenya’s struggle for independence. But for the Mau Mau uprising, the Union Jack may still be flying over Kenya. V. M. Tarkunde reveals another reason for India achieving independence: “India’s national independence was the result, not so much of Gandhi’s civil disobedience, as of the economic and political changes which occurred in the world and in Great Britain itself during the anti-fascist World War. The ineffectiveness of civil disobedience against a ruthless and unprincipled authoritarian rule was demonstrated during the Emergency which was enforced in India in 1975 by Indira Gandhi.”1
The same goes for Rev. Martin Luther King’s non-violence. With no disrespect to the Reverend, after nearly fifty years, and even in the bulwark of democracy –or as 9/11 have shown its just ‘bul’– the Reverend’s “dream” is yet a dream.
Non-violence will not avail against head-hunters. It will get smoked.
(Those who espouse non-violence to all creatures under all circumstances should not benefit from the fruits of science that are obtained at the expense of animals. To do so would seem hypocritical).
Islam is the “abode of peace”-(Qur’an 10:25).
That Hindus and Buddhists are the most peaceful and tolerant religionists.
Hindus have not only destroyed mosques –the most prominent being the 500-year old Babri Masjid2 demolished in 1992– and killed Muslims because of their religion as recently as the nineties; and continues to discriminate against Muslims. But, as Abdul Haque Vidyarthi notes, the Hindu “ecclesiastic Shankaracharya” “perpetrated all sorts of afflictions upon the Buddhists in India because he was of the view that the Buddha was opposed to the Vedas…He massacred Buddhists to such an extent that none of them remained in India, either they were killed or they fled out of India.”3
And the Buddhists. In 1902 Thailand seized the Muslim “Malay sultanate of Pattani,” Haroon Siddiqui notes. The population of “3 million now” “have been systematically discriminated against by successive governments in Bangkok.” In 2004 “76 peaceful” Muslim protestors were killed. In a drive to create a state ““ethnically Thai and religiously Buddhist”” Muslims have been ““neglected, persecuted and silenced.””4
Buddhists in Sri Lanka attacking Muslims, and the killing and burning –ethnic cleansing– of the Rohingya Muslims in Myan-mar/Burma obliterate the view that Buddhists are peaceful.
1. Tarkunde, V. M. Radical Humanism, p. 33.
2. Krishna says, “I still appear in every millennium …Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice….To deliver the pious”–(Gita 4:6-8). Thus, Krishna must have come as Mohammad to the Arabs; and such seems to be Hindu belief as they say Allāh is one of the names of God. As Rama and Krishna are said to be incarnates of Vishnu, then Allāh, Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama must be the same. It is ironic then that Hindus destroyed the Babri Masjid to build a temple of Rama: in essence Hindus destroyed the shrine of Vishnu/Rama to build a shrine for Vishnu/Rama).
3. Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 340.
4. Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star, Thursday, March 29, 2007; A local conflict with global implications, p. A21.