Where is your CVC code?
At the New York Times City Room blog, religion reporter Paul Vitello writes about a new ad in the middle of Times Square:
Into that bazaar of mass preoccupation, half a dozen members of an organization called Muslims for Peace fanned out Friday, smiling and offering their wares. They belonged to a sect, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, that embraces a pacifist tradition within Islam.
“Peace be with you, brother,” said Rizwan Alladin, a business consultant who took the morning off from work to hand out the fliers on 42nd Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and to watch with the others as the first of the group’s video ads ran on one of Times Square’s electronic billboards.
He doesn’t tell us much about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community itself, perhaps because the barest basics of it might arouse some suspicion among Times readers. The Community’s commitment to peace comes in a pretty interesting messianic context, according to their website:
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic organization to believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) (1835-1908) of Qadian. Ahmad(as) claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesus(as) of Nazareth and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad(sa). Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that God sent Ahmad(as), like Jesus(as), to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace.
As in Judaism and Christianity, messianic splinter groups are relatively common in Islam. I encountered one myself, for instance, in my work on the Turkish sect gathered around a man named Adnan Oktar. Not that this in any sense should undermine the Ahmadis’ intentions—it just seems strange that an article about a little-known group wouldn’t even allude to what is most basic and distinctive about its beliefs.
One doesn’t need to do too much digging to realize, also, that calling the group “pacifist” is something of an exaggeration. While the Ahmadis take a strong stand against religious justifications of terrorism—as have many mainstream Muslim authorities anyway—their statement on jihad reveals that their call for peace nevertheless reserves the right for violence in a defensive posture:
Of course, defensive war is permitted only on the condition that the enemies initiate hostilities and raise sword against a weak, defenceless people for having committed the only crime of declaring that God is their Lord. All offensive wars according to Islam are unholy.
Defensive war is a tragically slippery slope; the United States, recall, has used it in one way or another to justify just about every conflict in which it has officially been engaged. We should be cautious in mistaking it for pacifism.
To their credit, according to the Wikipedia article on Ahmadi persecution, which appears to be quite widespread, there’s no mention of Ahmadis aggressively fighting back. Ahmadiyya missions appear also to have been influential early on among African-American Muslims, possibly helping give rise to the American civil-rights movement. Still, considering their posture toward defensive warfare, it is a mistake to call Admadiyya a pacifist movement.
Those looking to find real pacifism in Islam, however, have other places to look. One could certainly begin with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the great nonviolent resistance leader who fought without weapons against British rule in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As we speak, there is nonviolence in Iran, nonviolence in Palestine, nonviolence in Afghanistan, and nonviolence in Iraq. Would that there were more.
As I understand it, there problem for Islam is that there are two ‘testaments’ from different periods in the life of the prophet – one in Mecca and the other as ruler of Medina.
In this sense there is a similarity with the bible in the contradictions between Old and New Testaments.
The two major problems with the Quran are that the two periods are not separated and that, even if they were, the more militant period comes later rather than earlier in Islam.
Interesting article on it: http://www.renewamerica.com/analyses/060630hutchison.htm
Though I should add that, although it is interesting, I most certainly do NOT endorse its conclusions!
After writing this I had a very fruitful email exchange with Waseem Sayed, an Ahmadi who is also a theoretical physicist. While he confirmed that his community is not pacifist in theory, after some extended discussion about what nonviolence is, he pointed out that, in actual fact, nonviolence is what they have done:
Nathan,
You said:
“While the Ahmadis take a strong stand against religious justifications of terrorism—as have many mainstream Muslim authorities anyway—their statement on jihad reveals that their call for peace nevertheless reserves the right for violence in a defensive posture.”
Let me make some clarifications. Jihad has three forms, the lesser of which you referred to as the ‘defensive posture.’ This jihad was merely a mandate granted to Muslims who were persecuted during the life of Muhammad. Muslims were tortured, beaten and killed for 13 years and were not permitted to self-defense. In order to prevent ethnic cleansing of all Muslims, God provided this as a respite so that the Muslims could survive.
However, it is important to note that it was abolished shortly thereafter. And any other violent struggles that took place after that is NOT jihad. However, other forms of jihad, namely the spreading of faith through reason and argument or internal spiritual cleansing and reform continue today. This is the Ahmadiyyah Movement’s stance on the subject.
Second you concluded after reading the Movement’s Wikipedia page that “there’s no mention of Ahmadis aggressively fighting back.” Actually, there is NO ACCOUNT of any Ahmadis fighting back despite daily atrocities being committed against the group. The only weapon we can wield is the pen. Unlike the Muslims who fought for their survival 1400 years ago, we cannot wage war against any oppressors. Therefore, despite your attempt to raise alarms about our community’s motives or intentions, there is no question that Ahmadis are pacifists.
Thanks for your note. I’d like to insist, though, that I don’t intend to “raise alarms” about your community—I simply meant to check and clarify what the article said. According to the Ahmadiyya website, as well as the Ahmadi correspondent I mentioned in my last comment, the Ahmadiyya community does not reject defensive warfare, and therefore it is not correct to call it pacifist.
The interpretations you give strike me as at best a minority position in both the Ahmadiyya community and in Islam generally. However, I’d be very eager to learn more about it! I’d much appreciate any directions you could point me in, in terms of texts and people, to learn more about this truly pacifist interpretation of Islam that rules out violence in self-defense.
Thank you for keeping in open mind.
If you are genuinely interested in learning more about our community, I would invite you to learn about our beliefs from the Quran. Unlike the Bible, our holy book has been kept intact without a change of even a dot. Our second and third authoritative sources of guidance come from ‘Sunnah’ and ‘Hadith,’ which are, respectively, the ‘practices’ and ‘sayings’ of Muhammad. Unlike other Muslims, Ahmadi jurisprudence also contains the directions and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who has authored many books and gave many addresses on the topic of jihad. In his book, he wrote:
“Most Muslims criticize me and allege that the one fault in my mission is that I have abrogated Jihad … They only defame the Holy Prophet (sa) and bring a bad name to Islam. The Holy Prophet(sa) never mounted an armed attack for the propagation of religion. It was only when the atrocities perpetrated by the enemies against the Holy Prophet (sa) and his Companions exceeded all limits, and his devoted followers—both men and women—were mercilessly slain, and he himself was chased right up to Madina, that he was allowed by God Almighty to defend himself … Many a time the brutal unbelievers wounded the Holy Prophet (sa)covering him with blood from head to foot. Even then he did not retaliate. Remember, had the use of the sword been obligatory for Muslims, they would have used it in Mecca; but the sword of which we speak was drawn only when the blood-thirsty
non-believers pursued him into Madina. The enemy at that time brandished the sword, today the sword is no more. My opponents now attack me with false reports and religious edicts. Today it is the pen which is employed against Islam. Can he who fights the pen with the sword be other than a fool or a tyrant?” (Lecture Ludhiana, p.33-34)
As the quotation above clearly states, there is no question the concept of a violent jihad has been repealed. See also: http://www.alislam.org/books/truth/jehad.html
The sayings of the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who we believe to be the Promised Messiah, is the true teaching of Islam. Any statement that contradicts his teachings is false and should not be mistaken for Ahmadi beliefs. If you find a statement from an Ahmadi that DOES go against the passage I quoted above, then please send me the source and the author’s name.
Websites like Wikipedia.org are not reliable sources precisely because they don’t have reputable authorities writing the articles. If you were to base a thesis in a college term paper based solely on Wikipedia references, I assure you that your professor would have a problem with it. My point is, if you are trying to understand our core beliefs, go to the proper source.
If you have further questions on the topic, there is an excellent treatise exploring the many misconstrued concepts of jihad. This book was written by the fourth successor of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Tahir Ahmad. http://www.alislam.org/library/books/TrueIslamicConceptofJihad.pdf
Secondly, there is no majority or minority opinion in Ahmadiyyah pertaining to the question of the abrogation of the jihad of self-defense. This matter is conclusively and unequivocally laid to rest by the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the foremost authority on Islam of our time. I hope that clarified any misconceptions about the topic.
Very interesting, thank you—though I think my earlier concern remains. In the quotation you give here, and in the texts you cite, the prohibition against violence in self-defense is a merely circumstantial matter, not a matter of basic principle—and the principled position is how I would define a pacifist.
For instance, in the passage you quoted:
By this logic, doesn’t it mean that if Muslims are attacked again with a sword, they can respond with a sword?
And the “Suspension of Jihad” article ends this way:
Here is an example in practice, not just theory, where Ahmadis apparently used violence (which contradicts your earlier claim that this has never happened). By many other standards this violence may have been justifiable, but not by pacifist standards.
Please don’t perceive me as claiming something bigoted here like “Islam is a violent religion” or somesuch. I have no desire to insult your faith, I only want to prevent it from being confused with something it is not. It simply appears to me, from as best as I understand these passages, that Islam (especially in the Ahmadiyyha interpretation) offers excellent resources for peacemaking yet still leaves open the option of defensive violence. Isn’t this fair to say?
I don’t think you’re a bigot at all, Nathan. The fact that you expressed fascination and sympathy where most people would dismiss the notion of a peaceful group of Muslims is commendable in itself. I bear no hostility towards you at all. In fact, I’m glad you’re raising these questions. After all, an open debate is the best way to arrive at the truth.
There is no question Muslims have taken part in battles and wars. I have an Ahmadi friend in the US Armed Forces who took part in combat. My father also fought in the Bangladeshi independence war against Pakistan. However, they do so in their capacity as citizens of a nation, not as Ahmadi Muslims. If they participated in combat, it was for the advancement of political, economic, or social goals. Jihad is a part of faith — a’holy war.’ The two are vastly different. One is commanded by God, the other is a civil duty.
You asked, “[If] Muslims are attacked again with a sword, they can respond with a sword?”
As you recall from what I wrote earlier, because of our beliefs, we are under constant attacks from various groups including other Muslims. Yet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his Caliphs (successors) have never called Ahmadi Muslims to bear arms against our oppressors. The only weapon we may raise is the ‘pen’ which figuratively means engage in debate or argument. The only instance in history when Muslims were permitted to use force was when the Meccans brutally and ceaselessly attacked Muslims shortly after the conception of Islam. During this time, Muslims were few in number and the very existence of the faith depended on the survival of that fragile group. It was under those extreme conditions when God allowed them to defend themselves.
However, when Muslims grew in number and were no longer under the threat of total annihilation, the lesser jihad ceased. If you read Lecture Ludhiana and some other works, you will get more background information on what had happened.
Now to address the pacifism issue:
Pacifists use means other than force to achieve a goal. In that respect, the Ahmadiyyah Movement in Islam is pacifist. We solve our problems without the use of violence. The individual members of the group may or may not engage in combat in their individual capacity as citizens of a nation. Our community as a whole does not promote violence in any situation.
You may have a different interpretation of the word. And that’s okay.