Early Christians sincerely believed that Christ had prohibited war under all circumstances. Then we come to Christianity and the New Testament. On such doctrines man could not found a rational social order and he could not exist at all. These deluded creatures do not realize that vegetable life is also life and in avoiding to eat all animal and living on fruits and vegetables, you are devouring life only one step lower. This is an attempt to live consistently with the doctrine of Ahimsa of Buddhism and Jainism. They consider it a sin to kill germs, lice, vermin, serpents, mosquitoes and all other pests. There are sects in India whose followers keep their mouths covered by a cloth so that no visible or invisible insect or germ might enter it: the poor fellows do not know how many living beings they unconsciously devour during the day and the night. Buddhism aimed at the negation of life by the negation of all desire including the desire to procreate and in strict consistency not only human life but all existence must perish by practicing strict Ahimsa. As Rumi has put it, 'in the world everything is an eater and at the same time eaten'. All life feeds on life the higher has no alternative but to live on the lower. The Buddhist doctrine of Ahimsa or non- killing was impracticable. The ultimate purpose of all morality and spirituality is peace and non-violence but this purpose had been misunderstood by religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Christianity. Not only human life must never be destroyed but it was a sin to kill even vermin, germs and poisonous insects. The whole difficulty about understanding the place of war in life arises from the fact that religion like Buddhism and Christianity, that had spread over a part of civilized humanity before Islam, had in the least banned fighting or killing for any purpose or cause. Who can blame Islam if it fought for its very existence? Then there came a period when only two alternatives were before them - either to fight for their religious liberty or to perish. Slowly and steadily, the number of the Faithful increased but the persecution continues and they were exiled.
After accepting Islam, these erstwhile persecutors and new converts were persecuted by others, needless to paint a horrible picture of the atrocity that they suffered.įor more than a decade Islam was extremely non-violent. One by one his persecutors succumbed to his spiritual power. The simple question is where did these wielders of the sword come from? If the sword converted people to Islam, who converted the people who wielded the sword? Terrible force was used against the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) when he had no force except the force of Truth and the force of his convictions. But how could a creed, whose fundamental principle was ' that there ought to be no compulsion in religion,' as the Qur'an has put it, explicitly compel people by force to accept it? H) had started preaching his doctrine with big battalions at his back and offering people alternative of conversion or the sword, one could rightfully say here was a creed which spread at the point of the bayonet. They were striving to establish not only their own creed but general religious liberty where every one could follow his own convictions provided that he did not directly disrupt the minimum bonds of a peaceful social order. H), who was waiting for a time when they could succeed in their mission with the least possible bloodshed. Even for a long time when they thought they were strong enough to hit back, they were restrained by the Prophet (P. No movement in history can show greater spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom. They were deprived of all worldly goods, deprived of the means of securing their daily bread, exiled and made to flee from their homeland. He and his followers showed unparalleled patience and perseverance against heavy odds. He and his followers were persecuted by all possible means for more than a decade before he began to use force against force to defend himself and his handful of followers against ancient tribal savagery. Islam was presented by a Prophet who was socially, economically and politically a man without any worldly might. Whoever has studied the rise of Islam with the Seer's insight as Carlyle did or without a sectarian bias as Gibbon and many others after him have done, can easily repudiate this charge.
This has led to vilification of Islam as a religion based on force and propagated by the sword.
Islam, the Religion of Peace, had to wage war to protect and establish itself.
0 kommentar(er)
