Peace and Justice in the Abrahamic Traditions

 Peace and Justice in the Abrahamic Traditions

Hina Athar Khan

Humans are ‘oppressive’; they oppress their own selves as well as others. They are ‘ignorant’; of their potential and that of others. And they are ‘quarrelsome’ among themselves. This is how the Creator describes creation in the Islamic revelation, the Quran. These are the set of attributes, among others, predisposing humans to conflict and violence. Look beyond humans across all life-forms, and we will notice ‘causes’ of conflict woven in to the fabric of nature at large. In fact, in a purpose built self-sustaining universe, it seems conflict is an essential catalyst for change and sustenance. John Paul Laderach says that conflict is a ‘motor of change’. Though Laderach is addressing social conflict when he says ‘conflict flows from life and is a life giving opportunity’, it is not inconceivable to apply this idea universally and to the universe.
Religious scriptures across traditions, and not just Islam, verify conflict as a part of human nature and, as with all other natural human predispositions, necessary for the sustenance of self and society. It is for this reason that religious texts have extensively addressed the human tendency to conflict and provides wisdom for its management. This is so because unlike non rational life-forms where conflict remains harmonious with the natural design, humans are capable of perverting towards extremes that result in violence and oppression.
Teachings pertaining to management of and defense against such perversions are essentially the religious ‘struggle’. It is often these same teachings that are misrepresented to propagate violent conflict for motives unrelated to religion itself. This has led to an unjust framing of religions as ‘violent’ or ‘peaceful’. Using the inter- and intra-religious context of Islam, this paper will explore why such a framing is an injustice to the essence of the religion. Further, the paper will attempt to build a case for how religion itself can and must defend itself against such narratives.
Human conflicts stem primarily from an ‘Us vs Them’ mentality that seeks to gain and preserve the Us, in an environment of actual or perceived limited resources. It has been researched to show that any identity marker, even an inconsequential one, may instigate an ‘Us vs Them’ perception, leading to dehumanization and subsequent oppression. In such a dynamic, one may only imagine how strong the mis-use of religion as an identity marker may be. Religions, especially Abrahamic traditions, rely on a faith-based belief system, that require momentary surrendering of human rationality before the understanding of God and His wisdom. This rationality is often asked to be parked in favor of reflection that reveals a Wisdom beyond immediate logic. However, a generalized misunderstanding with regards to surrender before God, paired with a lack of knowledge of the religion, renders many religiously-situated people vulnerable to manipulations. This is what many times lead to mass violence in the name of religion.
In the recent times, Islam garners an instant recall globally when speaking of religious violence or violent religions. In and inter-religious context, Islam is the most predominant religion among nations that identify a state religion. Every war may therefore quite possibly be deemed a religious war or at least leans upon religion to some degree. Islamic sentiment in these countries was misused most fervently in the ‘jihadist’ movement against the Soviet Union as recent as the 1990’s and as a result many religiously inspired extremist movements are also founded in Muslim states. These extremist groups have been fighting in the name of religion within as well as outside of their host states. Viewed simplistically, all conflicts stemming from and with Muslim nations could be deemed ‘religious wars’. In an intra-religious context, Muslims find themselves divided into sects and schools of thought – infighting among which often garners attention in the international media in a manner similar to the “Troubles” where often ethno-nationalist conflicts take cover of sectarian belief systems. Syria and Pakistan are prime examples of complicated and violent predicaments that originate from an evident Saudi-Iran rivalry.
There are essentially two ways to understand IF a religion is in fact violent. One, to study whether the instances of conflict and violence can be stemmed to the Us vs Them phenomenon, in such a case the conflict is a matter of identity and not the religion despite its use of religious sentiment. Second, to understand the essence of the religion and explore its views on conflict or violence in such light. William T. Cavanaugh aptly challenges the notion that it is religious ideology that truly causes violence, or any more violence, than a secular ideology – the examples above lead to the conclusion that most violent conflicts are quite possibly a result of identity and otherness. A focus is therefore required on the essence of religion, in this case Islam, and understand how Islam views violence. Such a focus, if possible would build a theory of peace that can at best dismantle identity based conflicts and at the very least curb the use of religion in such conflicts that are essentially bereft of true religious cause.
Islam is a religion that is deeply rooted in the concept of rightful dues and justice. Infact derived from the Arabic lexicon of the word for religion Din; religion is a debt of existence owed to God, a trusted deposit (Amanah). Thereby Islam becomes a means of repayment of this debt. This can be thought of as doing justice by God, a theme often repeated in the Quran. Further, the terms Zulm (oppression) as well as its antonym Adl (justice) mean ‘putting something out of its rightful place’ and ‘putting things in their rightful place and avoiding excess or deficiency’ respectively. This rings well with Johan Galtung’s idea of violence being such act that restrict the ability to reach or actualize a latent potential – a rightful due.
Studied in this light, justice is neither the existence of peace nor violence but a purpose in and of itself. Justice is the scale on which peace and conflict may be brought to perfect equilibrium. Where peace does not stop the ‘motor of change’, and conflict does not manifest into violence. Therefore, a religion may not be framed as peaceful nor violent, but better framed as just or unjust. Justice is at once minutely intrinsic, where a person must do everything to fulfill their individual potential – including the just use of intellect, health, limbs, etc; and vastly extrinsic, propelling the actualization of potential among other individuals, communities, and the world at large. As for Islam, it repeatedly calls for justice.
This form of justice calls individuals, especially believers towards the use of intellect, a tool essential to the most appropriate appraisal of a potential.