Since God has created the human beings,they have not stopped shedding each other s blood on this planet ,in a try to take control of this world and make it theirs,to the extent thet violence has become one of the most dangerous behaviours that characterizes human beings ,But it is really so ironic to know that the first decade of 21st century and the third millennium (the years 2001 to 2010),Which are proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly as “the International Decade for Promotion of Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the children of the world,” was the bloodiest decade that witnessed brutal wars and painful attacks such as Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, as well as many terrorist acts (the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, and Washington D.C. the Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 in Netanya, Israel; the Moscow theatre siege and the Beslan school siege in Russia; the Bali bombing in October 2002; the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid; the July 7, 2005 bombings in London; …) to mention just a few.
Those sorrowful events proved that “being a pacifist between wars is not as easy as being a vegetarian between meals” as Ammon Hennacy said.
Such immoral actions and re-actions aim at convincing people that the road to attain social or political change is paved with thorns, tears and fire…..
In fact, this is entirely baseless, meaningless and wrong. Because if we are seeking any clean, chaste and pure independence and true freedom, we have to think about non-violence and nothing but non-violence.
No matter how difficult is getting the goal or making the dreams come true, this does not justify violence. Nor any religion can justify it.
Martin Luther King, Jr. the most famous leader of the American civil rights movement said “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…. The chain reaction of evil — hates begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation”.
Anyway, defenders of nonviolence were -often- described by the fervent critics of nonviolence as cowards and resigned, who are known for their weakness and inability to confrontation, and the lack of determination, and. And even the approach of non-violence was described as a kind humiliation and surrender.
Non-violence is a serious political action means aimed - as mentioned before- at justice and freedom and emancipation, such goals have nothing to do with submission and surrender.
Realisticly speaking, if the non-violence scholar and leader has no choice in front of a merciless counterpart he will certainly choose violent resistance instead of a cheap death in case of facing an enemy, who lacks a minimum elements of conscience.
And this is self proven throughout history, where we can read in the prophets’ march hundreds of thousands of meaningful stories.
“Mahatma Gandhi” - himself -said (inspired by Imam Hussein bin Ali sayings): (If there is no choice but violence or grave, I would choose violence). And Jusus said (He, who does not have the sword, has to sell his coat and buy one).
Hence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.
But because of the fact of being reasonable, Non-violence is distinguished from other methods of defence - either in political or social issues –.
1- It uses the reason, which distinguishes human beings from other creatures.
2 - It does not cost any human and material losses unlike other methods.
3 – It seeks the best results with the least potential and efforts.
4 –Non-violence activists in their struggle towards peace may commit some (mistakes) but this can not hurt others.
Even though non-violence - as a concept - contains a negative meaning (submission and surrender ), it is –in fact – very far from being so .it is a reaction, which requires courage and moral fearlessness of the martyrs. Those who offer their lives on the altar of justice and human rights do - really- teach people educational and moral lessons about the salvation of mankind from evil.
Some researchers were mistaken to link the principle of non-violence to the political fields only (as mentioned in the political encyclopedia), where non-violence is defined as: (a political conduct which can not be separated from the internal capacity).
Simon Panther also defined it as: (a form of political action …)
Such exclusivity can not be accepted in any way, since human relations are diverse and different, some are limited in the scope of the family, and others include the community and the outer world. Thus, we can talk about different types of non-violence such as:
1- Political non-violence: This involves the relationship between people and the state.
2- Social non-violence: This involves the relationship between people with each other.
3- Religious non-violence: It is this principle, which is most closely associated with ethical or religious justifications of nonviolence, as may be seen in the Sermon on the Mount when the Christ urged his followers “to love theirs enemies”, or in the Taoist concept of wu-wei, or effortless action, in the philosophy of the martial art Aikido, in the Buddhist principle of metta, or loving-kindness towards all beings, and in the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence toward any being, shared by Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Respect or love for opponents also has a pragmatic justification, in that the technique of separating the deeds from the doers allows for the possibility of the doers changing their behaviour, and perhaps their beliefs. As Martin Luther King said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”
In Islam (which some terrorists and extremists try to show as intolerant and violent) we can easily find in the holy Qur’an hundreds of stories and verses, which prove that this religion is one of peace and pacification.
For instance, Allah said “O, Muhammad recite to them the story of the two sons of Adam (Abel and Cain), when each offered a sacrifice to Allah, it was accepted from one but not from the other, the later said to the former,” I will surely kill you” , the former said “ verily, Allah accepts only from those who are the pious , if you do stretch your hand against me to kill me, I shall never stretch my hand against you to kill you , for I fear Allah ,the Lord of mankind.”
We can also find in the Qur’an verses, which go against the will of extremists (who are exploiting this religion), Allah said “there is no compulsion in religion” “and whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is hell, to abide therein, and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him”.
Thus, we can say that violence does have no place, in any culture or any religion, either in the name of God( in Christianity ), Allah (in Islam), Yahweh (Judaism), Ishvara (Hinduism ) or Gautama Buddha (Buddhism)…etc
The opinions may differ, but the solutions remain the same concerning the subject of violence, however, the future is the unique judge to decide whether violence or non-violence of “Gandhi” will prevail.
But Personally, I will keep being a strong believer in “Mahatma Gandhi”, who was a real prophet of peace and pacification to mankind ,but unfortunately he was misunderstood .He deserve having several prominent statues everywhere especially in the Middle East inflammable region .
All in all, “Albert Einstein” was really right when he said about “Gandhi” “Generations to come, it may be, will scarcely believe that such a one, as this, ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth”.
Written by:Abdessamad Ben Jouda
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.