“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly, affects all indirectly... In any Nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action...”

—Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

“Each and every one of us punctually pays his share of sacrifice, aware of being rewarded by the satisfaction of fulfilling our duty, aware of advancing with everyone toward the new human being who is to be glimpsed on the horizon... The road is long and in part unknown; we are aware of our limitations. We will make the twenty-first century human being, we ourselves!”

—Ernesto “Che” Guevera, “Socialism and Man in Cuba”

The 20^th Century Palestinian[1]

The pen of destiny has finally inscribed the final chapter in the story of Yasser Arafat, one of history’s most controversial revolutionaries. Yes, the curtain has closed on the drama of “Abu Amar,” and the grand playwright seems to be taking a short rest before charging headlong into its next project: having completed the tale of the man, it must now tell the tale of the man’s nation—and the only way this tale can be told is if the subjects themselves rise up to the call of the playwright, if the characters seize the almighty pen now being offered to them. 

Yasser Arafat was the Palestinians’ David Ben-Gurion. A reckless comparison? I think not. Both were devoted to their nations, so unlike other national leaders for they were willing to suffer any cost to themselves for the advancement of their cause. They both readily, even happily, suffered occupation, persecution, braved exile and risked death, so that one day, no matter how far away that day may be, their nations would be free to determine their own destinies: developing culturally and ecomonically as they saw fit for themselves, able to defend themselves by themselves, no longer letting their safety depend upon the largesse of those who had historically neglected, exploited and even slaughtered them. Both men were guerilla generals who too often resorted to terrorism, even genocide, to accomplish their aims. As political leaders, both men found themselves under siege by enemies: Ben-Gurion by Jewish opponents within Israel, and by hostile Arab regimes all around; Yasser Arafat by King Hussein of Jordan then Sharon of Israel, who pusued him into Lebanon and beyond, then infamously imprisoned him in the Muqata. And most of all, both men were visionary revolutionaries who evolved, rightly so, beyond the mere status of first Israeli prime minister and first Palestinian president, to become symbols of their respective nations. 

It is Arafat’s symbolism which is of the utmost importance when one considers his meaning and his legacy. As Ben-Gurion was in life and even moreso in death, Arafat has been idealized by his people. Talking to them on the streets of the major cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem and East Jerusalem, in sleepy poor towns like Beit Sira, in their homes and in their businesses, while they work the farms of Latrun, mow the grass in Modi`in, or demonstrate against the Separation Wall in Abu Dis, Palestinians readily admit the failings of their beloved Abu Amar: he was an autocrat, and with the self-entitlement of a shaykh he granted positions of power to undeserving friends and allies; he was corrupt—after all, his wife and daughter live luxoriously in Paris; both he and Rabin were fools to agree to the filibustering Oslo peace process; he was too gullible with the duplicitous Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton; and his Palestinian Authority was ineffective in bettering the quality of life for West Bankers and Gazans—though it didn’t help, they accurately point out, when Netanyahu and Barak upped the pace of construction for illegal settlements, which was followed by Sharon’s demolition of the Palestinians’ fledgling national infrastructure during 2001-2003. Yet, whatever his failings as a political leader, it was Arafat’s determination and fidelity to his cause that he shall be remembered for: “I am a Palestinian soldier,” he proclaimed in 2003, “I will use my gun to defend not only myself but also defend every Palestinian child, woman and man and to defend the Palestinian existence.”

As I sat across from a friend, sipping coffee and listening to the ebbing tones of hope in his desperate voice; as I rode across the mountains of the northern West Bank, my jeep weaving in between caravans of taxis, cars and trucks draped with mournful black banners and posters of the defiant PLO Chairman, all speeding diligently toward Ramallah; as I stood among the throng in the heart of the Muqata and, watching the helicopters lower, felt the pitiful cry, “Abu Amar!” shudder through my bones as a people welcomed their leader home one last time—I realized that yes, whatever doubts and dislikes we Westerners may have had about the man, and indeed whatever disappointments the Palestinians themselves may have secretly or openly harbored against him all throughout these grueling and dark days of the al-Aqsa Intifada, Arafat was indeed a symbol, the embodiment of all the Palestinian people’s aspects, both good and bad: he was their clear-sighted, yet sometimes fundamentalist morality; he was their unwavering and heroic determination as well as their pigheaded guerillaism and unyielding kamikaze-mania; he was their remarkable willingness to let bygones be bygones, but he was also their unforgiving memory, recounting every wrong, every crime committed against them for centuries; he was their hope for a peaceful resolution as well as their all-too-strong tendency for cynicism and violence, revenge and terrorism; he was their longing to build a modern nation-state, but he was also their archaic patriarchal, nepotistic and petty tribalism; and he was their statelessness, their homelessness.

Yet, now that Arafat has been laid to rest, the Palestinians have a golden opportunity to cultivate their own better angels and conquer the demons within. The course of the Intifada can and must be changed, for no longer can the Palestinian people pin their hopes, as well as lay all their responsibility, upon one man. No, they must now truly internalize the principles of democracy: to debate and discuss the content of their dreams, and to decide who shall be their next leader. Ironically in this matter, with Marwan Barghouti in Israeli prison and Mustafa Barghouti, at least for now, Ralph-Nader’d into the margins of political discourse, they are faced with a very American and Israeli dilemma: to choose the candidate who’ll accomplish the least for his citizenry and the most for elite interests. Let us be candid: the Palestinians are under intense but tacit pressure from all the world to choose Abu Mazen, an opportunist and handmaiden to the imperialist powerbrokers of Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv. This choice is essentially like the “choice” between Bush or Kerry, Sharon or Mitzna—same man, just different temperament—Republican or Democrat, Likud or Avoda, two sides of the same tarnished and worthless coin, a denari, shekel, dollar minted from the shoddy copper ore of populist politics, bourgeoisie apathy and rich special interests which has infected the bedrock of modern democracy. Simply, the Palestinians find themselves trapped in a non-choice. Nevertheless, there is hope even if Abu Mazen becomes president, for then the Palestinian people must cooperate with each other and stay active in deciding the kind of policies he shall have. A man such as Abu Mazen, a Palestinian Bill Clinton of non-policy, is malleable: whoever threatens him the most, either with international isolation or the infamy of cultural memory, shall sway him to their side. 

But more important than the coming public election of figures is the coming hidden election of ideas: for not only must the Palestinians choose a leader and then pester and protest him onto the straight and moral path to a victorious and lasting peace, but they must also choose the tactical/ethical and political direction of the Intifada. Shall this rebellion remain a barracks revolt of dystopian militias or an unarmed mass movement like the First Intifada?—and shall the aim be for an independent Palestinian state, and if so, what of the refugees and the settlements?—or shall the aim be for a binational Palestinian-Israeli state (an unlikely scenario at the moment I must admit, given the sentiment in both the Israeli and Arab streets)?—and, ultimately, shall this be for the political and half-assed economic emancipation of but one oppressed nation, or the total, utter existential liberation of both nations, oppressor and oppressed alike? 

Yes, Yassir Arafat was the ultimate 20^th Century Palestinian, but he was not the potential 21^st Century Palestinian. His death may now lead to a rebirth—indeed, a birth—and a resurrection of an ideal whose murder went unnoticed, obscured by the din of war and glory: the true shaheed, the martyr of Nonviolence. 

The road is long and in part unknown...

It is clear to anyone who is properly acquainted with the Occupation that there must be an Intifada. Just as Zionism, whatever its faults, was the necessary response to the European governments’ policy of assimilating and exterminating the Jews, so now is Intifada, “Shaking Off,” the necessary response to the Israeli government’s colonialist oppression of the Palestinians. However, it must be a moral rebellion, by which is meant two things: a fundamental redirection of the Intifada’s strategy away from war, and a fundamental redirection of the Intifada’s ideology away from the ideology of the nihilistic shaheed—the suicide-bomber—to another type of shaheed, one who understands himself as but one piece of twine in an elaborate cosmic tapestry of humanity, divinity, and most of all, life. 

It is true, as the famous guerilla Che Guevera believed, that an oppressed people’s only resort is struggle, and he was correct that it must be armed, but he was wrong, dead wrong as it turned out for him, that those arms must be guns and grenades. Furthermore, the terroristic militias of Hamas and the Shuhada al-Aqsa are half-right and all wrong when they assert that the Palestinian’s only weapon is his own body. Rather, the body is but a vessel for the most powerful weapons on the earth, more powerful than any gun or grenade: the God-given human mind and soul. 

Gandhi called the use of these weapons, as well as those who wielded them, Satyagraha, “Truth Force.”

Yes, the Muslim Palestinians must abandon their philosophy of violence and commit to the tactics and principles of civil disobedience and Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance. 

I remember very clearly what a young Palestinian man said to me recently: “You want us to be ‘nonviolent’? What should we do, put flowers in the tank turrets?” But he was mistaken as to the nature of Nonviolence: putting flowers in tank turrets is not Nonviolence; a million unarmed men, women and children marching all the way to Tel Aviv, hand in hand, rank after rank, pushing through every checkpoint, not halting no matter how many bullets and bombs the IDF rains upon them, that’s Nonviolence. Such a display of ethical determination to attain justice would shatter the misguided resolve of the Israeli public and rouse the citizenry of the earth, which would rise up and compel the world’s governments to finally bring an end to the war.

It has been said, again and again, that Nonviolence is a sham, and that it is even immoral because it is “complacent,” “passive,” “the weapon of the weak,” or as one West Bank acquaintance of mine said, “It’ll only give the Israelis what they’ve wanted most: to kill us without a bother.” The dominant belief throughout the world is that only violence can truly bring justice; indeed, that violent armed struggle is no mere violence, but moral violence. To these charges, I submit a proper definition of Nonviolence and two facts:

· Sezai Ozcelik, a Muslim Ph.D. candidate at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, says eloquently in his paper Nonviolent Action and Third Party Role in the Islamic World,[2] “Nonviolence should never be confused with inaction or passivity. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent. Nonviolence is action in the full sense of the word. It is a forceful action that does not use violence. It is a fact that nonviolent activism is more powerful and more effective than violent activism”;

· in 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations: dismantling the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War;

· if we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (India, China, the United States, the USSR, South Africa, continental Europe, Indonesia, Burma, Palestine in the 1980s)—excluding major nonviolent actions in the 19^th and 18^th centuries and further back in history—the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of all humanity! And if we include recent nonviolent actions in Serbian Yugoslavia, the Phillipines, Mozambique, Argentina, and the Ukraine, the figure approaches 4 billion people effected positively by Nonviolence. [3]

Meanwhile, what have the great armed struggles of our era accomplished? Take a moment to glance at Africa, and we see that it has been exploding with armed rebellions and revolutions for over fifty years. An entire continent is held hostage by the capriciousness of war and international intrigue, all in the name of violent “liberation” for one ethnic group or another. Now let us examine the Second World War, cited by, well, just about everybody, even supposed pacifists, as the best example of a “just war for liberation.” If one calculates all the Jews, Gypsies and “undesirables” lost in the furnaces of the Nazi death camps: at least 10 million lost. Meanwhile, approximately 60 million lives were lost in actual combat, soldiers, partisans and civilians. Then consider the long-term results: the Korean War and the Cold War—which continue to haunt the continents of Africa and Asia, riven as they were by the half-century “great game” between the USA and USSR—and of course the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, giving us a grand total of all the human species effected negatively by violence.  And the greatest irony of the Second World War was that Japan claimed it had a divine right to free Asia from Western colonialism, whether Asia wanted Japanese “humanitarian intervention” or not; Adolf Hitler dubbed his genocide and conquests a crusade to liberate the German people from their destitution at the hands of the British and French; Josef Stalin proclaimed he was “freeing the working-class” as he sent 20 million working-class Russians and Central Asians to die by Nazi bullets; and Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt readily admitted that they were striving to maintain the pre-war status quo of bloodthirsty capitalist empires. So much for the notion of moral violence.

Why does Nonviolence have such a startling high rate of effectiveness? Because the Nonviolent approach to struggle represents a radical departure from conventional thinking about conflict, and yet appeals to a number of common-sense notions. 

Among these is the idea that the power of rulers depends on the consent of the masses. Without a bureacracy, an army, a police force and, most importantly, a tax-paying, law-abiding—submissive—public to carry out his or her wishes, the ruler is powerless. Therefore, power depends on the cooperation of others, and Nonviolent action, especially when performed by large numbers of people, undermines the power of rulers through deliberate withdrawal of this cooperation. Hunger strikes, pickets, vigils, marches, petitions, sit-ins, public prayer sessions, “go-slows,” tax refusal, boycotts, labor strikes, blockades, conscription refusal, the use of independent political institutions, establishing “parallel” organs of government to rival the current order (i.e., the Committees of Correspondence and Continental Congresses which prefigured the United States of America; the Indian Congress Party which prefigured the Republic of India; and perhaps the current Palestinian National Authrotiy)—all these tactics and more are examples of that deliberate withdrawal of consent, and these tactics comprise the arsenal of Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance. [See: Appendix I, “The Methods of Nonviolent Action.”] 

Also of primary significance is the belief that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. Gandhi: “The means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree.” Simply, the actions we take in the present inevitably reshape the social order in form, and determine our future. Palestinians now know all too well the social order and future offered by the gun and suicide-bomb: today, for every suicide-bombing, Sharon wraps himself tighter in the Israeli flag and the tallith of righteousness and imprisons a hundred Palestinian men (the breadwinners in Palestine’s traditionalist society), erects a new checkpoint (disrupting commerce and social relationships), bulldozes an entire neighborhood and erects another tenement for settlers, syphons another gallon of water from Palestinian aquifiers, divides and perverts the earth with another 8-meter concrete block of his apartheid “Security Fence”—and he can get away with it easily, like a serial rapist striking in the night, because delusional America and the international community, a pig pen of half-assed empires, failed states and make-believe civil societies, is nevertheless populated by well-meaning but badly educated citizenries who, no matter how actually or potentially sympathetic they may be for the Palestinians’ plight, are rightly repulsed by every Palestinian youth detonated for the sake of sensational vengeance.

It is widely believed among practitioners of Nonviolent resistance that when Jesus instructed his disciples to resist the vengeful impulse and “turn the other cheek” when injustice was inflicted upon them, he was describing a basic method for achieving just ends by just means, and more, for he may have been describing a basic psychological attitude for his disciples to adopt: “love thy enemy.”

The Nonviolent resister has respect, even love, for his opponents. He believes that Truth and God are multifaceted and unable to be grasped in their entirety by any one individual. We all carry inside ourselves pieces of Truth, sparks of God, and we need the pieces of others’ veracity and divinity in order to come closer to full knowledge, full wisdom. The only way to fulfill this need is through dialogue, that is to say, a sincere wish to understand our opponents, their motivativations. In order to do this, the Nonviolent resister must separate the deeds from the doers. As a result he recognizes that there is a system, social and economic and ideological in its rapacious mechanics, which compels the oppressors deeper and deeper into tyranny: the Israeli soldier himself is a victim, distorted from his true self, transformed into a murderer he should never have been, and the Nonviolent Palestinian uses all his might to subdue his own rage and hatred while striving to destroy that system which has crushed him and the soldier against each other in an attempt to mutate them into inhuman cogs of a murderous satanic machine. Respect or love for opponents and separating doer from deed is also profoundly pragmatic, for it allows the possibility of the doers, be they oppressor or oppressed, to change their ways and dismantle the ruinous matrix of control. 

Islamic Nonviolence

Existence was born out of love, need, desire—erotic, inventive and desperate desire... Perhaps you ask, ‘Can God need anything, desire anything?’ Two verses from Exodus in the Bible: the First Commandment, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [idols], nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God”—then in the 33rd chapter, the 11th verse, “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”—and many more passages, many many more. Surely these sentiments could not be possible if God had no emotions! Emotions! Is this mad talk? In Genesis: “And God said, Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.” The question is, who’s mirroring who? Yes, who mirrors who, Mankind or God? In their hopes, their dreams, their bravery... in their despondency, their nightmares, their cowardice and crimes and genocides... The Bible and Quran tell us about a lonely God and His even lonelier creations, humanity, who slaughtered and slaughter the Abels, all the metaphoric Abels of history, in the name of prosperity and security and glory, but who strove and are striving, even now, for redemption, to unite in solidarity, to repair the rift which split our family when Cain cleaved the flesh of his brother. 

The 21^st Century Palestinian

Simply, what God and humanity are striving for is peace, equality and justice, in the full knowledge that if these cannot be achieved, there shall be nothing at all. There must either be Liberty... or Oblivion. The task of our times is to establish existential democracy, a new temporal and metaphysical order of egalitarianism and solidarity, a Great Society which truly tries its best to house and feed all of its citizens, to establish a just prosperity of fair and free trade in goods, services and ideas, and to cultivate each individual’s independence and capacities.

This Great Society can only be achieved by a kind of revolution, God’s Revolution, which has been and is occuring in every nook and cranny of the world at least since the ministries of Jesus and Muhammad, waged via many warriors, millions, billions of people struggling to better their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Some of these warriors are famous and forever whispered in the annals of history—the prophets, the Buddha, Gandhi, King; most are forgotten by humanity, though not by God. And while all the earth is Her target—and were we to expand to the stars, wherever we go there also shall She be, ar-Rabb al’Alimin, Sovereign of the Worlds—there are certain geographic locations that, due to their location upon the intersections of the frontiers of commerce and ideology, have left deep imprints in the x-, y- and z-axes of history, symbolism and metaphysics. Among these leyline junctions are India and the Holy Land. 

India is the heartland of the Eastern religions, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. What Gandhi achieved there, a democratic republic born by Nonviolence, caused a metacosmic shift, budging human history toward the evolution into a Great Society. Israel-Palestine is no different than India for it is the heartland of the Western religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The avowed project of the Israelis and Palestinians has been to bring democracy to the Holy Land, but they have not truly realized the immense metaphoric importance of their endeavor. The Holy Land has been the dominion, both socioeconomically and dimensionally, of tyranny after tyranny after tyranny: Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Rome, the Crusaders, Turkey, Britain, feudalism, imperialism, fascism, militarism, colonialism, terrorism. The establishment of true democracy here—not Israel’s sham of electoral ethnic tribalism or Palestine’s terroristic and nepotistic bantustan—will shake the very foundations of the globalized evil plaguing our species. But true democracy, existential democracy, can only be achieved by Nonviolence, for only proper means can lead to the best ends. 

A New Intifadism

Compare Zionism and the kind of Intifadism advocated for in this essay. The difference between these ideologies is nationalism: the former saw the Jewish people as of supreme importance, and other nations, in particular the Palestinians, as expendable; the other intends to “shake off” all the restraints of the past and to evolve toward a new kind of human being—and the shaheed, that man or woman who puts aside their self-centerredness for the greater good, is the link between the shaking-off and the evolution. The Palestinians must put aside their narrow self-concern and commit, through Nonviolent Noncooperative Resistance, to God’s Revolution, as Abel and Jesus and Muhammad did, accepting whatever monumental costs may be required of them by destiny rather than trying to force destiny to bend to their whim, as the suicide-bomber strives to do. 

Just as Jesus, a Jew, and Muhammad, an Arab,and Gandhi, an Indian, understood that they were no longer reforming the societies of their respective peoples but revolutionizing history, the Palestinians must realize that theirs is no ordinary struggle for national self-determination. No, it is a struggle, a jihad ackbar for redemption, indeed for many redemptions: to free their own nation of the shackles which bind it, to uplift themselves; but also to free the Israelis of the ever-present phantoms of annhilation and Hitler, and the psychically decaying effects of colonial absolute power; and by setting an example to all the Arab and Muslim peoples, providing a cutting-edge model for undoing the complex matrix of First World-Third World ideological parasitism and socioeconomic sado-masichism, and by doing so, finally exorcise civilization of the spectres of empire, poverty and terror. Yes, the Palestinians are faced with the most daunting of choices: save the world or assist in the murder of our species’ future. 

The 20^th Century Palestinian fled from death only to secretly yearn for it, even embrace it, arms open wide, finger pressed upon the red detonator button. The 21^st Century Palestinian, however, stares death in the face and says, ‘No more. No more shall I be a pawn and a freak. I shall have my humanity, and I shall not rest until all tyranny is converted into liberty. I offer myself to Truth and to God and to my neighbor and to my loved ones. There shall be hope. There shall be resurrection!’ 

“My method is conversion, not coercion, it is self-suffering, not the suffering of the tyrant. I know that method to be infallible.” “My nationalism is not so narrow that I should not feel for [Englishmen’s] distress or gloat over it. I do not want my country’s happiness at the sacrifice of another country’s happiness.” “India’s greatest glory will consist not in regarding Englishmen as her implacable enemies fit only to be turned out of India at the first available opportunity, but in turning them into friends and partners in a new commonwealth of nations in the place of an Empire based upon exploitation of the weaker or undeveloped nations and races of the earth and, therefore, finally [based] upon force.”

—Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi

It is has also been said that Nonviolence is a Western/Hindu/Buddhist concept, not Islamic, nor can it ever be Islamic (“Find me an Islamic Gandhi,” an acquaintance once growled at me), and Nonviolence only ever worked against “civilized” opponents. The example of Abdul Ghaffir Khan[4] completely obliterates both arguments. Khan (1890-1988), later known as Badshah Khan, was a leader of Pashtun tribes in British India, a devout Muslim and friend of Gandhi. He pioneered modernity’s first nonviolent jihad, which historians have identified as “the world’s first nonviolent army.” He founded and led for a decade the Khudai Khidmatgars, the Servants of God, which challenged the entire array of imperial and traditional socioeconomic institutions which were sucking the lifeblood out from India: they emancipated Indian serfs, introduced women into political action, and fueled anti-colonial fervor and activity all across the subcontinent. He once remarked, “[Nonviolence] was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he was in Mecca... But we had so far forgotten it that when Gandhi placed it before us, we thought he was sponsoring a novel creed.” (Gandhi, for his part, declared that he was able to perceive the origin of the doctrines of Nonviolence not only in sacred Hindu and Buddhist writings, nor even just in the Bible, but also in the Quran.) 

Both Gandhi and Badshah Khan faced a brutal empire which had conquered half the world by duplicity and malicious warfare, and by the 20^th Century had already put down inside India itself, by a policy of massacre, several rebellions and demonstrations which had errupted from the oppressed population, the most infamous incidents being the Sepoy Mutiny of the mid-19^th Century and the 1920 Amritsar Massacre. The truth is that the myth of the “civilized” British, and let us not forget to include the myhts of the “civilized” White Americans, Afrikaaners and other branches of the Western European family tree, has been largely promulgated by elites as a way to hide the bloodthirsty imperialism underlying much of their cultures. Using the world’s educational systems and mass-media to spread this myth, they are successfully preventing the possibility of future Nonviolent revolutions overthrowing their present reconfigured matrixes of control. Why would elites prefer armed struggle over Nonviolent action? Because in the end those who resort to armed violence are succumbing to baser instincts, relinquishing their higher spiritual, mental and emotional functions, which makes them as vulnerable as a newborn puppy to the special interests’ Pavlovian training. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the Congo. Or for that matter, gaze into Palestine itself: for every terrorist attack, Sharon rains destruction upon Palestinian neighborhoods, which in turn inspires more terrorism, and Sharon gets to excuse his “Security Fence” and even more destruction of Palestinian life and property in the name of defense—all according to the plan of Washington, D.C., Paris, Moscow and Riyadh, for whom the conflict is not only great business but also terrific for propagandizing and controlling their own citizenries.[5]

If one needs more evidence of homegrown Islamic/Middle Eastern Nonviolence, Ozcelik has made this list: Egypt (1919-1922), Peshawar Pashtun resistance (1930), the Palestine General Strike (1936), the Iraq Uprising (1948), Pattani resistance in Thailand (1975), the Islamist revolution in Iran (1978-1979), defense of al-Aqsa (1978-1979), Golan Druze resistance (1981-1982), the first Intifada (1987-1989), and the Albanian national movement in Kosovo (1989-1994). Ozcelik forgets to mention the nationalist revolution in Iran during 1955 or the ongoing student and reformist movements in that country today, as well as the Republican Brothers movement in the Sudan during the 1960s and 70s, the Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association (RAWA) which struggled against the Taleban regime in Afghanistan during the 1990s, and recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to coalesce into a semi-underground reform movement. Finally, the prophet Muhammad himself used Nonviolence, both in the early days of Islam as well as in the Hudaibiya Agreement.[6] 

Ozcelik explains the Quranic attitude toward Nonviolence thus:

In sum, while the Quran does not prescribe an explicit ethic of Nonviolence and peace, neither does it give higher value to actions of violence. In the Quran, there are no consistent or unequivocal general concepts for determining war, peace and Nonviolence. Each Quranic verse is related to some specific historical events. Thus, there are Quranic verses that call for Nonviolence, while others call for war. This is not a contradiction, but a reflection of specific historical situations. ...If we take into consideration the time-space dimension and gradual changes in Islamic tradition, it becomes clear that Islam tends to give moral precedence to Nonviolence. One can even conclude that the pursuit of religiously oriented or informal struggle (jihad) in the modern world by the methods of Nonviolent action is fully consistent with Islamic scripture and tradition.

Regarding Ozcelik’s notion of “the time-space dimension,” famous Sudanese Muslim reformist Mahmoud Mohamed Taha (1909/1911-1986), who was executed by the Islamist government of the Sudan because of his vision of Islam, wrote in his groundbreaking work The Second Message of Islam,[7]

Civilization is different from material progress, but it is a difference in degree and not in kind. Civilization is the peak of human development, while material progress is its base. Civilization may be defined as the ability to distinguish values and to observe these values in daily conduct. A civilized man does not confuse ends with means, and he does not sacrifice ends for the sake of means. He is a man of principles and of moral values, one who has achieved a complete intellectual and emotional life. [Chapter 1]

Islam... is the religion of humanity which accomodates human illusion, inspired by the will to be free, until man is gradually enlightened through realistic wisdom to eventually achieve intelligent Islam. Islam, as the religion of humanity, developed with the evolution of the mind, and accompanied the maturing mind in its long evolution from a primitive beginning to its wise and refined end. [Chapter 3]

Islam, as revealed in the Quran, is not one message but two: one at the beginning closer to Judaism, and the other at the end closer to Christianity. The Prophet delivered both messages, by delivering the Quran and living his exemplary life. While dealing and elaborating the first message in the Shari’a, he left the second message unelaborated... [Chapter 4] 

The First Message of Islam has been elaborated through specific legislation.  It is the message of al-mu’minin [mere believers] from al-muslimin [submitters]... It was not ultimate Islam that [has thusfar] succeeded... but rather Islam at the level of al-iman [belief]. The Quran itself is divided into two parts: one of al-iman and the other of al-islam. [Chapter 5] 

God says: “Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My grace upon you, and sactioned Islam as your religion.” Many people consider [this] phrase as implying that Islam itself has been fully achieved by mankind on earth on that day. The verse: “And We have revealed to you the Reminder [the Quran] so that you may explain to mankind that which has been sent down to them,” was also taken to mean the Quran has been finally and conclusively explained... “Explanation” of the Quran has been only in terms of expedient legislation... The Quran can never be finally and conclusively explained. Islam, too, can never be concluded. Progress in it is eternal: “Surely the true religion with God is Islam.” “With God” is eternal, beyond time and space. [Chapter 6]

With these words in mind, I am now about to make my most radical argument: if Muslim Palestinians fail to transform their struggle into a Nonviolent Intifada they shall fail their destiny, for theirs has never been an ordinary struggle for national independence. Why? Because they are situated in the Holy Land, in the very navel of the world. They must come to understand their part to play in the progress of human history. 

To understand what I mean, we must dive deeper into the heart of Islam: the Quran.

Nonviolence and the Progress of History

The Quran draws our attention to the fact that Jesus’s famous maxims Turn the Other Cheek and Love Thy Enemey were in no way original to him. Rather, his maxims are among the most ancient, primitive, primordial of truths etched in the mysterious tapestry of the human psyche. In the fifth chapter of the Quran, The Table, the 27^th through 31^st verses, God reminds us of a prehistoric incident which occurred in the second generation of the species, between Qabeel and Habeel (Cain and Abel):

Recite to them the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice to God. It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter, “Be sure I will slay thee.” “Surely,” said the former, “God doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee, for I do fear God [or: I am in awe of God], the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the Fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.” The selfish soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became himself one of the lost ones. Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. “Woe is me!” said he, “Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?” Then he became full of regrets.

The Quranic record of this event explains Abel’s reasoning, and as Ozcelik notes, “[Abel’s] stance announces that human beings are capable of resisting violence by Nonviolence, and of transforming a violent person into a remorseful one.” The Biblical record, in Genesis 4.1-16—upon which the Quranic record is elaborating—explores other facets of the consequences of Cain’s violence:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the fisrtlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But onto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, “Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, “Where is Abel thy brother?” And he said, “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?” And he said, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yeild unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” And Cain said unto the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, though hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.” And the Lord said unto him, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Cain’s fallacy was that he believed he had no responsibility to Abel, but in truth, we are our brother’s keeper. Thenceforth, the very earth has been corrupted, and violence geometrically multiplied: Cain killed one man, which invited upon himself violation by others, and from him there was a sevenfold expansion of violence. This epidemic of violence persists to today, in many forms: neo-imperialism, apartheid, First World neglect. Even God seems susceptible according to the Biblical record, so intent upon curing this malignant cancer that several times the Almighty nearly exterminates the life of Its beloved patient: first, the Great Flood, then the Israelite wars of conquest, then the rise of the great empires, the back-and-forth of sin and repercussion, crime and punishment, a hydra of death and suffering, slithering in all directions across the world. Metaphorically, all of the intelligent universe has wandered into the nightmarish wasteland of Nod with Cain, away from our true selves, Abel. 

With all the violent destruction in our species’ history, we often find ourselves wondering, ‘Why does anything exist? What’s the point?’ In the 40^th chapter of the Quran, The Forgiver, the 67^th and 68^th verses, it is said: 

It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot; then does He get you out into the light as a child: then lets you grow and reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old—though of you there are some who die before—and lets you reach a term appointed; in order that ye may learn wisdom.  It is He Who gives Life and Death; and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, “Be,” and it is.

Write Comment
Name:
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:* *A wrong code will delete the comment.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!