Written by Historically, there has always been violence, and it seems humans are naturally self-destructive. Unfortunately, this is also what we see today. Is it possible to avoid war?
The perception that humans are violent is based on our being sensitive to horrendous things that happen in the world. The Second Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (ra), gave an analogy on this: if someone’s face is missing an ear or a nose, then that’s the only thing we remember even though all the other features might have been perfectly healthy, and the person might have otherwise been beautiful. There is more goodness in the world, but since everyone’s attention goes toward evil, there seems to be more of it (1). When we see clean clothes but one stain on them, the stain is what’s left on our minds. Similarly, warfare in human history and society is a horrendous thing that stands out, which is why people find it fascinating.
We, as humans, are not inherently violent and evil people. If that were the case, we would always be in a state of war. War is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of human civilization throughout human history lived in peace. We live in peace today because peace is our natural state. This is what Islam teaches. Islam does not teach that we are born sinful or that we are born with an evil nature. The Prophet Muhammad (sa) said, “Every child is born according to true nature.” He (sa) then said to recite the following verse of the Holy Qur’an, “And follow the nature made by Allah — the nature in which He has created mankind. There is no altering the creation of Allah. That is the right religion” (2,3). Islam teaches that we are born with a pure nature. That nature inclines to peace. War is the exception.
However, when we are given free will, there will always be a few people who will misuse that free will to do wrong. It is impossible to create a system where free will exists,and war never happens. People will always have the choice to go against their nature and oppress others. We can avoid war by working together to restrain those few people who cause war.
We have overcome World Wars, and we have avoided a Third World War for such a long time. Is it fearmongering to warn about an impending war?
Fearmongering would be if there were no evidence of an impending war. The question is, are there actually signs of an impending war?
Historically, when God’s prophets warned of impending punishment, they were seen as fearmongers. However, when those punishments came, everyone realized it was not fearmongering. The Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, His Holiness, Khalifatul-Masiḥ V (aba), has repeatedly warned that there is an impending world war and that if we do not change our ways, we will not escape it.
It is not just the Khalifa who is saying it; many people are starting to say the same thing. The Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community said, “The conflicts that existed on a small scale are now developing into international conflicts. In the past, when I said that the injustice in the world was pushing us towards nuclear war, many government officials, analysts and politicians said that this is a far-fetched claim and overly pessimistic. However now they are themselves saying that a nuclear war is looming and anything is possible” (4).
Before World War I, countries aligned themselves into military alliances and blocs, and there was a reckless attitude toward war. We see the same pattern happening today where blocs are forming, and there is more reckless rhetoric. Also, before World War II, the Great Depression took place and there were great economic adversities. The economic disaster that Germany faced after World War I, and the oppressive measures imposed against it, created a situation where another world war became almost inevitable. We see similar circumstances arising today. We have gone through worldwide economic adversity and are now on the precipice of a potential economic disaster. Countries are being targeted with economic sanctions and are being pushed into desperate circumstances where they have little to lose. When we see all the circumstances coming together that we saw before the previous world wars, it would be naive to deny the warnings the Khalifa has been giving.
Military alliances result in blocs forming, which has led to world wars. How can a weaker country defend itself without joining a bloc when its enemies are forming military alliances?
Politically motivated military alliances are problematic because their basis is that political loyalty be given precedence over justice. This is what we saw happening in World War 1 when one conflict resulted in many countries automatically declaring war out of political loyalty and honoring their military alliances. The Holy Qur’an teaches this is wrong and says, “Assist one another in piety and rectitude, and assist not one another in sin and transgression” (5). The Holy Qur’an teaches Muslim countries to form an alliance in defending justice. It is an alliance stipulating that if any country does injustice against anyone else, then all other countries should unite to fight that aggression. The Holy Qur’an says, “And if two parties of believers fight against each other, make peace between them; then if after that one of them transgresses against the other, fight the party that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah. Then if it returns, make peace between them with equity, and act justly. Verily, Allah loves the just” (6).
This concept of “military alliance” taught by Islam is not for defending political interests, it is for defending justice. Those countries that come together to fight an oppressor do so for cooperation in rectitude, not for political loyalty. When this type of alliance for justice is established, weaker countries do not feel any need to join a military alliance or a bloc to defend their political interests.
The United Nations (UN) was formed to achieve this purpose, but in its present state it is not functioning on justice. It has not kept to its original vision because it supports the interests of superpowers, and weaker countries have no meaningful say. The Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community said, “After the Second World War, to establish long-lasting peace in the world and to prevent future wars, nations joined together to form an organization, which they called the United Nations. However, it seems that just as the League of Nations miserably failed in its objectives, the status and respect of the United Nations continues to fall by the day. If the requirements of justice are not fulfilled, then no matter how many organizations are formed for the sake of peace, their efforts will prove fruitless” (7).
Some countries have justified their aggression by saying they are making a preemptive attack against a country that is a threat to them. Is this justified?
We have to remember the golden rule which is to do to others as we would like to have done to ourselves. Imagine, for example, if China invaded the United States because a president did not win the popular vote. The forty-fifth President of the United States lost the popular vote by three million votes. Imagine if China said that they would give the American people freedom by invading and installing the candidate who actually won the popular vote and that they would thus establish true democracy and freedom in the United States. Would any American be grateful? We would be deeply offended. However, these are the types of excuses we use when we go into other countries to protect our political interests. Today, politicians openly admit the invasion of Iraq was never justified. When those same politicians condemn another country on moral grounds for doing the same thing, it is understandably seen as pretense and hypocrisy. The Holy Qur’an says, “Most hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do” (8).
Addressing the Syrian crisis, the Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community condemned this type of injustice and said, “What interest do other powers have in regions thousands of miles away? They are either interested in the wealth of that country or in proving their superiority to opposing powers. They are simply subjugating lesser countries. In any case, it is due to the weakness of the Muslim countries and the abandonment of their teaching that others have the impudence to state, as one country did, that even if the UN did not allow it, they would use force against Syria because it was their right. The reasoning given for this “right” was most childish, in that the UN cannot dictate their foreign policy. Where does the question of foreign policy enter the equation here? When enmity is so intense, people are blinded, and apparently educated people say ignorant things. We look to them for their wisdom, but they say ignorant things. Sitting thousands of miles away, what business do they have in this matter? If it is anyone’s business, it is the UN’s because the country in question is included in its charter. No individual country has either any pact or any [relevant]dealing or is in any direct danger from the country in chaos. Where is the relevance of foreign policy here?” (9).
Such continued injustice and hypocrisy result in a boiling over of sentiments that can eventually lead easily to another world war.
References
- Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Anawarul Ulum, Volume 5, p. 544
- Sahih Muslim, Book 46, Chapter 6
- The Holy Qur’an (30:31)
- Mirza Masroor Ahmad (2016), Concluding Address at 50th Jalsa Salana UK, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_nVfJkTNlg [Accessed: April 3, 2023]
- The Holy Qur’an (5:3)
- The Holy Qur’an (49:10)
- Mirza Masroor Ahmad, World Crisis and The Pathway to Peace, p. 160, Reprinted in India, UK, and USA in 2017, Islam International Publications Ltd.
- The Holy Qur’an (61:4)
- Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Friday Sermon, September 13, 2013, https://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2013-09-13.html [Accessed: April 3, 2023]
Last modified: March 2024
