Islam: A Message of Peace or War?

There can be no peace and harmony without the enforcement of some kind of order. In the universe order is maintained by the functioning of certain laws, which allows us to predict the orbit of the Planets to the behavior of molecules in substances. No one seems to deny the presence of these laws but plenty of skeptics regarding the existence of the lawgiver. In fact they have gone to great lengths in exploring these laws but spent very small portion of that time contemplating about the significance of the law giver.

The animal kingdom is also regulated by natural laws; equilibrium is maintained between the various kinds of species and with their natural surrounding environment. Similarly, human beings are also subjected to the inherent laws of nature, for example, they cannot survive on indigestible substances or cannot walk over water or fly through the air like birds, and so on.

However, the only exception is that of the relationships (political, social and economical) formed between human beings, which are enforced from within not from without by being subjected to natural laws. Human beings have this unique gift of ‘free will’; the ability to make an informed decision based on thought. Human beings use their ‘free will’ to determine how and where that equilibrium is reached in order to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves.

Within a nation peace and harmony is achieved by the government enforcing law and order assuming the government is a legitimate one. In the international arena genuine peace and stability is attained by the sovereign nations ‘willingly’ abiding by certain established international traditions and the mutual ‘agreements’ reached between them – not by the imposition of international ‘laws’. This is because such laws by definition would require a supreme authority or super state to enforce them upon nations and in turn would render the essence of sovereign states meaningless. Hence, in reality nations would become like colonies of the super state. Furthermore, it would be impossible to legislate ‘international laws’ as nations vary in their values and ethics widely.

The legitimacy of international ‘laws’ is false; it is propaganda tool employed by the powerful states to subjugate the weak. The word ‘law’ is used to mask the aggression by conferring upon it some sort of legitimacy. Otherwise by now we would have seen the US facing war crimes charges in the International court in Hague and forced to pay war reparations to Iraq. To enhance this illusion of legitimacy, the pseudo executive authority of the UN has been created, which is projected as an independent neutral body but the real power is vested in the Mafia bosses and their godfather sitting in the Security Council with their privileged veto powers.

Any of the permanent members of the UN Security Council has the veto power to ignore and nullify the decision of the real international community, represented by the member nations sitting in the powerless General Assembly. Only recently the lone US vetoed a resolution adopted by the General Assembly condemning the apartheid wall of Israel, no doubt made to preserve God’s ‘chosen’ race. Funny, how Israel is being constantly advertised as the only democracy in the region and the US as the flag bearer decided to ignore the majority decision of the world. Yet, we must endure their incessant rambling and lecturing about their democratic credentials!

In reality, international stability is a matter of creating mutual harmony between nations by willingly coming to equitable agreements; relationships are formed through ‘reciprocal’ actions. This is certainly an axiom that no one can deny, which has existed since time immemorial. Hence, when a nation commits to war against the other nations, they too respond by committing to war in self-defense.

Only the foolish would call for peace in the face of aggression or unilaterally opt to abide be certain ‘moral’ codes thereby remaining passive in face of war. There is nothing ‘moral’ about raising the flag of peace whilst the homes of your fellow citizens are burnt, resources are pillaged and the lands are effectively colonized. On the contrary such is the act of a coward and driven by sheer stupidity. One former US President highlighted stated this point, and he said:

“Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace." — (Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909)

The Muslim Response

This reality of international relationship for the Muslims is the same as they also face foreign nations who are peaceful and belligerent. Islam likewise treats the issue of war and peace in the context of international relations according to its interests, briefly, which are the propagation of Islam and the preservation of the community. Since, the Muslims are facing an onslaught at this moment we largely talking about the latter, i.e. self-preservation.

The response from the Muslims has been largely defined by their location in the spectrum. This reads on one end as ‘naïve’ reaching the middle ground of the ‘moderates’ eventually ending on the other side known as the ‘radicals’. The naive folks are those who confine to their personal rituals and getting involved in the welfare of other Muslims in distant lands is almost alien to them. They demonstrate their peaceful nature by exposing their innocence, ignorance and passive nature. And yes the usual one-liner interpretation of the word ‘Islam’, which comes from the word Salaam and it, means ‘peace’, so they go on to claim they are peaceful in the absolute sense!

Then we have the Moderates who are actively calling for ‘peace’ as touted by the belligerent aggressors in the face of this onslaught. They are behaving like the dodos that they became extinct for holding on to the notion of unilateral peace! Of course Islam means ‘peace’ but it also means surrender to the laws of God. One of such laws calls for war in times of facing an onslaught from the belligerent infidels. Numerous verses in the Quran, many well-known Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet), the life of the Prophet and the successive Khalifs (Islamic ruler) elaborate the point about the meaning of war and peace.

One of the first converts to Islam by the name of Sumayah was tortured and eventually she was executed by the pagan Arabs. The Prophet (SAW) did little to intervene and the moderates see this as an example of the Prophet’s (SAW) inherent absolute peaceful natures. On the contrary the Prophet (SAW) lacking material power at the early phase prevented him from undertaking military actions but once he was established in Medina as a head of an Islamic state, the usage of military power to preserve the interests of the Muslims was demonstrated frequently. When the Muslim woman in the market was merely insulted, not even harmed, and the subsequent fight broke out between one Muslim and the Infidels, the Prophet responded immediately by sending his army to deal with the situation.

Similarly when the treaty of Hudaybiyah was broken by the pagan Arabs, the Prophet (SAW) had the option to accept a new agreement and maintain peace as the head of the delegation from pagan Arabs approached the Prophet through an intermediary. Had the Prophet (SAW) been a peaceful man as touted by the moderates he would have accepted this proposal but instead he called for their unconditional surrender to Islam, which lead to the relatively bloodless conquest of Mecca, continuing the military expansion Islamic state covered an area from Spain in the west to India in the east, Central Asian Republics and China in the north to southern parts of Africa.

The final category of the radicals at the other end of the spectrum are those who are putting up a resistance with all the various means at their disposal, hence the pejorative term of ‘militant’ or ‘extremist’ is deployed in describing them.

Islam certainly does not call for peace or war in the absolute sense. The calls for peace or war is dictated by the international situation; the reciprocal actions of other nations and the position of the Islamic state. The Muslims are encouraged to seek peace when the others incline towards it genuinely but not in the face of an attack or after a military occupation. On the contrary, in the face of an onslaught the Muslims are commanded to fight fiercely by driving out the invaders and installing fear into their hearts. The moderate brigades rarely refer to such references and when they come across it, they are explained away as specific to the Prophet (SAW) or to his time! How convenient for such interpretations, as it allows them conceal their cowardice nature and sheer idiocy.

Those moderate Muslims need to ponder on the words of those who constantly utter ‘peace’ have exhibited the greatest levels of violence, which includes two world wars, usage of Atom bombs, Napalms, Cluster bombs and other nasty lethal weapons against civilians. And it is they who have developed the art of indiscriminately attacking civilians in the 1930s: the real terrorism. Why do they maintain and enhance their military capabilities when their rival nations are in fact become weaker? Just ask yourselves these questions: Who has invented the Weapons of mass destruction and the likes? Who has stockpiles of them? Who is constantly developing them? Who has constantly profited from them? Who has used them in the past not in self-defense but for conquest?

Simultaneously, the Muslims living in the West are under pressure constantly maligned as extremists by xenophobic media; doubt is shed upon them as the likely candidates to attack their cities. However, to be fair this fear is also natural as a mass murderer will always live with some degree of fear anticipating retribution from the relatives of the countless victims. Hence, the hype of terrorism is way of re-labeling this fear and shifting the guilt to the vengeful victims seeking just retribution. The victims are then made to feel ashamed of their position constantly, even contemplating resistance. Under pressure many have buckled and have embarked upon the call to establish unilateral peace, which tantamount to capitulation.


The ‘peace’ peddled by the moderates and the belligerent aggressors means that the Palestinians should lay down their arms and the Islamic world to concede Jerusalem including the sacred area of Al-Aqsa, symbolized by the presence of two Mosques. Consequentially, the Palestinians would have nothing to negotiate with and accept whatever the likes of Ariel Sharon decides to give them with the approval of its rightwing Zionist. The Gentiles as according to the Talmudic teachings are worse than animals and exist only to serve the ‘chosen’ race. Everyone fears to highlight these pertinent facts in fear of the stick of anti-Semitism whilst many are seeking popularity and fame by the fad of scorning the Arabs and Muslims.

Similar criteria would be applicable in Iraq, when the Mosques are replaces with the culture of McDonalds, strip joints, night clubs, bars and whatever fad that ‘free’ societies are engaged in, ranging from homosexuality, cannibalism to bestiality then you will have ‘peace’! I am sure Mr. I. Allawi would have no problems with such fads nor would he have any difficulties convincing the rest of the Arab league who are supposed to be the vanguard of Arab/Islamic culture and civilization.

On the contrary, real peace has to be attained on our own terms not merely in compliance with the terms of those who are engaged in imperial conquest and inflicting violence against us. Accepting such types of ‘peace’ would tantamount to surrender. What rules the world is force not peace. Peace is the fruit of enforcing that force; the fruits are consumed by the enforcer. Hence, the Muslims have to ensure that when they seek peace they are in a position whereby they can at least have a share of that fruit and not become the fruit itself.