An article titled “Koranic Duels Ease Terrors” appeared in the Christian Science Monitor in its February issue this year. The article was posted on the Writer’s Forum[1] website courtesy of Mike Ghouse of Foundation of Pluralism[2]. It describes the efforts of Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar to bring peace to his troubled country by challenging terrorists of Al-Quaida to enter into dialogue with him. According to the article, Hitar challenges Al-Quaida activists to a verbal duel by proposing: "If you can convince us that your ideas are justified by the Koran, then we will join you in your struggle, but if we succeed in convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence."

Now, two years later, … relative peace reigns in Yemen. … Western experts who doubted this experiment are courting Hitar, eager to hear how his "theological dialogues" with captured Islamic militants have helped pacify this wild and mountainous country previously seen by the US as a failed state like Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Yemen's strategy has been unconventional certainly, but it has achieved results that we could never have hoped for," says one European diplomat. …Hitar explains that his system is simple. He invites militants to use the Koran to justify attacks on innocent civilians and when they cannot, he shows them numerous passages commanding Muslims not to attack civilians, to respect other religions, and fight only in self-defense. He uses the passages to bolster his argument against bombing Western targets in Yemen - attacks he says defy the Koran … (and its teaching that ) … under no circumstances should women and children be killed. If, after weeks of debate, the prisoners renounce violence they are released and offered vocational training courses and help to find jobs.”

Hitar says, "along with acknowledging freedom of expression, intellect and opinion, you must listen and show interest in what the other party is saying."… He says that most militants are ordinary people who have been led astray. Just as they were taught Al Qaeda's doctrines, … so too can they be taught more moderate ideas. "If you study terrorism in the world, you will see that it has an intellectual theory behind it," says Hitar. "And any kind of intellectual idea can be defeated by intellect."

What Hitar has said in his above interview, touches upon the central point of my paper: namely that the struggle to bring forth political and social change should always be based on the methods of nonviolence activism. This should be true in all cases, whether it is in response to imperialist policies or it is in response to terrorist attacks. The battle against culture of violence, manifesting either as group or state terrorism can only be effectively fought in the minds of people. We need to understand two things clearly: one, the mechanism of social change in order to influence it, two, the ideologies and the mindset behind the phenomenon of terrorism in order to counter it. We must realize that terrorism is a dangerous mix of ideology and state of mind. Fighting terrorism only with the use of bare and brutal force is a sure recipe for fostering the breeding grounds for more terror. Violence only breeds violence. The only way to break this cycle of violence and counter violence is to bring the education of nonviolence methodology to the masses and at the institutional level. 

We may approach terrorism with the premise that, as a political weapon, it is a response to the perceived injustices carried out by the establishments in power either at a global or a national level. By looking at the two notions contained in this statement, namely, the ‘Perceived Injustices’, and the ‘Response’, we realize that the third notion, that of ‘Terrorism’ can be and should be replaced by nonviolence activism. The response to injustice, even such of violent nature does not necessarily have to be violent. Stating the matter in this way brings us closer to the issue of defining terrorism. I am not going to attempt to define it in this paper. I believe that our exercise to define it is futile, irrelevant and does not serve any purpose. The term has already been well defined by the all-prevailing and omnipresent mainstream media. However, the matter of how various schools of thought attempt to define it may require further thought.  

Some have attempted to define it in a way that blurs the boundaries so much so that every sort of socio-political activity may be brought into the sphere of terrorism. This ranges from domestic violence and bullying at schools to government policies and inter-state dynamics including war. This kind of approach lands us into discussions of violence in general and keeps us away from honestly facing that particular phenomenon known to us as terrorism. This viewpoint may obscure the reality of religio-political fanaticism where people, in order to propagate their ideas or press for their demand, indiscriminately kills others and blow up planes, buildings and their own sacred bodies without realizing that with such action of theirs they are also blowing up any chances for meaningful change in the world.  

And then there are those who try to define terrorism in such a way that the definition serves only a particular political standpoint or belief. Among other things they may argue that the terrorist acts are a part of struggle for independence or statehood or is in response to foreign occupation.  Thus, they argue, that these cannot be termed as acts of terrorism. Instead, they view these acts as acts of warfare. The problem with such line of reasoning is that it deflects the attention away from the real issues and misleads to a state of complacency. Thus the social and political pressure towards correction considerably wanes. With this viewpoint we may risk discounting the developmental mechanisms of society and its institutions. We may overlook the historical process at work and how social change is affected through socio-political processes. We may ignore the “nonviolent alternatives for managing conflict, as well as the skills for critical analysis of the structural arrangements that legitimate and produce injustice and inequality”[1].  

Now, on the matter of injustices, there is no denying for example, that the imperialist military industrial complex profits most from wars, conflicts and terrorism and therefore has vested interest in promoting the culture of violence. On the other hand, the terrorist response only provides a new rationale for promoting the agenda of conflict and wars. It is time for us to revisit the history of some of the perceived injustices, which are fueling violent emotions in the masses, especially in Muslim countries. There is a need to revisit history looking at the past events in an objective and open way. For example, I always wondered when on 29^th of November 1947 the UN General Assembly in its resolution # 181 called [2] for establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with a Jewish state, leaving the control of Jerusalem in the hands of an international body, why the Arab countries did not accept it and instead sent their combined armies to wipe out the state of Israel. This bothers me even so more because after more than 50 years of bloodshed, today and in 1990s especially before the Intifada, Palestinian leadership and Arab states came to the verge of accepting a much smaller, much weaker and fragmented Palestinian state than was proposed in 1947 by the UNO.

I believe that our ability to critically think through, analyze, and come up with a mature action plan may be measured by our ability to arrive at a nonviolent response to social and political problems. I also believe that the present times, with their modern day infrastructures, technological advances and globalization had made it practically possible to pursue the ideas of a nonviolence activism more than any time in the past. Quoting Douglas Roche[3] “A distinguishing feature of our time is that morality and pragmatism have intersected. What we have long known we should do for our brothers and sisters on the planet, we now know we must do to ensure our very survival. It is not news that moral teaching emphasizes the core values of respect for life, liberty, justice, and equality; a mutual respect and personal integrity. What is news is that technology has brought us to the point where we all stand on one planet, breath the same air, are affected by one another’s problems, and posses the power to annihilate each other. The physical integrity of all human life today demands political policies that enhance, not diminish life. The common good requires policies that promote sustainable and socially equitable development and peace in all regions of the globe.”   

“Since the mid 20th century the term nonviolence has come to embody a diversity of techniques for waging social conflict without the use of violence, as well as the underlying political and philosophical rationale for the use of these techniques”.[4] We must revisit the history of nonviolence activism and integrate it with today’s specific requirements. Originally, the idea of nonviolence activism was espoused by Henry David Thoreau[5] when he refused to pay the poll tax in protest against the Mexico war in 1848. Thoreau was sent to jail. He developed his ideas in the article “Civil Disobedience” which has a “simple but daring message … actions through principles." If the demands of a government or a society are contrary to an individual's conscience, it is his/her duty to reject them. Upholding moral law as opposed to social law "divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine." [6] Inspired by Thoreau's message, Gandhi organized a massive resistance of colored people in South Africa and later of Indians against the British occupation of India. Ghandi is believed to have derived his ideas also from many other sources such as Bhagvat-Gita, Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and from the writings of Ruskin, in particular his Unto This Last and even to a greater degree from Tolstoy’s Kingdom of God is Within You. But his practical applications in the social and political spheres were entirely his own. Gandhi coined the famous Sanskrit name of Satyagraha for nonviolence, which can roughly by translated as force of truth or love. Satyagraha, Gandhi said, is "the vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one's self." The opponent must be "weaned from error by patience and sympathy, weaned, not crushed; converted, not annihilated.”

Spanning from ancient times, there are hundreds of other examples of those who had the vision and courage to practice nonviolence activism to bring socio-political change. From Socrates who peacefully drank the cup of hemlock poison for the sake of his beliefs, to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” leading the “Civil Rights movement” in USA in the sixties, to Dorothy Day, founder of Catholic Worker’s movement championing the cause of the poor and downtrodden in New York’s slums, to John Howard Yoder the author of “The Politics of Jesus” in which he refuted the Christian theory of just war.

Today we need to come up with comparable works to address current issues such as Jihad. We need authors the like of Yoder, to write something like “The Politics of Mohammad” refuting the ideology of terrorism.  We should revisit the rich heritage of Islamic philosophy and reclaim such theological writers of nonviolence as Mu'tazilis who called themselves Ahl al-'Adl wa al-Tawhid "People of Justice and Monotheism" and saw the need to understand the Qur’an with a historical perspective with their “… stance on Free Will, and (their) perceived opposition to the inherent anthropomorphism of the rival theologies.”[7] This type of work should be pursued by such organization as Muslims Against Terrorism[8] and other active scholarly groups who aim for the education of the masses on these issues. Ideas of Jihad and violent revolutions should be re-examined through such research.

On a general level, the idea such as that violence is an ingrained part of human nature needs to be carefully examined. The Seville Statement on violence drafted in 1986 by 20 leading biological and social scientists under the auspices of the International Society for Research on Aggression declared, “There is no inherent biological component of our nature that produces violence. The full text of this work is available at Unesco’s website[9]. The statement continues to say, “we conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism. Just as wars begin in the minds of men, peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.”

The history of nonviolence shows that not only there exists an entire catalogue of moral and pragmatic bases of nonviolence activism but also there is a whole catalogue of concrete actions, which can be used in this type of struggle.  In this short paper not all of these ideas can be covered adequately. However, information on these is amply and easily available through libraries, Internet and through NGOs.  Dr. Gene Sharp in his 1973 book, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vol. 2: The Methods of Nonviolent Action has divided such actions into five major categories. These include protests and persuasion, social, economic, and political non-cooperation and nonviolent intervention. Details on these are available at the Albert Einstein Institution’s web site[10] under the title 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. The actions range from statements, banners, deputations, vigils, processions, social disobedience, consumer boycotts, revenue refusals, strikes, sit-downs, administrative or judicial non-cooperation, nonviolent invasions or occupations, overloading of systems etc. 

The challenge ahead of humanity is huge. The challenge is to bring awareness to a level, which can effect the change and be instrumental in building a world where violence of every kind may become extinct. From our perspective, what we need in order to deal with Terrorism in this age is a Muslim Gandhi, or a Muslim Thoreau, or a Muslim Tolstoy. Scholars and writers should theorize and come up with proper nonviolent strategy and educate the masses.  Once theory is there the action will follow. As Marx[11] said, action without theory is blind and theory without action is lame. Let’s spread the literacy of nonviolence. Let’s bring awareness about it at every level and in every sphere. Let’s write more about it, let’s talk more about it, and let’s do more about it. Let’s create an ambience of nonviolence in our living and in our cultures and keep contributing our small share towards building a genuinely civil society.