The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought

nonviolence

The term “nonviolence” stands for two closely related concepts. Strategic nonviolence is a theory of political power as well as a set of techniques for winning conflicts through protests, noncooperation, defiance, and sanctions that fall short of physical or armed violence. Principled nonviolence is a theory of human nature as well as a set of values that aim at personal transformation so that all parties can meet their needs through peaceful means while establishing deeper connections. Since there are large areas of overlap between these two concepts, the difference between strategic nonviolence and principled nonviolence is sometimes seen as a matter of perspective.

The Islamic tradition of armed combat is well known. It can be seen in the extensive discussion of warfare in the Qur’an, the hadith, and jurisprudence (fiqh), as well as in the numerous instances of warfare throughout Muslim history that have been either inspired by or legitimized through religious beliefs and doctrines. As several scholars have demonstrated, however, there also is a parallel tradition of nonviolence in the Islamic heritage. Even though the term “nonviolence” has no equivalent in the classical Islamic vocabulary, studies by modern scholars provide evidence that many of the key elements that constitute the contemporary understanding of nonviolence have always been integral to Islam. By emphasizing these nonviolent elements of the Islamic tradition and by reinterpreting the meaning and relative significance of elements that promote violence, these scholars have offered fresh perspectives on issues of vital importance.

The use of nonviolent strategies played a central role in Muhammad’s success as a religious and political leader. One of the key Qur’anic concepts in this regard is ṣabr, which denotes patience, perseverance, and persistence. The first 12 years of Muhammad’s prophetic career were marked by an actively nonviolent response to opposition and persecution that helped in the formation and solidarity of the new umma (community of believers). Even during the period following Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca to Medina (the hijra, in 622), which saw a number of battles and armed skirmishes, nonviolent methods of preaching, negotiating, and persuading were never abandoned. The treaty of Hudaybiyya, which secured a ten-year peace with the Quraysh and its allies, took place as a direct consequence of Muhammad’s aggressively peaceful “march on Mecca” for the avowed purpose of performing the pilgrimage. Without bloodshed, this initiative forced the opposition into acknowledging Muhammad’s status and allowed Muslims the opportunity to peacefully propagate the Islamic message. Even though the treaty of Hudaybiyya appeared to be a humble compromise at the time, the Qur’an declared it to be a “clear victory.” The surrender of the Quraysh in 630 was made possible at least partly due to Muhammad’s offer of amnesty for his former enemies; evidently, his aim was not to exterminate his opponents but to absorb them into the Muslim umma.

Both the Qur’an and the hadith offer significant resources for nonviolent resistance to oppression, particularly in the duty of “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” A well-known hadith identifies the act of “speaking truth to power” as the noblest form of jihad. The notion of principled nonviolence is not foreign to the Islamic tradition, either, including the imperative of not harming another person, regardless of the cost to oneself. While the Qur’an allows just retaliation, it presents forgiveness as the supreme virtue. In the Qur’anic narrative of Cain and Abel, the latter dies while refusing to defend himself against his brother; a hadith report praises the nonresisting Abel as a role model for Muslims. A similar attitude of nonresistance was demonstrated by the third caliph, ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, who refused to order his supporters to ward off the attacking rebels on the grounds they had not yet broken any laws. While these examples may appear as insignificant exceptions to the mainstream of juristic thought, they cannot be dismissed as ethically irrelevant.

An important hadith mandates disobedience to authorities where compliance would involve support for injustice or disobedience to God. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, is held by some to have established the Islamic social contract when he declared that the Muslim community was obligated to obey him only so long as he obeyed God, emphasizing the religious justification for what is now understood as the right to “civil disobedience.” Such teachings contributed to a tradition of refusing allegiance and compliance to unjust rulers, of which Islamic history provides many illustrations. These typically are examples of conscientious individuals refusing to obey political authorities for the sake of holding on to truth rather than organized movements of civil disobedience.

The Tobacco Protests in Iran during the late 19th century was one of the earliest examples of successful nonviolent resistance carried out on a large scale. In the 20th century, perhaps the most spectacular instance of Muslim nonviolent resistance was seen in the collective struggle of the Iranian people that brought down the U.S.-backed regime of Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979. In the course of the nationwide agitation, Ayatollah Khomeini explicitly prohibited the demonstrators from attacking anyone in uniform. The popular struggle in the ongoing “Green Revolution” in Iran, which began with mass protests in the wake of the 2009 presidential elections, is similar in tactics, for it too is based on nonviolent strategies. In the 1920s Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890–1988) and his nonviolent army of Khudai Khidmatgars challenged the British raj in what is now the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan. Khan’s movement was based on his understanding of Muhammad’s life and earned him the honorific title of “Frontier Gandhi.”

In the Middle East, the Palestinian people have a long history of nonviolent resistance, initially against Jewish colonization and subsequently in response to Israeli occupation. The most dramatic instances of Palestinian mass resistance were seen during the First Intifada (1987–93), an uprising that was largely nonviolent. A number of contemporary Palestinian groups follow nonviolent strategies to resist Israeli occupation and to achieve freedom and statehood, often in collaboration with like-minded Jewish groups; these include the international movement called Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) that emerged in response to the 2005 call by the Palestinian civil society for a campaign of economic pressure that will force Israel to comply with International Law and Palestinian rights. Other forms of nonviolent resistance, including the efforts to build civil society, have been waged in the midst of violent conflicts, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonviolent prodemocracy uprisings in several Arab and Muslim countries that began in December 2010 have been collectively named “the Arab Spring.” Mass civil insurrections nonviolently toppled the autocratic regimes in Tunisia and Egypt in January 2011 but led to civil war in Libya. Major nonviolent movements for democracy in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain spread despite state repression. Significant protests took place in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman; there are signs of similar upheavals in Kuwait, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia. As political awareness increases among Muslim communities, some observers expect to see an even more deliberate and organized application of both strategic and principled nonviolence at different levels of society and politics.