KEY TO PEACE
PEACE is a must for the survival of our civilization. Peace is a must for all kinds of constructive work. As such, it is of the greatest concern to everyone. Everyone wants a peaceful society, a peaceful world. Yet, for the greater part of humanity, peace remains a distant dream. Why so? Why this sad state of affairs? Why this contradiction between ideal and practice? It is time to resolve this matter. It is the duty of all sincere people to inquire into the real cause of this contradiction so that a viable peace formula may be evolved.
I have made an in-depth study of this problem from the historical as well as the Islamic viewpoints. I should like to make a brief presentation of my findings. According to my study, basically, there are two viewpoints in this matter: the concept of peace as defined by social scientists and the concept of peace as defined by the ideologists. The scientists’ concept of peace is based on realities, while the idealists’ concept of peace is based on utopianism; or, in other words, on mere wishful thinking.
Peace is not aimed at satisfying the concerned parties in terms of rights and justice.
It is mainly the ideologists’ concept of peace which has created the present crisis of peace throughout the world. The scientists’ formula for peace is the only practicable one, for the idealists’ formula is merely a formulation of people’s own wishes.
Academicians define peace as an absence of war. But the idealists differ with this notion saying that the mere absence of war is nothing. They hold that peace and justice should go hand in hand. To them the only acceptable formula is that which restores justice in its ideal sense. But the building of such a utopian world is simply impossible.
This concept of peace is seemingly beautiful. Because of its apparent beauty, it has gained general popularity. The masses everywhere are obsessed with the idealistic concept of peace. But one has to differentiate between what is possible and what is impossible. There is no other alternative. One has to be practical rather than idealistic if one wants to achieve a positive result. The objective of peace is only to normalise the situation between two warring sides.
Peace is not aimed at satisfying the concerned parties in terms of rights and justice. Rights and justice are totally different issues. Linking them with peace is unnatural as well as impractical. These are goals to be worked for separately and independently. Furthermore, in this world of competition, no one can receive peace and justice in terms of their own personal criteria. It is situations and circumstances which will dictate to what extent we can achieve these goals.
In fact, in this competitive world, it is not possible for anyone to receive perfect justice. So, one has to be content with practical justice (pragmatic solutions). During my studies, I found that those people who seek peace with justice fail to achieve anything positive. Moreover, in the course of this futile pursuit, they lose what they already had in hand.
Conversely, those who delink justice from peace are always successful in life. After making this study I have come to the conclusion that the scientific concept of peace is the only correct and practicable concept. Thus, peace is not meant to establish justice. The purpose of peace is only to normalise the situation so that one may uninterruptedly avail of the opportunities that are present.
In this competitive world, it is not possible for anyone to receive perfect justice.
To illustrate my point, I cite here two examples from history, one from the early period of Islam and another from the modern history of Japan. It is a well known fact that the Prophet of Islam was repeatedly challenged by his opponents. There were several instances of wars and violence. Then, the Prophet managed to finalise a peace treaty between the Muslims and their opponents known as the Hudaibiya Peace Treaty. Now, how was this peace treaty finalised? If you examine historical records, you will find that, in terms of justice being done, several problems arose. The treaty could be concluded because the Prophet was able to delink the question of justice from the question of peace. This delinking of the two issues gave him the success which is described in the Quran as a clear victory. (THE QURAN 48: 1)
Now, why does the Quran describe this as a victory, when in fact, it entailed the acceptance of all the conditions imposed by his enemies?
The Quran called this a victory because, although the peace treaty itself was devoid of justice, it instantly normalised the situation, thus enabling the Prophet to avail of the opportunities present at the time. What the Prophet lost in Hudaibiya, he gained on a far greater scale throughout the whole of Arabia.
Now let us look at the example of Japan. In World War II, Japan was defeated by the USA. Okinawa Island was occupied by the American army after the conclusion of a peace treaty, the terms of which were dictated by America. Japan, willingly or unwillingly, accepted this treaty, in which justice was delinked from peace. But what was the result? Within a period of forty years the entire scenario had changed. Japan lost Okinawa Island for a few years, but it gained the entire USA (North American continent) as its industrial market. And now Japan enjoys the status of a world economic superpower
Why is it, that reason and religion both advocate the acceptance of reality or unilateral adjustment in times of conflict? This is because in every adverse situation a status quo exists between the two sides. If any party decides on a change in the status quo, the result will be breakdown. Instead, by accepting the status quo each party will find room for advancement towards its goal. The Quran says that of all courses ‘reconciliation is the best.’ (THE QURAN 4: 128). That is, in matters of controversy, the best policy is peaceful settlement rather than confrontation. This is because conciliation or peaceful settlement gives one scope to make progress, whereas confrontation arrests the onward journey to success.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that peace is a must not only for our advancement, but for our very survival. But peace can be attained only by accepting two simple precepts: Make all efforts to change what we can, and learn to live with the things which we cannot change. In matters which we can change, we should be dedicated activists. In matters which we cannot change, we should become status quoists. Otherwise, peace for us will forever remain a distant dream.
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.