by Chaiwat Satha-Anand
Introduction
In a recent paper presented at the 18th International Peace Research Association
Conference in Tampere, Finland, a young scholar from the University of Wales
maintains that most contemporary armed conflicts are based on underlying "philosophical"
assumptions of superiority and identity. Since followers of any religion justify
its existence by assuming superiority over other belief-systems, and as "the
essence of religion", this makes "violence not only possible, but
also inevitable". He then emphasizes, "religions are by definition
incompatible, and peace is therefore impossible as long as there is religion."
Given news from around the world, with killings between Muslims and Christians
in Indonesia and the Philippines or violence and terrorism in a largely Buddhist
society such as Sri Lanka with senior monks coming out in the name of patriotism
against problematic peace accords designed to end the bloodshed, or the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, violence used against the Palestinians and suicide
bombing of the Israelis, the terror attacks of New York and Washington D.C.
and the American response with war in Afghanistan and heightened security discourse,
among others, it is easy to highlight the role of religions as justifications
for violence. But in a world fragmented by conflicts of interest and politics
of identity, it is intellectually much more challenging to try to elucidate
the role religions play in justifying peace and nonviolence. Intellectual challenges
aside, no matter how one characterizes this age as civilizational clash or dialogue,
the fact remains that civilizations informed by religious doctrines and histories
are shaping the lives of a large number of people on the planet. Reasons for
this fascinating phenomenon have been examined elsewhere. The relevant question
is what can ordinary people, a large number of them with some religious persuasions,
do in the face of violence shattering their lives both at the individual and
collective levels? Here I would argue that unless the role religions play in
nurturing peaceful conflicts is underscored, there is a good chance that conflicts
in the world today could turn out to be more violent with the deadly chemistry
of hatred, anger, hunger for "justice" amidst unjust structures,
modern weapons, and increasing disregards for the lives of the innocents.
This paper is an attempt to tap into the existing religious resources for creative
alternatives that could be accepted common people. I wish to explore the issue
of religions and violence by examining the ways in which the Prophets of Buddhism,
Christianity and Islam deal with murderers in their own times. These three religions
are chosen, not because they are spiritually more important than others (e.g.
Hinduism, Judaism or Native American religions), but because of their demographic
significance and their shares of responsibility in contemporary violent conflicts.
Case stories from the lives of the three prophets will be briefly described.
Their ways of dealing with murderers will then be analyzed. Finally, the importance
of bringing out peace-related stories in a world plagued with violence will
be discussed.
The Story of the Buddha and Angulimala
Gautama Buddha had on some occasions intervened in human affairs to stop violence.
But no other incident was quite dramatic as his confrontation with a notorious
murderer. His successful taming of this feared bandit and killer is said to
have "been noised abroad and further enhanced the Buddha's prestige."
But this incident is chosen here more because of its dramatic effect of Buddha's
Dhamma on the mind of a confirmed murderer and perhaps therefore, its pedagogical
effect in stopping violence.
It was the year 508 BC when the Buddha chose the monasteries of Savatthi for
his regular rain retreats. An area in Savatthi was said to be plagued with danger
in the form of a fearsome murderer and robber by the name of Angulimala. A son
of Gagga, a Brahmin with a post in the court of the King of Kosala, Angulimala
was originally named Ahimsaka (the nonviolent one) when he was born. He was
so named because of a prophesy that he was to become a notorious murderer. Educated
at the university of Takkasila and with trained intelligence, he managed to
wreak fear and avoid arrest from the hands of King Pasendi 's soldiers.
Waiting for caravans and travelers, Angulimala would terrorize people, killing
so many of them and cutting their fingers to make a "finger-necklace"
which he then put on around his neck since he wished to fulfill a vow he had
made.
Ignoring all warnings about Angulimala, the Buddha set out from Savatthi into
the murderer's area. The killer followed the Buddha and was caused to
stand still by the Enlightened One. While walking away from the killer, the
Buddha told him that it was he, Angulimala, who had not stopped. The murderer
was puzzled and therefore inquired:
"As thou goest, monk, thou sayest ' I stand still' ,
And to me who stand thou sayest ' thou standest not' ,
I ask thee, monk, this question:
How standest thou still and I stand not?"
The Buddha replied:
"I stand still, Angulimala, in every wise;
Towards all living things have I laid aside violence;
But thou to all living things art unrestrained;
Therefore I stand still and thou standest not."
Pondering the Buddha's words, Angulimala realized that there are different
layers of meaning of stopping. He wanted the Buddha to stop walking physically
so that he could continue his murdering spree. But it is he who had not stopped
because his mind continued to desire to take others' lives. Without stopping
of the mind, there can be no meaningful continuing of the journey in one's
life. Either with an understanding of the Buddha's admonition or a result
of a logical choice to join the Sangha in order to avoid punishment from worldly
jurisdiction, Angulimala decided to "stop" and take refuge in the
Buddha's Dhamma. From being a murderer with so much blood on his hands,
he became the Buddha's disciple and was put up in Anathapindika's
Jetavana monastery and later, after enduring a number of incidents in accordance
with his Karma, he attained enlightenment.
According to legend, Angulimala has killed 999 people and intended to add one
more finger to his heinous necklace. Yet it seems that the Buddha never gave
up hope in a human capability to change for the better. He made the man physically
stop, then raised his sense of wonder and allowed time for him to search for
his own answer. Angulimala was obviously intelligent enough to be curious about
the Buddha's enigmatic remark. After he physically stopped, or made to
stop, he could reexamine his mind to see the inner meaning of stopping with
the Buddha's guidance. He could change his violent course of action after
the "inner stopping" which allowed him to "see" his
own action with clarity of the mind. A murderer is thus transformed and finally
became enlightened.
Jesus and the Disciple who drew his sword
It is interesting to first note that it is not easy to find an encounter between
Jesus and the murderer although the teaching of "Thou shalt not kill"
is prominent in Christianity. The most important encounter is perhaps the scene
of Jesus on the cross when, according to Luke and not in others' gospels,
Jesus said: "Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing."
(23:34) But due to the significance of Jesus on the cross in Christian theology,
it could be argued that it was the act of the Son in pursuit of the Divine Will
for the whole of humankind and therefore it is unique. As a result, I have chosen
the incident of a Jesus' disciple who drew the sword to defend his Master
from the arrest by the guards who came for him. The drawing of the sword could
be considered that an intention to use it, an instrument of death, to full potentials
was there. In addition, in "cutting off" a man's ear, one
would have to aim the weapon somewhere from the neck up which could again point
to the killing possibility. Although it was finally used to "cut off"
the ear of a man and the murder did not take place, if left unstopped, it could
certainly be imagined where this could lead. Perhaps, the incident, if allowed
to continue without Jesus' intervention, could further violent confrontation
between the guards and his disciples which could in turn trigger much more bloodshed.
The lesson to be learned from this incident is important for the Prophet's
prophylactic act which successfully stopped further use of violence.
On the last year of Jesus' life before he was crucified, he was arrested.
Each of the four gospels depicts the scene of "the arrest" a little
differently. Though aware of the distinctions that can be made among them, for
example, Mark- a younger co-worker of the apostle Peter was writing 35 years
after Jesus' crucifixion while Matthew, Luke and John were writing some
time between 70 and 100 C.E. , the story of "the arrest" itself
is quite instructive.
After the last supper where Jesus prophesied a number of incidents concerning
his disciples including the "betrayal" of Judas, Jesus left with
them and crossed the Kidron valley to go to a garden. Judas has already spoken
with the chief priests and arranged for identification of Jesus with a kiss.
The guards came looking for Jesus and after identification he was to be arrested.
At this point, a member of Jesus' group drew the sword. Here the gospels
were different. In Matthew, it was "one of the followers of Jesus"
who "grasped his sword and drew it; he struck the high priest's
servant and cut off his ear." (26:51) In Mark, it was "one of the
bystanders" who "drew his sword and struck out at the high priest's
servant and cut off his ear."(14:47) In Luke, it was "one of his
followers" who after asking "Lord, shall we use our swords?"
struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear." (22:
48-50) The gospel of John is the only one which named the sword user and the
victim: " Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's
servant cutting off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."(18:10)
Jesus' reactions to this incident in the four gospels are also slightly
different. In Matthew, he said: "Put your sword back, for all who draw
the sword will die by the sword."(26:52) In Mark, he did not say anything
to the sword user but went on to speak to those who came to arrest him "with
swords and clubs".(14:48) In Luke, Jesus not only did say "That
is enough" but also healed the victim by touching his ear. (22:51) In
John, Jesus spoke to Peter: "Put your sword back in its scabbard; am I
not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?"(18:11)
Taken together, according to three of the synoptic gospels but in Mark, Jesus
told his disciple to stop and successfully prevented the sword bearer from using
further violence. In Matthew he warned against those who used the sword of the
inevitable violent consequence of violence. In addition, he also healed the
victim by putting his ear back in its place according to Luke. However, it could
be said that the main reason given for his calling to stop violence was to remind
his disciples of both his teachings and the meaning of his mission and that
this arrest was in fact a part of the Divine Will which would lead to the emancipatory
destiny awaiting him and the world in the end. His prophetic act therefore is
essentially preventive. In successfully persuading his disciples to give up
violence even in time of anger at seeing the arrest of their Master, he effectively
prevented them from becoming murderers.
Muhammad and Hind, the Quraysh Woman
As both a religious and political leader, Prophet Muhammad had engaged in
both peaceful and violent conflicts. But it seems to me one of the most dramatic,
and perhaps most pedagogical, incidents was his way of dealing with a woman
from the tribe of Quraysh, which is his own, whose name is Hind bin 'Utbah.
It is dramatic because of the way the killing and what went on after that took
place. It is pedagogical because the one who was killed was the Prophet's
uncle.
After much persecution by the Meccans, the Prophet migrated to Madina, a town
some 200 miles North of Mecca in the year 622 CE. This hijra (migration from
Mecca to Madina) marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. Two years after
that was the great battle of Badr where the Muslims defeated the Meccan army.
In that battle, Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle killed Hind's father,
brother and a number of other relatives. In 625 CE at the battle of Uhud near
Madina, the Meccans fought the Muslims back with a vengeance. Hind was at the
battle scene.
Hind had promised Wahshi, the Abyssinian, a great amount of wealth if he could
kill Hamzah. When Wahshi saw him in the middle of the battle, he threw his javelin
at him and hit him right in the abdomen, piercing him through. He left his weapon
to pin its victim down until he died. Wahshi had killed Hamzah in order to win
his liberty from the Meccans. He went back to the body of Hamzah, ripped open
his belly, cut out his liver and brought it to Hind and asked her: "What
shall be mine for slaying the slayer of thy father?" "All my share
of the spoils," was her answer. Wahshi then said, "This is Hamzah's
liver." Hind took it from him and bit away a piece of it, chewed it, swallowed
a morsel in fulfillment of her vow and spat out the rest. She then went to the
body of the slain and cut off Hamzah's nose, ears and other parts of the
flesh.
Wounded in the Battle of Uhud, when the Prophet later saw Hamzah's body,
he was so appalled at the sight. He said, "Never yet have I felt more
anger than now I feel; and when next God giveth me a victory over Quraysh I
will mutilate thirty of their dead." At that moment came the following
revelation:
"Hence, if you have to respond to an attack,
Respond only to the extent of the attack levelled against you;
But to bear yourselves with patience is indeed far better for (you)
(Since God is with) those who are patient in adversity.
Endure, then, with patience (all that they who deny the truth may say)
Always remembering that it is none but God who gives you the
strength to endure adversity,
And do not grieve over them,
And neither be distressed by the false arguments which they devise."
(Al-Qur'an XVI: 126-127)
The Prophet then pardoned, bore patiently and laid down absolute prohibition
against mutilation. In January 630 CE, he led 10,000 Muslims into the holy city
of Mecca. There was no real resistance and he entered Mecca victoriously.
The question is what would he do to Hind and the Quraysh who had committed such
violence against Hamzah and other Muslims ?
The Prophet addressed the Meccans who gathered not far from the Ka'bah
by first asking them a question: "What say ye, and what think ye?"
They answered: "We say well, and we think well: a noble and generous brother,
son of a noble and generous brother. It is thine to command." He then
spoke to them in the words of forgiveness which, according to the Revelation,
Joseph spoke to his brothers when they came to him in Egypt: "Verily I
say as my brother Joseph said: This day there shall be no upbraiding of you
nor reproach. God forgiveth you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful."
Among the women who came to pay the Prophet homage was Hind bin 'Utbah.
She covered her face for fear that the Prophet might put her to death before
she embraced Islam; and she said: "O Messenger of God, praise be to Him
who hath made triumph the religion which I choose for myself." Then she
unveiled her face and said: "Hind, the daughter of 'Utbah".
The Prophet then simply said: "Welcome" and forgave her.
The Prophet's interaction with Hind took place in a war situation. Hind
was avenging her father and other family members' death by encouraging
the killing of the Prophet's uncle who took their lives in battle. She
then mutilated Hamzah's body. The Prophet first encountered this with
anger so much so that he decided to inflict violence on thirty men from the
tribe of Quraysh. Then as the verse of the holy Qur'an was revealed to
him, God taught that though exact response to violence is acceptable in Islam
along the line of retributive justice, it is far better to be patient, get rid
of anger and ultimately deal with past actions which are irreversible with forgiveness.
The Prophet dealt with Hind exactly as the Words were revealed to him. He put
his anger aside and then he exercised patience. When he could return to Mecca
victoriously, he had a choice: to punish Hind for the violent act she committed
against his beloved uncle or to forgive the murderer. He chose the latter course
of action in accordance with what is clearly stipulated in another verse of
Al-Qur'an.
"But (remember that an attempt at) requiting evil may, too,
become an evil;
Hence, whoever pardons (his foe) and makes peace,
His reward rests with God -
For, verily, He does not love evildoers. (Al-Qur'an 42: 40)
Conclusion: Lessons from the Prophets and the need for Reenchantment?
Instead of comparing the ways the three prophets dealt with the murderers
they faced, a complex and difficult exercise in comparative religious studies
given differences in their contexts, ethos, personalities and histories, among
other things, I would try to draw some lessons from these case stories.
First, the most common feature in these stories is that violence must stop.
The Buddha stopped Angulimala. Jesus stopped his disciple. And Hind was stopped
by Prophet Muhammad ' s victory.
Second, the Buddha's method in this story is transformative in nature because
it could change an individual from being a murderer with a bloody life history
to become a monk and later to attain enlightenment.
Third, Jesus' disciple was yet to become a murderer. His method is primarily
preventive because it could prevent someone from becoming a murderer. Jesus'
prophylactic act, in turn, could perhaps create a condition whereby escalation
of violence was not likely and his own destiny was realized on the cross.
Fourth, Muhammad had to deal with past action, that was at once personal and
might have political consequences if unwisely approached. To paraphrase Hannah
Arendt, one of the two basic problems of the human condition is that what's
done was done. The past is irreversible. The question then is how could one
continue to live? Arendt believes that the only way to live with the irreversible
past is to forgive. Prophet Muhammad's method could in this sense be termed
liberative because it allows human beings to free themselves from the tyranny
of irreversible past actions. By forgiving the enemy, an act of high spiritual
piety or a necessary political choice, the possibility for a new and more peaceful
political community where former friends and foes, murderers and victims who
were left behind, had to live side by side could perhaps be realized.
In a world torn asunder by different forms of violence- direct, structural and
cultural, the prophetic paradigm suggests that peaceful alternatives to violence
need to take account of, both the individuals and the collectivities, the past
and the future. To accomplish that, these alternatives should at once be transformative,
preventive and liberative at the same time.
It should also be noted that what is needed now is not only lessons from these
religious sources but chances for ordinary people to be reenchanted in a world
that has become desperately fragmented, for the minds that have been sadly suffering
from homelessness. Lessons are to be learned, but to learn one needs to be alive
and fascinated by them. Stories such as those retold in this paper may offer
a chance to be reenchanted, especially for those with some religious persuasions.
Then perhaps, with the prophetic touch, lessons learned could be used to heal
and induce changes for a better world.