The difference between nonviolent resistance and pacifism - Essay Example

? Difference Between Pacifism and Nonviolent Resistance. Why Nonviolent Resistance is Justified in Islamic Ethics, But Not Pacifism Table of ContentsIntroduction 3 Discussion 4 Works Cited 8 Introduction This paper differentiates between nonviolent resistance and pacifism. It also explores why nonviolent resistance is justified in the ethics of Islam, but not pacifism. Gene Sharp notes that both of the terms lend themselves to ambiguity and confusion among those who try to understand what the terms mean, owing to the fact that nonviolence was relatively unknown as a concept for a long time in the west, or else the terms come with a lot of emotional and psychological baggage, charged in that way as it were by the experiences and the subjective perceptions of those who have come into contact with the terms both theoretically and in the fields of human action and interaction. On the other hand, where some who have less understanding of nuance sees that nonviolence is the absence of violence in all its forms and has a unitary meaning, there are those who differentiate among different forms of nonviolence basing the classification of different types on what motivates the actors in nonviolent action, and how those actors behave in the arena of human action (Sharp 41-43). On the other hand, Sohail Hashmi relates pacifism to the actions of Gandhi and makes use of the term Gandhian pacifism to brand the kind of an absence of violence as a means to achieve peace. It is this peace aspect of pacifism in Gandhi, in turn that is used as a perspective in understanding concepts and actions that run on the opposite side of peace, such as the use of arms that can kill on a vast scale.. Pacifism as Hashmi uses it in the literature refers to taking views that consider the moral implications of actions, such as the morality of the use of weapons of mass destruction. Here one implication is that morality as it applies to weighing in on violent actions have their roots in universal values and universal standards of right and wrong. (Hashmi and Lee 1-13). On the other hand, the question implies that the standards of morality inherent in the use of pacifism and nonviolence and their consideration in Islam have nuances that are based on religion. The morality and ethics of pacifist and nonviolent actions and their conceptual formulations have special significance in Islam that warrants making the distinction, for instance (Hashmi and Lee; Sharp). Discussion To take the question into perspective, there are non-Muslim perspectives that make distinctions between nonviolent resistance and what is termed in the literature as modern pacifism. Nonviolent resistance or simply non-resistance refers to the phenomenon where people shun violence and acting to shun all forms of war on the basis of religious beliefs that such actions are disallowed by God on a fundamental level. This is in contrast to modern pacifism, which in comparison has a broader footprint and includes justifications for not going into war and supporting war from non-religious perspectives. Pacifism, as discussed here, is a larger umbrella term of which non-resistance or nonviolent resistance is a part. This distinction allows for a proper discussion, for instance of pacifism in different ideological, political and even religious contexts, with religious here in reference to all kinds of religion, not just Islam and not just Christianity. One can talk for instance of Gandhian pacifist stances, where the roots are political and partly includes references to Gandhi’s Hindu religious leanings and philosophical stance (Sharp 42). On the other hand, in the literature too, there are discussions that interchange the use of pacifism with nonviolence and nonviolent resistance, alluding to the overlaps in the definition and the contexts of use of the two terms. Such is the case in discussions on the political contexts of the attainment of freedom as shifts in the political affairs of states from dictatorships to democratic and free nations. Sharp himself interchanges the use of pacifism and nonviolence in these non-religious contexts (Sharp (b) 1). Islamic literature exists that recognizes conflicts in practice and in religious doctrine between on the one hand what is perceived in the culture of Islam of a tendency towards war and violence on the one hand, and the way the Koran seems to espouse peaceful, non-violent and altogether loving realities as core to the practice of the religion. Some of these distinctions are said to have emanated from the historical and cultural contexts of the practice of Islam. Islam is said to have come into its own in cultures and communities where the use of religion was coupled with making justifications for conflicts and war, owing to the fact that those nations and communities that embraced Islam did so at a time of great social upheavals that put those communities and nations in conflict with others. When one talks about Islamic ethics making distinctions between pacifism and nonviolent resistance, therefore, one talks about both practice and the theoretical and philosophical/religious implications of the two terms, as well as their practical implications in the communities and nations where Islam has taken root. Distinctions between pacifism and nonviolent resistance have at their core ethical justifications of Islam in practice as opposed to Islam as it is reflected in the Koran, is one take on this. In the Koran, based on doctrine, one take is that the distinctions are immaterial, whereas the distinctions between nonviolence/pacifism on the one hand and the use of violence justified by making references to the aggressive and warlike stance of Islamic leaders in times past on the other are sharply made. Here too discussions between traditional or old Islamic religious practices that focus on justifying violence to achieve religious ends on the one hand and new progressive Islamic morality that emphasizes peace are relevant (Khan 4-9). On the other hand, from the point of view of Islam and other religions, there are references to peace building and nonviolence as fundamental tenets espoused in the holy texts, that differ for instance from the way Islam is conceived as being warlike and as being a religion that has ample justifications for engaging in conflict and violent struggles with those outside the faith. In this regard, ethical considerations include how societies and governments misuse religion, the way military leaders and government and civil leaders make use of Islam for instance as a cover to justify pursuing violent methods to achieve political and military goals and ends. It is worth noting too that the literature emphasizes the universality of the use of religious doctrine, not just Islamic doctrine, to justify violence where the religious texts themselves emphasize tolerance, peace, the non-pursuit of violence, and facilitating the use of peaceful means to end crises and conflicts. The latter can be deemed as the essence of pacifism. One therefore is able to talk about the use of religions such as Buddhism, not just Islam, for religious adherents to wage wars with others. On the other hand, with strict reference to Islamic ethics, there are distinctions that are made between nonviolent resistance, which have ties with the ethical and moral precepts of Islam, and pacifism, which as has been noted in the discussion above can have non-religious, non-Islamic and more generic implications that are not covered by the moral codes and doctrines of the religion (Kadayifci-Orellana; Sharp; Sharp (b); Hashmi and Lee). There are murky distinctions for sure that are made in many of the texts that discuss the pacifist and nonviolent aspects of Islamic practice and doctrine,, with references to Islamic doctrines for instance essentially positing nonviolence as the core of religious practice, even as pacifism too is mentioned in the same vein in the texts as being a core precept of Islam. On the other hand, in Islamic ethics, the emphasis is on the non-inflicting of harm. In the context of the discussions of Sharp and Hashmi, meanwhile, pacifism is a concept that has come to be associated with moral precepts that lie outside of the ambit of Islamic religious and ethical/moral formulations, and so in a sense this can be the basis of a distinction to be made between nonviolent resistance and pacifism. Whereas nonviolent resistance can be formulated along Islamic ethical lines, pacifism as it has been used has been applied to various non-Islamic and non-religious, purely political and social contexts. This being so, there can be a case made for pacifism not being able to lend itself to justification within Islam strictly, even as nonviolent resistance is able to lend itself to Islamic ethical consideration as it is defined and put to use in the academic and religious discourse (Kadatifki-Orellana; Sharp; Sharp (b); Hashmi and Lee). Works Cited Hashmi, Sohail and Steven Lee. Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 2004. Web. 20 April 2013. Kadayifci-Orellana, S. Ayse. “Religion, Violence and The Islamic Tradition of Nonviolence”. The Turkish Yearbook 34. n.d. Web. 20 April 2013. Khan, Maulana Wahiduddin. The True Jihad: The Concepts of Peace, Tolerance and Non-Violence in Islam. Goodword. 2002. Google Books Sharp, Gene. “The meanings of non-violence: a typology (revisited)”. Conflict Resolution 3(1). n.d. Web. 20 April 2013. Sharp, Gene (b). From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation Fourth Edition. The Albert Einstein Institution. 2002. Web. 20 April 2013. Read More