But today I had the joy of shifting over to a different story--a narrative by Eknath Easwaran about a Muslim leader named Abdul Ghaffar Khan, or Badshah Khan, a leader of the fiercely tribal Pathans in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He was a contemporary of Mohandas Gandhi, also known as Mahatma Gandhi, the revolutionary Indian leader who practiced a faith-based nonviolence that changed the course of history and freed India from British rule. Badshah Khan was a devoted follower of Mahatma Gandhi's teachings, someone who understood and embraced their spiritual roots, and he managed to mobilize a force of over 100,000 Pathan 'non-violent' warriors. I've just started the book, but I was struck by a wonderful passage early on, which I want to share here:

"It is my inmost conviction," Badshah Khan said, "that Islam is amal, yakeen, muhabat"-selfless service, faith and love. Yakeen, faith, is an unwavering belief in the spiritual laws that underlie all life, and in the nobility of human nature--in particular, in the ability of every human being to respond to spiritual laws. It implies a profound belief in the power of muhabat, love, to transform human affairs, as Badshah Khan, like Gandhi, demonstrated with his life. This is not the sentimental notion of love portrayed in films. It is a spiritual force which, when drawn upoon systematically, can root out exploitation and transform anger into love in action." (pg 13, Nonviolent Soldier of Islam, Badshah Khan, a Man to Match His Mountains, by Eknath Easwaran)
Love as a spiritual force.
This is something I keep exploring here, and hopefully will continue as I carry on with this book.... It seems that we have come to associate power, or force, with violence and domination. We see it as the ability to impose our will on someone else. On the other end of the spectrum, we have love. Love seems nice, harmless enough and desirable of course... but idealistic, utopian even. Not something we want or need in a time of war, in a time of fear. Therefore, most of us do not feel that love and power have much of a relationship.
But it is increasingly coming clear to me that the paradox is that love is the ultimate power. That which seems weakest is in fact most powerful. Is this illustrated anywhere more powerfully than Jesus dying on the cross for His enemies and His subsquent Resurrection? In Christos Victor (and if you haven't heard the sermon by Greg Boyd on this, I highly recommend it) we see that God Himself, making Himself vulnerable to us through Love, vanquishes all that is not Love, all that seems to be so powerful, and rises up again invincible to bring us into the light of the Truth. The door is always open.
But that is easier understood abstractly than it is put into practice. I am grateful to be learning more about a man who found the courage to do exactly that, in a time and place where it was not expected, and with a group of people from whom it was considered impossible due to their 'brutal history' (the Pathans have always been known as great warriors). I am also glad to have found a very different view of Islam than that which I had been reading of late. I look forward to reading and learning more....
6 comments:
Pia, I'm fascinated. You seem to immerse yourself in the most intense reading!
The concept that you discuss here, that love is powerful, is something that has been puzzling me too. I live in one of the most violent countries and I'm still trying to get it together in my head how i deal with this idea of dying for my enemies and protecting my family. Its very difficult to try and reconcile those two.
But, I do agree that love is indeed powerful. There is something very tangible about the impact of love, particularly when extended to one who neither believes that they deserve it nor expects it.
Dean, lol, lots of my reading is work related, as I do research on these issues. But it always ends up impacting my own views as well. I don't compartmentalize much. ;)
There is an amazing Easter story that I will try and find and post. It's one of the most awe-inspiring examples of the grace of God shining through a violent moment, that I have ever heard. But I undertand your struggle. I also struggle with understanding the call the love our enemies, and yet also the deeply instinctive urge to protect and defend what we love. Thanks in large part to Greg Boyd, I find I'm having to re-evaluate my stance on that inner conflict! I used to be a 'just war' theorist, but that is losing ground for me...but I haven't yet been able to fully embrace pacifism, at least theoretically.
A deeply spiritual, non-violent, man I know was once asked if hypothetically he were put in a position in government where he had to make the call to go to war or not, would he be able to go to war? His repsonse was, that is why I am not in government!
Clearly I need to change what I do for a living! My work-related reading is nowhere near as interesting or life changing!
I wonder whether we can really deal with the non-violence issue by deciding "not to be in government". Taking that illustration further, say war IS declared, and though you choose not to participate, it comes to you. How do you then respond? As I've mentioned I can conceptualise laying down my own life for my enemy, but not laying down the lives of my children, my wife or my family.
For me the "just war" concept doesn't deal with this issue. Its easy to find fault with a "just" war because the questions arises as to who judges whether it is just and whether we can believe that the motives of those declaring war are pure.
On second thoughts maybe dealing with my work related reading is easier, even if less challenging :-)
Dean, I hit up against the same block in my thinking--ultimately I could perhaps be brave enough (perhaps) to give my life for my enemies, but how could I ever insist others do the same through my action or inaction?
I agree that the choice to opt out of situations where you will be called to make that choice doesn't really 'cut it', except for one thing...I wonder to what extent we can hypothesize an absolutist approach with any degree of reality rather than to simply practice our beliefs as we are called to within our own context. Lately I am coming to believe that God is far more contextual than purely absolutist--NOT to relativize His will in any way, but simply to acknowledge that our context and subsequent call in that context are also part of His will and plan, and so manifest differently in each person's life. Does that make sense? What do you think?
Pia, I really like that. It ties in with the scripture that says we will not be tested beyond what we can bear, and just makes sense from a first principles perspective.
I think that it is also a helpful approach to follow to avoid becoming paralysed by the various extreme scenarios that our minds can hypothesize.
Thanks for that, I was getting twisted around in knots in my thinking here!
Dean, I'm glad you think it makes sense too. :)
Actually, our discussion reminds me of an amazing sermon I once read regarding authenticity in front of God...I will post it soon!
Post a Comment