Baha'i

By Wade Caves

Baha’u’llah teaches us that until this age, humanity has been living in an era of budding civilizations, nationalism and warfare. But humanity is maturing, and as mankind progresses we find ourselves on the brink of a new world order. We are moving toward a worldwide citizenship as policies favoring globalization gain more and more support internationally.

It’s hard to imagine war as a means of conflict resolution in our increasingly interdependent world. But all progress is a process, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha spoke in Paris about what must come to pass before we see the end of warfare:

“When all mankind shall receive the same opportunity of education and the equality of men and women be realized, the foundations of war will be utterly destroyed. Without equality this will be impossible because all differences and distinction are conducive to discord and strife. Equality between men and women is conducive to the abolition of warfare.”

‘Abdu’l-Baha goes on to argue that parents — mothers specifically — will not agree to give their sons as battlefield sacrifices after years of upbringing, anxiety and loving devotion.

Modern warfare is a dangerous game, one humanity can never win.

Countless lives are needlessly lost for the interests of a few, and the Old-World paradigm of “to the victor go the spoils” is outdating itself by the minute.

To ensure a safe world for our children and their children, the Baha’i Faith encourages us to start considering ourselves global citizens, responsible not only to our city and state but also to the nations of this world.

“It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world,” Baha’u’llah said. “The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.”

Now, for the skeptical readers, I should say that the Baha’i Faith is not full of optimistic fluff. We know it’s not that simple. But ‘Abdu’l-Baha encourages citizens and leaders alike to thoroughly examine each cause of war, and to advance what prevents war “so that physical conflict may become an impossibility.”

So what would this look like for our nations? The Writings state that each country must be properly delimited, its exact borders marked, its national integrity secured, its permanent independence protected and its vital interests honored by the family of nations.

As ‘Abdu’l-Baha suggested: “These services ought to be rendered by an impartial, international Commission.”

And in case there should arise some disputes between the nations, “they could arbitrate before the Parliament of Man,” the representatives of which are chosen from among the most judicious persons of all nations.

As we grow and develop as a species and as a people, with education and reason as our tools for survival, we can begin to see how universal peace is possible — inevitable, even. In order to merely survive, we are becoming more and more dependent upon one another economically, socially, politically and holistically.

Baha’u’llah’s advice? Act accordingly.

Reach columnist Wade Caves at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Christianity

By Thomas Cloud

War is a very sticky topic between Christian denominations, with a lot of disagreement between various groups. Because I and many other Christians believe that the New Testament does allow for the use of war as a last resort, I will explain the biblical support for that position.

War appears frequently throughout the Old Testament and there are plenty of instances in which God raises up a warrior to lead the ancient nation of Israel or kingdom of Judah in battle. Joshua and King David are the most prominent examples. The book of Judges records many others, such as Othniel, who, in Judges 3:10, was called to lead Israel in a war against their captors, Aram: “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war.”

In the Old Testament, God clearly asked his people, the Israelites, to go to war, yet a foreseeable criticism arises.

Christians today, unlike the Israelites, are not of a specific nationality and are not commanded to remain culturally separate from their neighbors or protect a promised land. Instead, they are called to explain the gospel to the world. Some would say that because of this difference, war must be outdated.

The epistles of the New Testament are obviously not simply for one group, but for all Christians of all nationalities within the church. So where in the New Testament can support for war be found?

The key verses in the New Testament that give Christians the right to go to war when absolutely necessary are Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 where Christians are commanded to submit to the governing authorities.

That means a Christian must follow God’s commands in everything — for example, the authors of both books (Paul and Peter, respectively) were executed for being Christians — but Christians must also obey the law and pay their taxes so far as they are not commanded by a human authority to behave in a sinful manner.

The verses assume an implicit understanding of the ultimate role of government, which is to maintain peace and order and protect its citizens. To fulfill the role of protection, a government may have to use violence as a last resort to avert threats to its citizens.

In his book, God, Government and the Road to Tyranny, Phil Fernandes outlines the eight points theologians have identified for a just war as follows: there must be sufficient cause for a war; the war must be declared by a competent authority — the government; one nation must be more just than the other; the war must be fought with the right intention in mind; war should be a last resort; there must be a probability of success — probability, not possibility; more good than evil must result from the war; innocents must not be targeted.

Outside of God specifically dictating otherwise, a war should only be fought if it is just. The principle of self-defense as a last resort does allow for the possibility of a revolution, but the other principles again declare the manner in which the revolution must be fought.

Something for a Christian to ponder is that in the wars following World War II, the United States has not followed the procedure for declaring war laid out in the U.S. Constitution. Fernandes asks, “has the U.S. been ignoring the principle of competent authority?” I leave that question to the readers.

Reach columnist Thomas Cloud at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Islam

By Zakariya Dehlawi

People often say, “Islam is a religion of peace.” It’s true, but Islam isn’t unique in that respect; most religions preach peace and affinity.

But peace doesn’t just mean the absence of war. Peace also means ensuring individual securities and freedom. When justice is violated, Islam permits war to rectify it, but within limits.

We need to differentiate between what Islam says and what Muslims do. It’s great to have ideals, but they’re not always upheld: Remember that politics often supersede religion. There are always multiple perspectives among Muslims, but I offer you my understanding of the mainstream opinion. All mistakes are my own, while any gain is due to God’s grace.

As I said earlier, Islam is not impotent; it recognizes that war happens. And when it does, the Quran sets a framework on how it is carried out.

War is to be fought wholeheartedly. However, the Quran also states: “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, also incline towards peace, and trust in God: For He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing (Chapter 8, verse 61).”

In fact, Muslim scholars have concluded that if peace is offered, it must be accepted, no matter how dubious the offer is.

One of the key injunctions Islam makes about warfare is the protection awarded to non-combatants. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, denounced the killing of civilians when he heard about a woman killed during a raid. Abu Bakr was the leader of the Muslims after the death of the prophet, and he commanded an army bound for Syria, “Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to.”

Abu Bakr’s address served as the basis for Islamic rules of engagement, which forbid the destruction of public infrastructure, the seizure of civilian property, the respect for the dead and, once again, not targeting non-combatants.

When I look at the horrific results of the recent invasion of Gaza, I wish these ideals were universally upheld. Schools, homes, water treatment plants and power lines were destroyed by Israeli airstrikes and shelling, while rocket attacks from Gaza have hit homes and a school. Looking at the casualty figures is even more chilling. According to Reuters, three Israeli civilians and at least 700 Palestinian civilians have been killed since the fighting began 22 days ago.

Non-combatants should never be targeted by anyone, whether they’re Muslim or not.

Even though there are established rules of warfare, Islam permits war in only certain situations, similar in practice to just war theory. The two most accepted circumstances are self-defense and combating tyranny, based on the following two verses: “and fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression — for, verily, God does not love aggressors (Chapter 2, verse 190).”

“Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and there prevail justice and faith to God; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, except against the wrong-doers (Chapter 2, verse 193).”

In essence, Islam acknowledges that war is sometimes a necessity, but that it should be conducted within an established framework.

Reach columnist Zakariya Dehlawi at opinion@dailyuw.com.

1 Comments

4 Comments

1 Comments