Prophets of Violence—Prophets of Peace

I have just finished reading Dr. Khalid Sohail’s latest book, PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE—PROPHETS OF PEACE. The book is as interesting and intriguing as its title. Call it my lack of knowledge, but I always thought that prophets are divine folks—whatever they preach is a message from a divine source. After reading the book I consider myself more educated. Writing a book of this nature, and on such a “dry” subject, would make it difficult to keep the reader’s attention. Dr. Sohail succeeds in doing just that.

When I started the book, I thought that I would read about prophets who preached peace, and prophets who preached violence. When I finished the book I concluded that there did not exist a prophet of violence.  The “Prophets” were fighting for justice, freedom, rights, integrity, and honor for their people. They were fighting against forces who were evil, unjust, oppressive, murderous, immoral and dictatorial and hideous—and yet pretended to be the most liberal, just proponents of liberty, freedom and equality for all.

As with any book, one question must be answered. How do you deal with a conflict or contradiction in the book? Well, my answer for now is that if holy books, in spite of the contradictions they contain, can pass the test of time, then others can too. Trying to deal with a contradiction can lead you into a debate, which is not the objective of this review.

Dr. Sohail writes in straightforward and easily understandable language, which even simple people like me can understand and enjoy. But when you understand something so well, you also come up with few questions. Dr. Sohail says that Mohan Das Gandhi’s movement promoted violence. Is that really true? Isn’t it human nature for people to indulge in violence, despite passionate pleas from their leaders to maintain non-violence? People indulge in violence because of greed or disagreement or if aroused by others whom they follow blindly. The “anatomy” of violence has been discussed to a great extent, but one major aspect is missing. Most likely that aspect is not within the scope of this book. I’m talking about violence initially started by the oppressor, the colonials. When the time comes to depart, the only language they understand is violence. A major lesson the colonials might learn from Dr. Sohail is to depart without violence, because depart they must. So why be responsible for a second round of violence?

I think if we say that Gandhi’s movement prompted violence, then Iqbal’s did too. They both were fighting for people with similar mentalities.

As I kept reading the book, one nagging question stayed with me. Why must a prophet of peace become a prophet of violence? The author responded to that question on many pages, but answer is yet to be seen. It might come in a future book. But that’s for the readers to judge.  Is the prophet of peace a born prophet of violence? I do not think so.

It’s time we stopped calling Pakistan a Muslim State. Perhaps this book will show us that direction. Another very interesting aspect for a person like me is to learn that Islam was colonial power (see page 285). I don’t think it is true. Actions of “Muslims” do not mean action supported by Islam. I believe we must stop abusing Islam, and instead point the finger at the guilty group, those who call themselves Muslim, but have nothing to do with Islam (page 285/286).

Another thing we learn from this book, even though it does not explicitly say so, is that the human race is basically cruel. Whoever is powerful, regardless of race, geography or religion, will if given the opportunity, oppress, be he a prophet of peace or prophet of violence. This statement may seem contradictory to the comment I made earlier, that there is no prophet of violence. But here I am talking from an individual perspective, whereas earlier I was talking only from this book’s point of view.

How can we blame a prophet of peace if bloodshed follows after achieving the objective? The book invariably holds the prophet responsible. Has the author deliberately given us a mental exercise to perform or did he not think about the real cause of bloodshed?

I always wondered about hunger strikes, believing theme to be a less than an authentic approach. Thanks to the author for verifying that. (page 293/294).

One major issue Dr. Sohail tackled is politics. Although he keeps calling himself a psychotherapist, he also sounds like an extremely polished and accomplished political observer. The discussion of American imperialism is very well put together, and thoroughly enjoyable. A few traditional matters may be exceptions, but over all, the author’s analytical comments deserve applause.

“Americans did not want their soldiers to sacrifice their lives on foreign soil for an immoral war.” How true is this statement? One part is debatable, that Americans did not want their men to die. I think they did not care, for most soldiers are black and poor. Morality has never been an American problem. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  But dressed in the American flag is another nation…I foresee tragedy. But I must not give it much thought.

From the book I receive support for my view that people joining armed forces commit themselves to an immoral, un-ethical profession, which should be called a crime against humanity.

The book contains much material about American capitalism and colonialism. But what really is “American capitalism” and “colonialism”? I’m looking forward to more books like this, which actually illuminate the American situation. In the not too distant future, will not Joe America be as oppressed as the colonized of other nations?

The analysis in Parts Two and Three is remarkable and a pleasure to read.

It is a common belief that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the founder of an Islamic State. I take issue with this thinking, but again, that debate is not relevant here.

Jawaid A. Chaudhry [Virk]

October 2005