One school of thought believes that whatever the circumstances war in spite of everything is a demonstration of barbarity and madness. It cannot be justified. It cannot be permitted. It is jungle law. It reminds one of a period when conflicts were settled by brutal force and not by reason and evidence. Therefore in this age of intellect and knowledge and also of culture and civilization it cannot be allowed even symbolically. It is against human dignity to force a man to accept your point of view. When man has been given intellect and culture then why should not his conflicts and disputes be settled by negotiations and rapprochement? War is a brute act. Love, peace, harmony, accord, mercy are all jewels of humanity. Fire and blood destroy them. On paper this teaching appears to be very appealing, balanced and humane. And those who oppose this teaching are without a thought considered cruel and hard –hearted. But the point is whether this teaching appears good only in the world of words or it can be practically implemented in the world?

In the Old Testament orders for war are unambiguously listed. Major portion of this Scripture is devoted to wars fought by the Children of Israel. For instance see chapter 13 in the book of Numbers. Therefore the Jews cannot object to war. Christianity pretends to be the biggest champion of anti-war campaign. The New Testament says 'resist not evil' and 'whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matthew 5/38-41. Therefore as our first case we would be discussing Christianity. In our book 'Shola-e-Mastoor' we have discussed the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in detail. In our book we have said that Jesus did not preach cowardice. This element was introduced into Christianity by St. Paul at the time when Christians were in helpless conditions and as the survivors of a revolutionary community they were being charged of rebellion. So this teaching was evolved to save them from the oppressive and tyrannical government of the day. And in this way such a philosophy of life became part of their religion that has elements of poison for man's freedom and self-respect.

How much this philosophy has hurt humanity? Non-Muslim philosophers and historians who have objectively studied history have answered this question. The German philosopher Nietzsche was of the opinion that Christianity has always supported weak, downtrodden and rotten elements. Its faith is to eradicate all self-respecting intellectual prowess of man. Highly intellectualized brains have been destroyed by it.

But at another place he writes that Christianity gave birth to humility and lowliness. And these qualities remained appropriate and suitable for quite a considerable period. But this philosophy of humility could not keep pace with rapid development of culture till the end. For progress and civilization it is essential that a community should have mind-set for self-respect and freedom. Humility and lowliness are enemy of progress.

G. A. Dorsey, the historian of civilization, has asserted that today millions of people feel that Christianity is the religion of the defeated. They accept the religion but admit solemnly its defeatist spirit. Nothing is satisfactory in life, they argue. "Desire for satisfaction is wrong and satisfaction of wrong desires is sin" is a slogan, which makes a true and healthy life impossible. It destroys humanity.¹

"Love your enemies," is an order, which is impossible to implement. In this context W. A. Brend in his book 'Foundation of Human Conflicts' writes that the order of the New Testament to love your enemies is a psychological impossibility. Samuel Lowy has echoed similar thoughts in his book 'Man and Fellow Man'. And the writer of 'Civilization, War and Death', Sigmund Freud says that the order to love thy enemies is an impossibility. Such lofty ideals of love cannot eradicate evil. Culture does not care for such orders. It is easy to utter this sacred order but it is very difficult to follow it.²

'Resist not evil' is such an order that if it is followed then all the forces of evil in the world would be free to operate and oppression, injustice, tyranny and hardship would overpower every aspect of social and civilized life. For this reason R Briffault levels a grave charge against Christianity that with this wrong teaching it has always supported cruelty and oppression and in this way did away with justice and fairness. In this context he quotes the Spanish scholar, Dr. Falta de Gracia, in his book 'The Making of Humanity', "The notion of justice is as entirely foreign to the spirit of Christianity as is that of intellectual honesty. It lies wholly outside the field of its ethical vision." Dr. Gracia further says that Christianity has been sympathetic to the oppressed people but has always forgiven cruelty and oppression. It has invited those oppressed people to the path of love who have been engrossed with difficulties and problems from all sides. It teaches them a lesson of forgiveness and pardon. It has reminded them that God is the Sustainer. But in this storm of religion and morality there is no scope for justice and probity. Christianity has painted a picture in which the angel-like sacred Christ descends from the sky amongst the victims of oppression and tyranny, and gives them the blessed message of Paraclete. But it is beyond his message to find out the grounds of oppression and tyranny. He does not correctly contemplate the concept of good and evil. For him this cruelty and oppression is the trial of sinners. It is also a distinctive quality of his system. This decision is of the government that has been formed on the basis of Divine right. He observes the prison of St. Vincent Francis, which is a living hell in the world. There he gives message of love and asks the sinners to repent. But he does not find out the reasons owing to which this hell has been formed. The victims of oppression and cruelty may cry in pain, the lives of people may remain in slavery, people may bleed to death, but the spirit of Christianity will only console them. But Christianity will not think of the ways of eradicating oppression and tyranny because it does not think it to be its responsibility. The spirit of Christianity has remained unconcerned towards justice and fairness. For it the idea of justice is as strange to it as that of truth. It has always taught the lesson of forgiveness, tolerance and mercy. But it never remembered justice and fairness. Christianity has been influenced by unnatural moral laws of 'resist not evil', 'love your enemies', 'suppress your desires', 'whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also', etc. but no scene of oppression and tyranny shook it.³

Evil and oppression can be resisted only by power. And the use of force is prohibited in Christianity. Forces of tyranny and oppression can be arrested only by power. But in Christianity power is the right of 'Caesar' and not 'God'. Therefore the forces of evil and oppression are free to do what they like. It is sin for a victim to even think of revenge because the 'Kingdom is of Heaven' and not of 'Earth'. A victim has to love his oppressor because this is 'an order of his God'. Now, if the attitude of the believers in God would be such then evil will reign supreme in the world. We have already stated that it is impossible to follow the commands of 'love your enemies' and 'resist not evil'. As such today the thinkers and philosophers of Christianity are saying that sometimes circumstances may arise when war becomes inevitable. Dean Inge's comment on this way of combating evil deserves careful consideration, says he, "The principle of non-resistance was laid down for a little flock in a hostile environment. But an organized society cannot abstain from the use of coercion. No one would suggest that Christian Government must not suppress a gang of criminals within its own borders, and if this is admitted, can we doubt that it should defend itself against an invading enemy? …….. Augustine held that war is justified in repelling wanton and rapacious attacks and that in preventing such crimes we are acting in the true interest of the aggressor. Without justice what is empire but brigandage on a large scale. ……. Allowing that circumstances may arise which make a defensive war inevitable we have to find a principle which will guide us in concrete cases."⁴

The Bishop of Canterbury holds a very prominent place in the Church of England. According to the news agency Reuters he said that circumstances might arise in which participation in a war would not be against Christianity.⁵ Circumstances did arise in the form of the Second World War. Sir Richard Gregory has drawn a very vivid picture of this. He says that the Church of Christ blessed the Forces and their arms and it is another matter that every Christian State that took part in the war asked for help from the same God.⁶

These quotations totally reject the claim of the Christian missionaries that they oppose war because it is against culture and humanity and the message of Christianity is a protest against war. Why do Christian missionaries propagate this teaching? The answer to this question would be given a little later.

Hinduism is a religion of war and violence. Like the Old Testament the Vedas are also full of stories pertaining to wars. They narrate the exploits of Aryan and how they conquered the non-Aryans. Besides, the Vedas also tell about the wars fought by their Devtas (gods). Rig Veda says that god Indra who killed Wartara and destroyed villages and towns will also destroy the black Dravidians.⁷ The same Veda at another place says that he killed and destroyed fifty thousand black Dravidians in the battle.⁸ For details of these wars one can go through 'The Ancient Civilization of India' by R. C. Dutt.

After the Vedas the name of Ram and Krishna are mentioned in the Hindu history as incarnations of God. Ramayana and Mahabharta are considered as sacred religious books. Ramayana narrates the tale of the war that Ram fought against Ravana, the king of Lanka. Mahabharata tells about the war fought between the cousins called Kauravs and Pandavs. This epic also contains Geeta. In this war Krishna was the charioteer of Arjun. But once they are on the battlefield Arjun develops cold feet. He does not want to fight against his own relatives. But Krishna tells him about the desirability of war. So the sermon of Krishna in favor of war to Arjun in the battlefield is called Geeta. These are the exploits of Ram and Krishna on the basis of which they are considered to be incarnations of God.

With this backdrop it is improbable for a Hindu to oppose the concept of war. But the Hindu religion accepts all kinds of contradictory thoughts. Therefore, it is being said that Hinduism preaches ahimsa (non-violence) and consequently it is 'parmo dharam', the best religion. The political leader of the Hindu community, Mahatma Gandhi, is propagating this theory of ahimsa.⁹ What political gains he wants to achieve by this? The answer to this question is irrelevant to this book. However, the relevant question is: does the theory of ahimsa have the potential to be applicable in all circumstances and in every section of human life?

By ahimsa it is meant that one should not harbor the feeling of revenge. One should not use violence to resist evil. One should not restore to violence whatever the circumstances be. According to Mahatma Gandhi ahimsa is Truth. And for this reason he is speaking in favor of ahimsa for the last twenty to twenty-five years. But circumstances did arise in which the Mahatma himself advised against ahimsa.

The issue of 'Harijan' dated 9 August 1946 reported that a white man insulted an African Priest. Though the Priest was much stronger and healthier than the white man still he said: "Please forgive me." On this incident the Mahatma writes that this is not ahimsa. This is insulting the teachings of the Christ. The demand of courage was that the Priest should have retorted back in the same coin.

Similarly in context of the riots in Calcutta his editorial said that these people can take revenge and they can also keep aloof from it. Restraining oneself from taking revenge is easy but for it there should be will to do so. Taking revenge is complex. (But it is to be seen whether) revenge confines to one tooth for a tooth or more.¹⁰

In context of animal sacrifice the Mahatma believes that snakes, scorpions, wolves and similar beasts and reptiles that are harmful to man should be killed. Someone objected to his belief. In his reply he says that it is impossible for a man to avoid violence completely. Now the question is where to draw the demarcation line? For every man it would be different. After this he writes that on the basis of ahimsa animals cannot be allowed to destroy the crop and that too when there is draught in the country. This is sin. Good and evil are relative things. A thing good in one particular condition might become evil in the other.¹¹

This shows that for the Mahatma ahimsa is relative truth and not absolute truth. And circumstances might arise when following ahimsa becomes sin. Sometimes 'hinsa' (violence) becomes virtue. This is what Islam teaches. According to Islam in some situations forgiveness and pardon are virtues and in some the 'rod of Moses' is justice and truth. In this context the Mahatma writes at another place that monkeys create nuisance and inflict loss. People get utterly sick of them and desire that they should die. When someone kills them these people feel joy in their heart but overtly they oppose the killing of monkeys. One friend, who is well versed in Scriptures, asks as to what ahimsa says about the monkeys that destroy the crop and whose population is on the increase?

In answer to the above question the Mahatma writes, "My ahimsa is mine own. I am not against killing animals. I have no feelings to save those animals that tear man to pieces or inflict on him loss. On the contrary I believe that it is wrong to help them increase their population. Therefore I am against feeding ants, insects, dogs and monkeys. I cannot sacrifice the human life to save animals. Besides, I have come to the conclusion that where monkeys are a problem in human welfare their killing is not only pardonable but also obligatory. The question is why this rule should not be made applicable on human beings? This is not possible because how much bad a man may be after all he is like us. God has given intellect to man and the same has not been given to animals."¹²

The last portion of the above quotation deserves attention. If any person or a group imitates wolves and monkeys and destroys crop, creates disorder and chaos in the land so that there is danger to life, to property, to freedom, to women's honor, and any peaceful reasoning on humanitarian grounds against these acts is answered by violence, then what should be done in such a situation? Should they be left alone to increase their nefarious activities? Should they be not stopped forcibly because their faces resemble other human beings? If the answer to these questions is in the positive then no system can remain in peace and security. There is no doubt that knowledge and intellect are precious jewels by which only human beings have been blessed. But don't we observe daily that a person overcome by emotions, despite the gift of knowledge and intellect, commits worst crimes than animal would commit? The fact is that a person carried away by emotions and passions is no different from an inebriated one. You cannot convince both of them with logic and reason. One can say that dacoits and robbers are low in intellect. But what has happened to intellect and wisdom of cultured and civilized communities of today? Almost on the daily basis they are at loggerheads with each other. The memories of the Second World War are still fresh. For six long years these cultured and civilized peoples had turned this world into hell of fire and blood and no logic or reason could stop them from this gruesome act. There is no doubt that with proper upbringing animal instinct in man can be reduced. (And this is the objective of believing and following the Divine laws). But until such men are present in whom animal instinct is dominant then to protect humanity from these man-like beasts apart from reason the 'rod of Moses' is also required. About these man-like beasts the Quran says that they look like men but in reality they are worse than beasts. In this context the philosophers of Europe have also pondered much. They have also come to the conclusion that intellectual reasoning cannot stop war. Dean Inge says that by and large contemporary man is not militant but it is easy to infuse anger in him. If this observation is correct then to stop war with logic and reasoning is quite remote.¹³

Similarly the author of 'Treaties on Right or Wrong', H L Menckam says that in-between grim conspiracy of putting one nation against another appear those ideological interests that dream of putting an end to war. If by any miracle their desire is fulfilled then this idol of nationalism will meet its doom and along with it many wrong and immoral things will also go. The source of power of nationalism is fear and no person will fear that enemy who is armed with the weapon of justice. But the chances of war coming to an end before the end of this contemporary period are very remote. And centuries might go by before this dream is realized. Man is still closer to barbaric jungle-folk. Besides, man is not ready to forgo the pleasure that he gets when in a fit of anger he goes in pursuit of his enemy or fights with him. The proposals of peace put forward by different governments are in fact requisitions of their interests.

Menckam says that these observations are based on the first hand knowledge that he got by attending three international conferences that were organized to end war. He further says that after hypocritical peace of few days the leaders who participated in the conferences resorted to grabbing and scrambling. And when they returned to their respective countries their success was not measured by what they did for restoring peace in the world but by what material they brought for future war? Menckam says that the League of Nations disintegrated when its aims started unveiling. And only after a short period of its inception this thing came out into the open. Despite all the fictional claims that were made by its founders the fact was that their aim was just to ensure that the war booty of the World War remained with the victorious. And the moment this business started the victorious nations were in conflict with each other over the division of the war booty.¹⁴

It is to be recollected that in 1932 Professor Einstein under the auspices of the League of Nations' 'National Institute of Intellectual Cooperation' invited various thinkers of the West to answer the question: is there a way to save humanity from war?

While responding to this question Freud writes that though this will appear contradictory but the fact is that the way of achieving the desired goal of everlasting peace would be constructed by war only. With war big nations would be developed and within their boundaries their central authority would make war impossible. Freud says that there is only one sure way of ending war and that is to create with mutual understanding such a central authority whose decisions would be final and binding on nations that happen to be in conflict of interest with each other. But for this two things are required; one, creation of a supreme court and two, power to implement its decision. If the second thing is missing the first will automatically become useless. However, the question is not to curb dominant forces of man but how to use them in fields other than war?¹⁵

In the end Freud writes that intellectuals hate war because the demand of their physical nature is such.

These are the views of those persons who are considered luminaries of knowledge and intellect in the world and who want to solve every problem with logic and reasoning. The fact is that if it had been possible to control the oppressive forces by reasoning with them then Ram would not have gone to Lanka to kill Ravana and Krishna would not have supported war in the field of Krushetra. If verbal reasoning had the potential of solving the problem of war then Krishna would have argued with Kauravas to stop the war instead of inciting Arjun towards war. Therefore, until oppressive forces are there in the world power would be required to suppress their tyranny and to protect civilized humanity. For this reason the flag-bearer of ahimsa, Mahatma Gandhi had to say women of India should be taught the art of using weapon. This is preferable to leaving them in a condition where they feel helpless. Women should be encouraged to keep revolver and knives with their person.¹⁶

The West is always absorbed and entangled in harassing and weakening the spirit and forces of Islam. Why? This we have already answered. And to achieve this objective the missionaries of the Church play the role of a vanguard for the Christian army. Says Iqbal:

When he keeps an eye on the resources of others

Sends he the Church envoys before the army.

These missionaries of the Church come in the guise of considerate friends. Before leaving the shores of Europe they urge their armed wing to prepare weapons of warfare¹⁷. But in the East the 'message of Jesus' is preached to the Muslims that God's Kingdom is for the weak and the poor. 'Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' because the Kingdom of God has become your destiny. Moreover the kingdom of this earth is useless. And to desire for that which is useless is ignominy. History has proved that for centuries the Christian missionaries have been adopting this method. They come to Muslim countries and preach them stories of God's Kingdom and consequently the kingdom on earth of the Muslims gets transferred to other hands. And Muslims, yes the same Muslims about whom their Allah said:

Innallaa-hashtaraa minal-Mu-miniina

The believers without doubt have entered into a transaction with Allah, through the instrumentality of the Divine order, Who purchases their very persons and their worldly possessions in return for the abiding blissful life of jannat. They shall fight in the cause of Allah and slay and be slain and on the part of Allah the promise of jannat is binding. Similar promises were also made in the Tor'ah and the Injeel and are reiterated here in the Quran. Who is better than Allah in fulfilling promises? O believers! Rejoice then on the bargain effected which is a great achievement. (9/111)

And owing to the influence of the Christian missionaries this Muslim, thought that prayer mat and rosary are the wealth of life. He misinterpreted the meaning of contentment and trust in Allah, converted Diin into religion, ate the opium of religion and now he is totally oblivious to the demands of Diin.

Ye mazhab-e-mulla wo jamadat wo nabatat.

Either till skies, Order Divine they propagated
Or confined to cells dark with rosary and hymn they were.
Faith of God-intoxicated, self-realized man that was
This is the religion dead and inorganic of the priest.

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal in his narrative poem 'Asrar-e-Khudi' has included a thought provoking allegory about the religious leaders of the West. Iqbal says that there lived a tiger in a jungle. The tiger harassed the sheep of that jungle. So the sheep assembled together so as to find a way out. A sheep well versed in the art of politics said, "Listen, all sheep cannot combine to form one tiger. Therefore we should drop the idea of becoming a tiger. Instead we should try to convert the tiger into a sheep." Consequently that sheep donned the attire of a mystic and tactfully preached to the tiger the ideology of self-denial:

The sheep was successful in his mission. The tiger became his disciple and started feeding on grass and vegetables instead of meat. After some time he began to lose his strength, swiftness and activeness. He became weak, humble, spineless and coward. He lost the sharpness of his teeth and spark of his eyes. There were left no desires in his heart. He became like a mirror that has lost its strength of reflecting back images. He lost his desire for making an effort. He lost his enthusiasm to be active and to be always on the move. At one time the tiger was the king of the jungle but now he lost his authority, firmness, determination, command, dignity, wisdom and prosperity. His once powerful clasp of the claw became weak and he became heartless as if he was already in his grave. Over hundred illnesses emerge when one is without strength. As such the tiger became disgruntled, dispirited and of vile nature. Owing to the spell of the sheep, the ever-vigilant tiger went into slumber. Besides, culture was the name he gave to his disgraceful decline.

This is not the place to discuss as to how these ideas were spread amongst the Muslims of the world. When the British ended the rule of Muslims in India they feared that Muslims would return to their venturesome way of life. Therefore they applied their time-tested formula and herds of Christian missionaries started coming to India. They spread their network in the length and breadth of India and started preaching to the Muslims the concept of 'Kingdom of God'. One outcome of this preaching was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyan. He himself admitted that his movement was the product of the seed sowed by the British. Apart from his fabricated 'revelation' he also preached against the concept of Jihad.

O Friends! Now leave the idea of Jihad
Now religion prohibits battle and war.

The result of this versified propaganda was that Muslims began to feel embarrassment at the mention of Jihad. And even the attitude of those people became apologetic who did not accept the 'prophet-hood' of the Qadiyani. They began to desire for a Quran that had no verses on Jihad. But this was beyond their reach. Therefore they began to interpret ridiculously the verses related to Jihad. They said that the orders for Jihad speak about only that period when the world had not become cultured. That period was of madness and barbarity. Orders for Jihad were time bound. They were mentioned because the Arabs by nature were militant. But now all these verses have been abrogated.

This conspiracy was at the verge of becoming victorious when fortunately for the Muslim community Sir Muhammad Iqbal arrived on the scene and placed the real teachings of the Quran in front of the world.

Curse on the community is the leadership

That is secretively disciple to Pharaoh's power.

And Iqbal asked the 'considerate friends'-

To protect the pomp and presage of the Wrong
Europe armed herself from head to toe.
O supporter! Of the Church, I ask thee
Is war evil only in West and not in East?
If thou art just, not pertinent is it that
Europe were forgiven and Islam be called to account.

The modern Muslim is indebted to Iqbal. Iqbal unveiled before him the truth of the Quran and made him competent enough. Now with the strength of his faith he is putting before the world the message of the Quran and also the attributes of the personality to whom the Quran was revealed.

O Heaven! Sprinkle dew on his tomb
O Bloom! O Harvest! Guard that house.

There is no doubt that both Buddhism and Jainism have preached against killing of animals. But the question is: which civilization they gave to the world? In the entire history Jainism has never been a dominant force. And today it does not have an independent identity also. Owing to Emperors Ashoka and Kanishka Buddhism did make some progress. But only one attack from the Hindus was enough to wipe away the Buddhists from the boundaries of India. Today they are not even recognized as a minority community in India. This happened because these religions and their philosophy advocate salvation for individual life and they had nothing to do with collective life. At the time when the Christians also believed in this philosophy their condition was not dissimilar to the Buddhists and the Jains. Dean Inge says that individually and universally¹⁸ Christianity was only a religious movement.

The state of the Hindu religion is also the same. Therefore Mahatma Gandhi writes, "If I had been a dictator then I would have separated religion from politics. I swear by my religion that I would have given my life for this (division). Religion is my personal matter. What concern does government have with it? The objective of government is that it looks after your worldly requirements, for instance, communication, currency, foreign affairs, etc. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a private affair of an individual."¹⁹

We have already stated that Islam is not religion. It is Diin that includes both religion and government. Look at any government, at every step it has to fight a 'war'. What is war? It is to make somebody to accept something by force. You see that a government has to use power everyday. When any dacoit creates breaches of the peace then police is ordered to arrest him. The dacoit and the police both make use of their power against each other. The stronger one dominates the weaker one. Often the dacoit is killed in such an encounter. But if he is arrested alive then in the first place his power (weapons, etc.) is snatched from him. He is tried in the court of law and if proved guilty he is punished. This punishment is again implemented by power. This is called establishing peace in the land. This is the first obligation of an organized government. So at every step power is being used and no Christian mystic or a Hindu saint opposes it. They bless a government that establishes peace in the land. But when instead of one dacoit an entire nation or community starts looting people then use of force (war) against them is considered madness and barbarity. This shows that this philosophy is defective and trivial.

Eternal truths are contained in the Quran. Therefore it does not get influenced by cheap emotions and give these types of superficial 'moral laws'. To resist evil is the fundamental principle of the Diin.²⁰ It says that evil should be eradicated and resisted.

(O Messenger) repel evil (judiciously) with that which is best. (23/96)

The Quran accepts that some evils are committed accidentally and not deliberately. Appealing to one's intellect and sagacity can resist this type of evils. This is called 'resisting evil with good'.

ata wa mimmaa razaqnaahum yunfiquun.

The Muslim community) averts evil with good and keeps open for human welfare that which We have given to them. (28/54)

The Quran says that by 'resisting evil with good' an enemy can also become your friend.

Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better then will he between whom and thee was hatred become, as he were thy friend and intimate. (41/34)

The Quran, however, does not negate human emotions and therefore it does not limit itself to just the above instructions. It observes the other side of the coin also. It says amongst the evildoers are such persons who deliberately violate the laws. They do not listen to any reasoning and soft approach towards them makes them more extremists. This type of evil can only be arrested by force and as such punishment becomes must.

(Sometimes a culprit has to be punished but always keep this in mind that) the punishment should be equal (in degree) to the crime. (42/40)

The Quran also says that use of force for (or in support of) the oppressed is not crime.

You have no right to charge or question a person who defends (or take revenge) himself after he has suffered wrong. (42/41)

Use of force is a crime when it is used for oppression, transgression, cruelty, riots, etc.

The blame is only against those who oppress men with wrongdoing and insolently transgress beyond through the land, defying right and justice for such there will be a chastisement grievous. (42/42)

As such the Quran has instructed to forgive and to pardon. But along with this punishment and persecution are also considered essential so as to maintain peace and justice. And when this punishment and persecution extends beyond individuals to nations or communities then it is called war. If these things are for protecting human rights then they are good but if they are used for personal interests then they are evil.

Life is won on the battlefield by power
Power separates Truth from untruth
If against the Divine peace is evil
If for the Divine war is good
If sword hath not established Truth
In danger the nobles would have been
If sword is picked for other than God
It is as if you kill yourself
For dignity of Diin only is the sword
To protect Divine laws is its objective

This fact was most eloquently and in impressive words was stated by the last Messenger. He was asked: one man fights for war booty, one person fights for fame, one person fights for bravery, one person fights for anger and revenge, amongst them whose Jihad is right? And he replied:

hiyal uuliya fahua fii sabilillahi.

1.   Dorsey, G. A., 'Civilization', p.446
2.   Freud, S., 'Civilization, War and Death', pp. 78-94
3.   Briffault, R., 'The Making of Humanity', pp. 322-333
4.   Inge, Dean, 'The Fall of Idols', p. 179-181
5.   'Nation Calls' 22-12-1936
6.   Gregory, Sir Richard, 'Religion in Science and Civilization', p. 274
7.   Rig Veda, mandal 2, mantra 20, richa 607
8.   Ibid. 4/16/10
9.   This was written before 1947 when the Mahatma's philosophy of ahimsa was at its
      peak in India.
10.  'Harijan' 25-9-1946
11.  Ibid. 9-6-1946
12.  Ibid. 5-5-1946
13.  Inge, Dean, op. cit., p.193
14.  Mencken, H. L., 'Treaties on Right and Wrong', p.233
15.  Freud, S., op. cit., pp.87-93
16.  'Harijan' 27-10-1946
17.  Christianity preached its doctrine and prepared for war together. This is not a new
       thing. The Christian clergy was instrumental in instigating the Crusades. A Christian
       Historian writes: "When the victorious armies of the Messenger of Arabia entered
       Jerusalem (during the reign of the Second Caliph) not a single non-Muslim was
       killed on the ground that he professed a different religion. But when centuries later
       the Christian Crusaders entered Jerusalem then no Muslim man, woman and child
       was left alive."
18.  How come Christianity is universal? The New Testament says that Jesus was the
       Messenger for the Jews only and he had not come to distribute the bread of sons to
       dogs.
19.  'Harijan' 9-12-46. This sermon was in response to the claims of the Muslims that the
       basis of their power is religion. And contrary to this in 1938 the secretary of the
       Congress Party, Kirpalini, said that the system of the Congress would be based on
       the philosophy of Gandhi. And in this way religion and politics became one and the
       same thing.
20.  The elimination of wrong is the irreducible minimum of morality. (R. Briffault, 'The
       Making of Humanity'.