FROM MAULANA'S DESK

that in a certain country there is injustice or that human rights are being violated, it has the right to make efforts to address the situation using only peaceful means. But, under no circumstances and under no pretext is it permissible for them to adopt violent methods. Suppose an individual or a non-governmental organisation was to argue, ‘We would like to work non-violently, but our opponent refuses to give us our rights, even if we use peaceful means. So, in these circumstances, what else can we do, but take to arms?' The answer to this argument is that, the responsibility as regards these matters lies with the government and not with non-governmental actors. If someone feels that the government is failing to live up to its responsibilities, still it is impermissible for him to take on what is the government’s work. In these conditions, he can choose between only two alternatives: either to exercise patience, or else, to make every effort to address the situation using only peaceful methods. Here, the question arises about what the appropriate response is to state terrorism, i.e. when the state engages in inappropriate violence. In this regard, it should be noted that this sort of violence is about a state misusing a right that it has, while for non-governmental actors to engage in violence is to engage in something that they have no right to at all. There is a distinction between doing something which one has no right to, on the one hand, and misusing a right that one is legally entitled to. In other words, if a non-governmental group were to engage in violence, no matter under what pretext, it would definitely be impermissible. On the other hand, if an established government were to engage in inappropriate violence, it would be told that it must use its right to use violence only in a legally permissible manner. By misusing this right, a government can turn itself into a criminal, just as a non-governmental actor can. This point can be better understood with the help of a simile. Suppose a doctor uses his surgical knife to operate on a wrong part of his patient’s body. In this case, he would be guilty of misusing a right that he is entitled to. A qualified doctor definitely has the right to use his surgical knife—to operate on the correct part of his patient’s body— but he has no right to cut off a wrong part. On the other hand, a person who is not a doctor has no right whatsoever to use a knife on anyone, no matter under what pretext. o Maulana Wahiduddin Khan editor@thespiritofislam.org