ULEMA AND THE MODERN AGE
Misguided Politics
WITH the dawn of the modern age the western colonial powers
had spread all over the world. Their primary focus was not
the establishment of political power in the world; it was their
discoveries in science and technology, of new lands and opportunities.
This was also the case of the companions of the Prophet who took the
divine message to different parts of the world. It is altogether another
matter that both — western colonial powers and the companions of
the Prophet — also won political power. The western powers were in
fact the ambassadors of the scientific revolution and had discovered a
world completely different from the traditional order.
With these discoveries they had spread out to the far corners of the
world, but the Muslims and their ulema considered these western
powers their political rivals and stood against them in confrontation.
The western powers were ambassadors
of the scientific revolution.
The unnecessary political and violent efforts of the ulema failed to
defeat the Western colonial powers. What happened, instead, was
this: internecine fighting among the Western countries themselves,
culminating in the Second World War, drained their military strength
to such an extent that it became exceedingly difficult for them to
continue to exercise political control over other countries. That is
why they granted political independence to these countries in the
mid-20th century, although their cultural and economic control over
them remained intact.
As a result of this development, some 50 Muslim-majority politically
independent states emerged in Asia and Africa. At this time, too, it was
the task of the ulema in these countries to shoulder the very same
responsibility that Islam had given them — that is to say, to leave
politics to the politicians and to focus their energies, instead, on the
spread of knowledge, communication of the divine message, as well
as social work and other such constructive activities. But, instead of
doing this, they again rushed headlong into the field of politics in a
completely unwarranted way.
Before this, in the period of European colonial rule, the aim of the
politics of these ulema had been ‘the struggle for independence’.
Now their politics was conducted in the name of ‘the enforcement
of Islamic law’. In numerous countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Syria,
Algeria, Indonesia and so on, the ulema set up parties whose aim was
to establish political rule according to Islamic law. This politics once
again turned Muslim countries into battlefields, the only difference
now being that while earlier, in the colonial period, the ulema had been
pitted against non-Muslim peoples, now they were up in arms against
a section of fellow Muslims themselves. And so, these ‘Islamic’ parties
found themselves playing the role of the Opposition in almost every
Muslim country.
These efforts of the ulema did not result in the establishment of purely
Shariah-based rule in any Muslim country. But what did result from all
of this was that Muslims everywhere became divided into, broadly, two
mutually-opposed camps that were at war with each other. If, in the
colonial period, non-Muslim forces killed Muslims, now Muslims began
slaughtering their co-religionists. And, consequently, everywhere
Muslim societies fell prey to destructive activities.
The primary focus of the western colonial powers was not
the establishment of political power in the world; it was
their discoveries in science and technology,
of new lands and opportunities.
Had the ulema of the Muslim countries stayed aloof from practical
politics, and focused instead, on the reform of Muslims, awakening
the spirit of Islam among them, producing Islamic literature according
to modern standards that would promote a thirst for Islam among
Muslims and similar sort of work, they would have been better able to
work towards establishing an Islamic government. If they had played
their role in transforming Muslim societies into truly Islamic societies,
the system of governance that would have naturally emerged from this
process woul+d undoubtedly have been an Islamic one, as is suggested
by a Hadith:
Your leadership will be a reflection of you [the people].
The real cause for the failure of efforts to enforce Islamic law in Muslim
countries is not the oppression of secularist rulers or the conspiracies
of the enemies of Islam, unlike what many of those who regard themselves as ‘lovers of Islam’ repeatedly claim. The real reason for
this is the blunder committed by the so-called flag-bearers of Islam
who, without properly preparing Muslim societies for this sort of
governance, went about stirring up campaigns for the enforcement of
Islamic law. The Pakistani example very well exemplifies this point. In
that country, what are called ‘pro-Islamic’ forces have, on more than
one occasion, won the chance of ruling the country, either partially
(as in the case of Mufti Muhammad Mahmud’s winning control of the
Frontier Province in the 1970s) or completely (as in the case of the rule
of General Zia ul-Haq). Yet, in no way have they succeeded in enforcing
the Shariah there.
A narrative of Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, provides a very appropriate
commentary on this matter. It is a long narrative, in Sahih al-Bukhari
and a portion of it reads as follows: The verses of the Quran which were
revealed in the beginning contained details about Paradise and hell.
Subsequently, when the people embraced Islam the verses regarding
legal and illegal acts were revealed; which, had they been revealed
earlier, would not prevent people from pursuing the illegal, as they
would not yet be aware of Eternal reward and punishment.
In Muslim lands, the ulema involved in movements for the enforcement
of Islamic law simply assumed that because the majority of the
inhabitants of these countries were Muslims, they were, by definition,
in favour of Islamic law. This was a complete misreading of reality,
however. The fact is that the present-day generation of Muslims is
actually a communal aggregate, and not, in the real sense, a truly
religious collective. Hence, it is wrong to assume, even about people
who pray and fast and perform Haj or Umrah, that they want that
political power should be wielded by the ulema, who should impose
Shariah laws on them.
The unrealistic politics of the ulema in Muslim countries have produced
a situation which we can properly appreciate in the light of the Hadith
referred to above. Without preparing the populace to welcome and
accept Islamic laws, the ulema seek to impose these laws, including
with regard to the consumption of liquor and adultery, while at the
same time, large sections of the populace react to them, saying, “We
will never let these laws of yours be imposed on us.”
In January 1827, Sayyed Ahmad Barelvi and his companions had
established what they termed as an Islamic government in the Peshawar region, near the Afghan border. Sayyed Ahmad Shahid was selected as
the head of the state, the Amir ul-mumineen (leader of the believers).
But, very soon, internecine rivalry broke out, so much so that local
Muslims set about slaughtering the representatives that Sayyed Ahmad
Barelvi had appointed in their areas. And so, this ‘Islamic government’
collapsed almost as soon as it had been established.
This failed experiment in seeking to establish Islamic rule without
preparing Muslim society adequately for it was not, however, accepted
as a warning sign by later generations. That is why efforts continue to
be made even in our day to repeat this experiment which, some 250
years ago, very clearly showed how impossible it was for it to succeed.
By the middle of the 20th century, movements aiming for what they
called ‘Islamic Revolution’ emerged almost all across the Muslim world.
These were led by ulema as well as ‘pro-Islamic’ intellectuals. But these
people, both when they were in the Opposition as well as when, in
some cases, they came to power, simply became a cause for giving
Islam a bad name. It is a fact that these movements in the name of
‘Divine Government’ (Hukumat-e Ilahiya), the ‘Islamic System’ (Islami
Nizam) and the ‘Enforcement of the Shariah’ (nifaz-e shariah) proved
only to be counter-productive.
It was the task of the ulema in these countries
to shoulder the very same responsibility
that Islam had given them.
It is worth noting in this regard that numerous great non-Muslim
thinkers, from the late 19th till the mid-20th century, had declared Islam
as the solution to the problems besetting humanity in the present age.
But, at the end of the 20th century, no important non-Muslim thinker
made any such announcement.
The cause for this was the wrong representation of Islam by the socalled
revolutionary Muslim leaders. Prior to this, the intellectuals of
the world were presented with the history of the early phase of Islam,
and, impressed by it; many of them had a very positive image of Islam.
But the meaningless movements stirred up in the name of Islam by the
present-day ulema and other Muslim leaders turned into nothing but
yet another cause for adding to human misery. Faced with the record
of these so-called representatives of Islam in our times, many people have become disgusted with Islam itself. And so, no longer do many
globally-influential intellectuals believe that Islam can be a means for
human welfare in the present age.
The Example of the Prophet
Abdullah Ibn Abbas, a companion of the Prophet reports an incident
from the early Makkan phase of the Prophet’s time. One day, the
leaders of the Quraysh gathered near the Kabah. They decided to send
one of their men to the Prophet to call him so that they could talk over
matters with him. When he received this message, the Prophet went to
meet them.
When the discussion started, the representative of the Quraysh told
the Prophet that he had become a source of trouble for their tribe, and
accused him of abusing their forefathers, criticizing their religion, and
insulting their Gods. After going on in this vein, he told the Prophet
that he should desist from what he was doing, in return for which the
Quraysh were ready to give him whatever he wanted. The Quraysh
would even concede to making him their ruler if he wanted that.
The Prophet did not accept this offer of the Quraysh, and, instead,
continued with his missionary efforts. Later, when he shifted to
Madinah, he established an Islamic government there. Now, the
question arises as to why the Prophet did not accept the offer of
heading the government earlier, in Makkah, which the Quraysh had
made to him, while he established an Islamic government 15 years
later, in Madinah. Why didn’t he establish this Islamic government in
Makkah, fifteen years earlier?
The reason for this is that the way to establish an Islamic government is
not that any ‘Islamic personality’, using any means whatsoever, comes
to occupy the seat of governance. The establishment of a regime is very
closely linked to the prevailing external conditions. The establishment
of an Islamic government requires a suitable society, whose members
have become receptive to Islam, and where the political factors
necessary for the stability of the administration are present.
In the Makkan period of the Prophet, these favourable factors had
not crystallized. That is why the Prophet did not try to establish
Islamic government in Makkah. But, later, in Madinah, these factors
had crystallized, and that is why the Prophet established the rule of
Islam there.
The difference in the two contexts is clearly apparent from the fact that
in Makkah it was possible for the wife of Abu Lahab to condemn the
Prophet and to even publicly sing verses criticizing him and announcing
that she refused to accept the message he was propagating. On the
other hand, in the 13th year of his prophethood, when the Prophet,
along with his companion Abu Bakr, arrived in Madinah, he was greeted
by the children of the town singing verses that celebrated his arrival
and his message.
A similar example can be drawn from the life of the Prophet Moses. The
Children of Israel, the people of Moses, the Quran tells us, had been
destined to acquire political power once again. And so, after the demise
of Moses, the Children of Israel rose up in revolt against the then ruler
and established their own government over Syria and Palestine.
Here, it is interesting to note that the Children of Israel had the same
opportunity of establishing a government half a century earlier, at the
time of Moses. Why, one might ask, did they have to wait for so many
years till they finally did so?
At the time of Moses, the Pharaoh of Egypt and his entire army were
drowned in the sea, and this cleared the field for Moses. Moses could
have returned to the then Egyptian capital, Memphis, along with the
Children of Israel, and occupied the vacant Egyptian throne. After the
miraculous destruction of the Pharaoh and his army, the denizens
of Egypt must have been so awe-struck that they would have readily
accepted Moses as their new ruler.
But Moses did not do this. Instead, he left the vacant political field of
Egypt and, along with his people, went into the Sinai desert. There, the
Children of Israel faced forty years of harsh life, where a new generation
was born, that was reared in the desert and survived.
Now, the only reason for this delay was that the generation of the
Children of Israel that had earlier lived in Egypt had, for certain
particular reasons, fallen prey to moral decline, so much so, as the
Quran ( 5: 25 ) relates, Moses told God that besides himself and his
brother Aaron (Harun), he had no faith in any person. And so, all the
people of Children of Israel were kept in the wilderness so that a
new generation of the Children of Israel, reared in the desert, should
develop a reliable character and then become capable of establishing
an Islamic government.
These two instances very clearly prove that a new regime can only
be established when the necessary collective conditions favourable
for it prevail. The example of the Prophet tells us that if among the
public a conducive environment does not prevail in the real sense,
even a prophet cannot establish a government in such a context.
And if he does establish a government despite the absence of such
a conducive environment, it will soon collapse, and the end result of
this will be fruitlessness.
Keeping this Prophetic example in mind, it will be clear that the
agitations that swept all across the Muslim world, driven by the slogan
“Establish Islamic Government”, were simply foolish. Their logical
result could only be — and it turned out to be precisely so — terrible
destruction, with their goal remaining as distant as before.
Nation Building
No nation can
ever hold up its head,
far less take pride of place
amongst the nations of the world, if
the individuals of which it is comprised
think of nothing but personal gain
and self-glorification.
Believer’s world view
For a believer, if everything goes according to
plan, a feeling of thanksgiving is aroused in him.
But should his plans go awry, he realizes that
man can only propose; it is God who disposes.
In this way he comes closer to the Lord.
