ASK MAULANA
Your Questions Answered
Many people argue that in present times our scholars should not be standing next to despotic rulers of many Muslim countries. Many call for democratic reform, however, we have seen what happens through the overthrow of many of these leaders in the Arab world. What should our response be here for those who call against such rulers?
Present Arab rulers are not despotic kings, they are basically Islamic rulers. The only difference is that they were not elected by the western democratic process, but rather are members of a dynasty. To be an Islamic ruler, there is no criterion that one should be elected according to democratic principles. The criterion is whether under these dynastic rulers there is religious freedom to follow Islam, and such religious freedom is certainly present today in every Arab country.
Democracy in the European sense is not an article of faith in Islam. The history of early Islam shows that there were four khulafa (Caliphs) who were all Companions of the Prophet. But none of them was elected to caliphate according to any particular pattern. After the first four Caliphs, people realised that this way of electing caliphs was not workable, rather it was leading to anarchy. Therefore after the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the dynastic pattern was adopted in the very times of the Companions. It is seen that in the history of Islam, Muslim scholars never disapproved of this pattern. This is because it was a feasible pattern and so it was accepted by scholars. This practice continues to this day including in the present Arab states.
The political ideology of Islam is based on pragmatism, that is, to follow the pattern that works. If a pattern does not work, it results in anarchy. This is why during the time of the Companions, the dynastic pattern was adopted and continues to this day. Those who want to change this pattern are creating anarchy instead of bringing stability to their region. The sole reason for adopting dynastic rule during the period of the Companions was for the maintenance of stability.
The political philosophy of Islam is not based on any set pattern, rather it is based on the practical and workable pattern. Western democracy follows an absolute pattern that is, government of the people. However, in Islam there is no such absolute principle, rather the principle that works is followed. This is why the four early caliphs of Islam were elected through four different methods. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz is considered the fifth Pious Caliph, however, his appointment to caliphate was different from the way in which each of the previous four Pious Caliphs was elected. The dynastic pattern was adopted in the period of the Companions and in entire Islamic history no noteworthy Islamic scholar issued any condemnation against it. This continues, and present Arab rulers are a part of it. Islam has no such criterion that the rulers should be elected by the people, rather the concern of Islam is religious freedom, which is available in Muslim countries today.
The activities of those who want to bring democracy to Arab countries have nothing to do with Islam. Experience shows that Muslim countries where democracy was introduced in a partial sense has only led to anarchy. Where there is a choice between anarchy and stability, stability will certainly be preferred. This is the Islamic stand.
Many of the commentators who explain the Conquest of Makkah view it as a military conquest whereas it was more so a fath (an opening). How do we best understand and articulate this concept of an opening?
Historical documents do not subscribe to the view that Makkah was a case of military conquest in the political sense. There is no evidence that force was involved in this operation. The truth is that the Prophet’s march to Makkah was entirely a peaceful one. It was not, therefore, a conquest, rather it was an acceptance of Islam by free choice at the mass level.
According to historical documents, there were some very strong opponents of the Prophet in Makkah. They were all killed in the Battle of Badr in 624 AD. On removal of this opposition, almost all other Makkan people had accepted Islam, first without open declaration and later with declaration. This happened because prior to and after the Hudaybiya agreement, extensive dawah or preaching was done among the Makkans. This created a soft corner for Islam among an overwhelming majority of the Makkans. When the Prophet entered Makkah along with his Companions, he faced no resistance. This shows that the Makkans accepted Islam by choice and not through political compulsion. Hence the reference to this in the Quran is in these words: ‘When God’s help and victory come, and you see people entering God’s religion in multitudes.’ (
It is true that the conquest of Makkah is generally referred to in terms of fath, but in fact it was an ideological fath rather than a political fath. Fath means one group surrendering before another group. The Makkans had not surrendered to any particular group, rather they had surrendered to Islam, which was the voice of their nature. The surrender of Makkah was an ideological one. There is no difference between the Islamization of Madinah and that of Makkah. Both were cases of acceptance of Islam by choice. o
Learning from Cow
The cow indeed shows us what God requires of us in this world. We may take in ‘grass’; but we must give out ‘milk.’ Even when people wrong us, we are required to convert that wrong into a right. When beset by adversity, we are required to turn it to good account.
Wise Approach
Every person is between two things—his desires and the external situation. Simply by running after one’s desires one cannot achieve one’s goals. One must know the external situation, the external circumstances and the external opportunities. You can achieve your personal target only by taking into consideration the external factors. It is this realistic approach that is the wise approach.
