The
many prophets sent by God to guide humankind, the last of who was the Prophet
Muhammad, did not make regime change or the capture of political power their
aim. Rather, their primary focus was the reform of individuals, who, when
suitably reformed, could form a society inspired to follow God’s teachings. Only
then could a government that would rule according to the teachings of Islam. The
Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared, ‘Those who rule over you will be just
as you are’ (kama ta kununa kazalika yoammaru aleikum). In other words, people
get the government or rulers they deserve, because the representatives of people
emerge from and are chosen from among them. This clearly indicates that it is
only through gradual and sustained reform at the level of individuals that
society, and, then, the system of governance can be reformed. This is the
natural system of bringing about social transformation. -- Maulana Waris Mazhari
By Maulana Waris Mazhari
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand/Noor Mohammad
Sikand)
A
crucial issue that needs careful deliberation and clarification is: What is the
appropriate method for social transformation according to the principles and
teachings of Islam and the model of the Prophet Muhammad? Contemporary Islamic
movements display considerable confusion in this regard. They believe that Islam
aims at the extermination of falsehood and that it can, in no way, tolerate it.
They believe that tolerating falsehood or remaining silent on it is tantamount
to betraying the Islamic mission. This is why many of these movements regard
revolution as the most important and potent method of social transformation.
Accordingly, revolution is at the top of their agenda, or so they
claim.
However,
it is a bitter truth, and one that activists involved in Islamic groups are
themselves increasingly beginning to realize, that the policies and activities
of ‘revolutionary’ or radical Islamist groups are, far from advancing the cause
of Islam, actually undermining it by creating increasingly insurmountable
hurdles in its path. Despite the efforts of radical or self-styled
‘revolutionary’ Islamist groups over the last 70 to 80 years, no such revolution
has taken place in the Sunni world. On the contrary, in most cases the radical
activities of such ‘revolutionary’ groups and movements have had precisely the
opposite results, proving to be entirely counter-productive. A good example is
that of the Ikhwan ul-Muslimun or ‘Muslim Brethren’ in Egypt, which participated
in the downfall of the regime of King Faruq, only to be later brutally crushed
by the regime of Jamaluddin Abdul Nasser, whom it helped to come to power. One
can cite numerous more such instances from other parts of the
world.
The
Islamic ‘revolution’ in Iran was marked by the deep impact of Shia theology.
With the help of the doctrine of the wilayat al-faqih or the ‘guardianship of
the jurist’, which was developed by Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian Shia ulema
managed to acquire some sort of theocratic power. Due to major differences in
outlook and theology between the Sunni and Shia understandings of Islam, this is
not possible in the Sunni world. Nor, to my mind, is this in accordance with the
basic principles of Islam. It is undoubtedly true that many Muslims in the Sunni
world, particularly among the youth, were indeed inspired by the Iranian
‘revolution’. For its part, the new Iranian regime sought to export its
‘revolution’ to the Sunni world. However, nothing much actually came of this in
practical terms, although this certainly emboldened Islamist groups while
leading to heightened fears in the West over what was described as ‘the opening
of the bottle containing the Islamic genie’, which was regarded as a threat to
the West.
Coming
to the question of whether or not revolution is the way prescribed in Islam for
social transformation, it is crucial to understand what the term ‘revolution’
actually means. What, in reality, are the features of revolution? What are, or
should be, its aims and objectives? Without clarifying these complex issues, one
cannot discuss the appropriate method of social transformation in
Islam.
The fact
of the matter is that nowhere do the Quran and the Hadith use any word that
connotes revolution. Nor do they advocate any concept of revolutionary
transformation of society in the sense that contemporary Islamist movements
understand it. The term ‘revolution’ as understood today connotes a struggle
that aims fundamentally at the total transformation of the bases of governance
and society. It suggests a complete and drastic change. The model for such
change in modern times are the communist revolutions in countries such as Russia
and China. Communism regards revolution as the means for social change. In
contrast, and contrary to what radical or ‘revolutionary’ Islamist ideologues
argue, the basis and means for social change in Islam is reform (islah), not
revolution.
There
are fundamental differences, indeed contradictions, between the reformist and
revolutionary paths to social change. The principal objective of revolutionaries
is to bring about change at the external level, particularly in the bases of
political power, while reformists aim primarily at change at the internal
level—in the inner consciousness and behaviour of individuals. While revolution
stands for total and sudden change, reform stands for partial and gradual change
or, at least, it does not oppose it. Reform is guided by concern and goodwill
for others, while, typically, revolutions are fired by feelings of hatred or
revenge.
The
social change wrought by all the prophets, including the Prophet Muhammad, were
instances of reform, rather than radicalism or revolution. Their reformist
efforts aimed primarily at the transformation of the inner consciousness,
beliefs and behaviour of individuals through education, moral instruction and
purification. This is what the Quran regards as the aim behind God sending to
humankind a long chain of prophets. As the Quran puts it, referring to the
Prophet Muhammad:
‘Allah
did confer a big favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger
from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the signs of Allah, purifying them,
and instructing them in scripture and wisdom, while, before that, they had been
in manifest error’ (3:164).
The many
prophets sent by God to guide humankind, the last of who was the Prophet
Muhammad, did not make regime change or the capture of political power their
aim. Rather, their primary focus was the reform of individuals, who, when
suitably reformed, could form a society inspired to follow God’s teachings. Only
then could a government that would rule according to the teachings of Islam. The
Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared, ‘Those who rule over you will be just
as you are’ (kama ta kununa kazalika yoammaru aleikum). In other words, people
get the government or rulers they deserve, because the representatives of people
emerge from and are chosen from among them. This clearly indicates that it is
only through gradual and sustained reform at the level of individuals that
society, and, then, the system of governance can be reformed. This is the
natural system of bringing about social transformation.
Over the
last 80-odd years, Islamist movements have never ceased from raising
emotionally-driven slogans of what they call ‘Islamic Revolution’. Because they
ignored the natural method of social transformation, the slogans raised by these
movements remained precisely that—mere slogans that could not be actualized.
Consequently, today many Muslims are growing weary of such clichéd slogans, and
are losing faith in the claims of those who never tire of mouthing
them.
In
today’s world, political and radical or revolutionary interpretations of Islam
are proving to be a major source of chaos, conflict and strife, or what the
Quran terms fitna. The major ideologue of this politically-oriented version of
Islam was an Indian (who later migrated to Pakistan), Maulana Syed Abul ‘Ala
Maududi, founder of the Islamist Jama‘at-e Islami. In his hugely influential,
and, at the same time, enormously controversial book Islami Nizam-e Zindagi Aur
Uske Buniyadi Tasavvurat (‘The Islamic Way of Life and its Basic Conceptions’),
Maududi projected Islam as a revolutionary ideology and the Muslim ummah as a
revolutionary party. On this basis, he called for Muslims to struggle for what
he termed as ‘Islamic Revolution’ throughout the world. He considered all the
prophets of God to have been revolutionary political leaders. If one were to
take this obviously erroneous claim to be true, one would have to admit that,
with a very few exceptions, none of the prophets were successful in their
mission because they were not accepted as political leaders by their people, and
nor were they able to establish Islamic political rule. Obviously, no sensible
Muslim can believe that the prophets were failures and that they were unable to
do what God had sent them to the world to accomplish.
To
claim, as Maududi does, that Muslims are ‘not a band of preachers and
missionaries, but, rather, a party of soldiers of God’ is to betray ignorance,
and, indeed, transgression of, the basic truths of Islam. The major difference
between the truly Islamic method of social transformation, as followed by the
prophets, and the radical method of present-day politically-oriented Islamist
movements is that the former is gradual and aims at reforms from below, from the
individual to the social and then to the political plane, while the latter is
radical and seeks to impose change in individuals and in the society from above,
using political power for this purpose. The latter method is unnatural,
unrealistic and impracticable, and inevitably results in strife and much
bloodshed and destruction. That, indeed, is the fate of any movement that uses
unnatural methods, no matter how noble its aims may be. It is also apparent that
any revolution wrought by such means can never be long-lasting. Revolutions are
generally sooner or later subverted, ironically often by those who played key
roles in bringing them about in the first place.
All this
clearly suggests that Islamic movements and groups that are engaged in, or so
they claim, in ‘revolutionary’ action to capture power must seriously revisit
their methods and their ideology. Such radicalism is proving, as the case of
Pakistan today, for instance, so tragically shows, to be entirely
counter-productive for Islam and its adherents. If at all any ‘revolution’
occurs as a result of the activities of these ‘revolutionary’ self-styled
Islamist groups, the true lovers of Islam will, one can be sure, desperately
seek safety from it and from ‘political Islam’, an obvious parody of authentic
Islam, on which it would be based.
Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly
Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the
Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on
w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social
Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.
2:03 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment