Some claim that Islam does not acknowledge more than one position for the same issue. There is a single line that governs the course. Islam should not abandon or deviate from this line. It has to reveal its position clearly and without masks. Masks are a kind of hypocrisy and deceit as a matter of principle.
But there is another view. This view says there is a difference between hypocrisy and flexibility. Hypocrisy promotes a personal interest. It ignores any moral or humanitarian principle. Flexibility represents a practical position. It seeks to achieve one's goal through available means. It confronts rivals' tactics with counter ones. These counter tactics accomplish practical results through the shortest possible ways. To achieve this, Islam must enjoy freedom of movement. This freedom realizes its major goals in times of war or peace. If the situation requires clarity, then one should resort to clarity. If it calls for ambiguity and hiding some truth, then this would be the correct position. Sometimes concessions in stand, style, or rhetoric are the means to realize a big advancement. If so, then this is the position that ought to be taken.
We notice some features of this situation in the Pact of Hudaybiyya. The Prophet (p.) agreed to conclude it. He agreed to offer certain temporary concessions. One concession was not to address him as a messenger. Some of his companions opposed this. They felt it undermined the dignity of Muslims. The same applies to what the Prophet (p.) did before the conquest of Mecca. He was aware of Islamic interests. These interests demanded offering certain concessions and keeping the conquest plan secret.
This state of secrecy and flexibility is adopted by certain Islamic schools of thought. They believe in the principle of "Taqiah". It represents working for one's goals through realistic means. These means preserve the integrity of the work and its ability to reach big goals. They aim for no negative repercussions, or the least possible ones. This attitude is adopted when there is pressure or danger on the Islamic movement itself.
Those who adopt this view find support in certain Quranic verses. Allah says, for example:
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. Surah Al 'Imran (03:28)
This Ayah suggests a state that would compel the believer to say what he does not believe in. This is to save the entire cause. If this principle is correct, then one could adopt similar positions. This is provided he does not undermine the basic principle. The issue is related to details and means of action. Thus, we do not approve of the famous saying that "ends justify means". That saying defends personal ambitions. It justifies using filthy means to accomplish them. This is at the expense of all basic principles and morals.
Nevertheless, when the cause is moral, one could resort to minor tactics. Lying is an example. Islamic jurisprudence approves of lying for promoting just and big causes. It is also justified for reconciling between two persons or groups. Such goals give the means a new meaning. This meaning coincides with the greatness of the goals, which are not personal. In this respect, one can also recall that backbiting is permissible. Knowing the flaws of others to face threats confronting the nation is also permissible.
Islamic jurists have deemed it permissible to kill Muslim prisoners in certain cases. This is if the enemy uses them as barricades. It is permissible if it is the only way to achieve victory. The importance of victory takes precedence over the evil of this action. The action is unlawful in itself. Another example is passing through a usurped land. This is permissible if it is the only way to put off a fire or save a drowning person. Jurists call this "competition". It is a competition between doing an unlawful act and not performing a duty. In this case, man chooses the more important act. He compares the benefit and the evil it would result in.
We can go further. Something could be lawful in itself but become unlawful once it becomes harmful. Drinking water or eating lawful food becomes unlawful if it causes harm. Beating an orphan is unlawful. But it becomes permissible, even dutiful, if done for discipline. This is because Shari'ah rulings are based on benefits and evil. If the benefit is greater, then it is lawful, and vice versa. The ruling changes with the situation.
We can generalize this rule. We can apply it in the political domain and in the struggle with anti-Islamic forces. Thus, our movement will not be hindered by moral idealism. The morality of any action is determined by the results it produces for the cause of Islam and Muslims.
The idea elaborated is that the strength of the interest (benefit) would suspend unlawfulness. It removes the filthiness of the means.
But we should emphasize we are talking about the principle in general. Any specific case should be studied thoroughly. Leniency or forbearance can make us fall into moral chaos. This chaos outstretches the limits of the Shari'ah and its rulings.
It might be necessary to let the decision be in the hands of our leaders. They know how to compare the needs of the Islamic causes with the general guidelines of the Shari'ah.
In light of this, we can harmonize the moral and the realistic in our movement. We can come out with a specific result. Islam has to raise the level of reality. It must do this by using the means of this reality. These means seek change within human capability. This should not part with spiritual sublimation. Islam considers this a big goal in life.
We would like researchers in political science to study this idea. There is a dire need to set up a clear Islamic policy. This policy must be close to reality.
An excerpt from the book: "The Islamic Movement: Pros and Cons."
Some claim that Islam does not acknowledge more than one position for the same issue. There is a single line that governs the course. Islam should not abandon or deviate from this line. It has to reveal its position clearly and without masks. Masks are a kind of hypocrisy and deceit as a matter of principle.
But there is another view. This view says there is a difference between hypocrisy and flexibility. Hypocrisy promotes a personal interest. It ignores any moral or humanitarian principle. Flexibility represents a practical position. It seeks to achieve one's goal through available means. It confronts rivals' tactics with counter ones. These counter tactics accomplish practical results through the shortest possible ways. To achieve this, Islam must enjoy freedom of movement. This freedom realizes its major goals in times of war or peace. If the situation requires clarity, then one should resort to clarity. If it calls for ambiguity and hiding some truth, then this would be the correct position. Sometimes concessions in stand, style, or rhetoric are the means to realize a big advancement. If so, then this is the position that ought to be taken.
We notice some features of this situation in the Pact of Hudaybiyya. The Prophet (p.) agreed to conclude it. He agreed to offer certain temporary concessions. One concession was not to address him as a messenger. Some of his companions opposed this. They felt it undermined the dignity of Muslims. The same applies to what the Prophet (p.) did before the conquest of Mecca. He was aware of Islamic interests. These interests demanded offering certain concessions and keeping the conquest plan secret.
This state of secrecy and flexibility is adopted by certain Islamic schools of thought. They believe in the principle of "Taqiah". It represents working for one's goals through realistic means. These means preserve the integrity of the work and its ability to reach big goals. They aim for no negative repercussions, or the least possible ones. This attitude is adopted when there is pressure or danger on the Islamic movement itself.
Those who adopt this view find support in certain Quranic verses. Allah says, for example:
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. Surah Al 'Imran (03:28)
This Ayah suggests a state that would compel the believer to say what he does not believe in. This is to save the entire cause. If this principle is correct, then one could adopt similar positions. This is provided he does not undermine the basic principle. The issue is related to details and means of action. Thus, we do not approve of the famous saying that "ends justify means". That saying defends personal ambitions. It justifies using filthy means to accomplish them. This is at the expense of all basic principles and morals.
Nevertheless, when the cause is moral, one could resort to minor tactics. Lying is an example. Islamic jurisprudence approves of lying for promoting just and big causes. It is also justified for reconciling between two persons or groups. Such goals give the means a new meaning. This meaning coincides with the greatness of the goals, which are not personal. In this respect, one can also recall that backbiting is permissible. Knowing the flaws of others to face threats confronting the nation is also permissible.
Islamic jurists have deemed it permissible to kill Muslim prisoners in certain cases. This is if the enemy uses them as barricades. It is permissible if it is the only way to achieve victory. The importance of victory takes precedence over the evil of this action. The action is unlawful in itself. Another example is passing through a usurped land. This is permissible if it is the only way to put off a fire or save a drowning person. Jurists call this "competition". It is a competition between doing an unlawful act and not performing a duty. In this case, man chooses the more important act. He compares the benefit and the evil it would result in.
We can go further. Something could be lawful in itself but become unlawful once it becomes harmful. Drinking water or eating lawful food becomes unlawful if it causes harm. Beating an orphan is unlawful. But it becomes permissible, even dutiful, if done for discipline. This is because Shari'ah rulings are based on benefits and evil. If the benefit is greater, then it is lawful, and vice versa. The ruling changes with the situation.
We can generalize this rule. We can apply it in the political domain and in the struggle with anti-Islamic forces. Thus, our movement will not be hindered by moral idealism. The morality of any action is determined by the results it produces for the cause of Islam and Muslims.
The idea elaborated is that the strength of the interest (benefit) would suspend unlawfulness. It removes the filthiness of the means.
But we should emphasize we are talking about the principle in general. Any specific case should be studied thoroughly. Leniency or forbearance can make us fall into moral chaos. This chaos outstretches the limits of the Shari'ah and its rulings.
It might be necessary to let the decision be in the hands of our leaders. They know how to compare the needs of the Islamic causes with the general guidelines of the Shari'ah.
In light of this, we can harmonize the moral and the realistic in our movement. We can come out with a specific result. Islam has to raise the level of reality. It must do this by using the means of this reality. These means seek change within human capability. This should not part with spiritual sublimation. Islam considers this a big goal in life.
We would like researchers in political science to study this idea. There is a dire need to set up a clear Islamic policy. This policy must be close to reality.
An excerpt from the book: "The Islamic Movement: Pros and Cons."