The unnecessary political and violent struggle of the Ulama failed to defeat the Western colonial powers who had established control over most Muslim-majority lands. However, 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 foreign countries, including most Muslim-majority lands. That is why they granted political independence to these countries in the mid-20th century, although their cultural and economic control over them remained undiminished.
As a result of this development, around fifty Muslim-majority politically independent states emerged in Asia and Africa. At this time, too, it was the task of the Ulama 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 education, dawah work and social reform. However, instead of doing this, the Ulama again rushed headlong into the field of politics in a completely unwarranted manner.
Before this, in the period of European colonial rule, the aim of the politics of these Ulama 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, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Indonesia, the Ulama set up parties to establish political rule according to their understanding of Islamic law. This politics once again turned the Muslim countries into a battlefield, the only difference now being that while earlier, in the colonial period, the Ulama had been pitted against the non-Muslim ruling powers, now they were up in arms against a section of fellow Muslims themselves. Thus, these Islamic parties found themselves playing the role of the Opposition in almost every Muslim country.
These efforts of the Ulama did not result in the establishment of purely Shariah-based rule in any Muslim country. However, what did result from all of this was that everywhere the Muslims became divided into, broadly, two mutually opposed camps that were at war with each other. If the non-Muslim forces killed the Muslims in the colonial period, the Muslims began killing their co-religionists. Moreover, consequently, everywhere, Muslim societies fell prey to destructive activities.
Had the Ulama of the Muslim-majority countries stayed aloof from politics and focused, instead, on the reform of the Muslims, awakening the true spirit of Islam among them, producing Islamic literature according to modern standards that would promote an urge to discover Islam among people, and works of a similar kind, they would have been better enabled to play a role in establishing governance more truly in line with the teachings of Islam. If they had played their role in transforming Muslim societies into Islamic societies, the system of governance that would have naturally emerged from this process would undoubtedly have been more genuinely Islamic in spirit, as is suggested by a hadith that we had quoted earlier:
“Your leadership will be a reflection of you [the people].” (Shuabul Iman, Hadith No. 7006)
The real reason for the failure to govern the Muslim countries on truly Islamic lines is not the oppression of secular rulers or the conspiracies of the so-called enemies of Islam, as the Islamists always claim. The real reason for this is the blunder committed by the so-called flag-bearers of Islam, who, without adequately preparing the Muslim societies for such governance, set about launching campaigns for the enforcement of Islamic law. The example of Pakistan very well exemplifies this point.
In that country, what is 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, 1977-88). However, in no way have they succeeded in enforcing the Shariah in their respective countries.
The words of Hazrat Aisha, wife of the Prophet, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 4993, provide a very appropriate commentary on this matter. She had said that when the Quran began to be revealed, it talked about Heaven and Hell. Later, when people began turning to Islam, commandments declaring the forbidden (haram) and permissible (halal) were revealed. If, as Hazrat Aisha noted, the Quran had outlawed the consumption of alcohol at the outset itself, people would have declared that they would never stop drinking. If the Quran had forbidden adultery at the very outset, they would have refused ever to stop indulging in it.
In Muslim lands, the Ulama involved in movements to enforce Islamic law assumed that because the majority of the inhabitants of these countries were Muslims, they were, by definition, in favour of Islamic law. This, however, was a complete misreading of reality. The fact is that the present-day generation of Muslims is a cultural entity, far from being a religious community. Hence, it is wrong to assume, even about people who pray and fast and go on the Hajj or Umrah, that they want political power to be in the hands of the Ulama, who would impose Shariah laws on them.
The unrealistic politics of the Ulama in the Muslim countries have produced a situation which we can adequately appreciate in the light of the hadith narrated by Hazrat Aisha, referred to above. Without preparing the populace to welcome and willingly accept Islamic laws, the Ulama have sought to impose these laws, including those related to the consumption of liquor and adultery, ignoring the fact that large sections of the populace have developed an aversion to them.
In January 1827, Sayyed Ahmad Barelvi and his companions had established what they called an Islamic government in the Peshawar region, near the Afghan border. Sayyed Ahmad was selected as the head of the state, the Amir ul-Momineen (Commander of the Faithful). However, very soon, significant differences developed, to the point where the local Muslims set about killing the representatives that Sayyed Ahmad had appointed in their areas. Thus, this ‘Islamic government’ collapsed almost as soon as it had been established!
This failed attempt to establish Islamic rule without adequately preparing the Muslim society for it, was not, however, taken as an eye-opener by later generations. That is why efforts continue to be made even in our day to repeat this experiment which, some two hundred years ago, very clearly had shown how impossible it was for it to succeed.
By the middle of the 20th century, movements aiming for what their proponents called the ‘Islamic Revolution’ emerged almost all over the Muslim world. These were led by Ulama, as well as Islamist intellectuals. However, these people, both when they were in the opposition and when, in some cases, they came to power, became a cause for giving Islam a bad name. Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh and many other countries serve as examples. 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) turned out to be completely counterproductive.
It is a sad reality that from the late 19th till the mid-20th century, numerous non-Muslim thinkers, for instance, Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) and Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), declared Islam to be the solution to the problems besetting humanity in the present age. However, by the end of the 20thcentury, no influential non-Muslim thinker made any such comment. The cause for this was the wrong representation of Islam by the so-called revolutionary Muslim leaders. Before this, scholars learnt about Islam from the history of the early phase of Islam and were impressed by it; many had a very positive image of the religion. However, the meaningless movements in the name of Islam by the modern-day Ulama and other Muslim leaders have only added to human misery. Faced with the record of these so-called representatives of Islam in our times, many people have become averse to Islam itself. Thus, intellectuals no longer believe that Islam can promote human welfare in the present age.
