IDEAL VERSUS PRACTICAL
The principle of accepting what is practically possible, while setting aside the ideal, constitutes a natural law that operates both at the individual level in personal life as well as collective life.
Often, the reason people face loss is because they do not differentiate between what is ideal and what is practicable. They look at a thing from the point of view of what they regard as the ideal, and when it does not measure up fully to their ideal, they reject it. This is sheer foolishness. In this present world, it very rarely happens that a person obtains something in the form that they consider ideal. In most situations, one must agree to accept what is practically possible. This is not a matter of lack of courage. It is actually a law of Nature, and in this world, in order to succeed, one must accept and abide by the laws of Nature, not clash against them. This principle of accepting what is practically possible operates at the level of an individual’s personal life as well as collective life.
Consider an example to understand this point better. One of the new ideologies with immense consequences that emerged in modern times and gained widespread acceptance is what is called ‘secularism’. When this political ideology emerged, numerous Muslim leaders who projected themselves as pro-Islam rejected it. They claimed that secularism was opposed to Islam, rather they went to the extent of saying that it was an ideological rebellion against religion. On the basis of this thinking of theirs, they translated secularism to mean irreligiousness or anti-religiousness, although such a translation was definitely not correct.
Presently, in almost all Muslim countries, people who have received Western-style education are in power. Now, these people were supporters of a secular system of government. On account of this, so-called pro-Islam elements unleashed an ideological as well as physical war against them. As a result, in every Muslim country, Muslims got divided into two rival camps—the secular camp, and the ‘Islamist’ camp—and began fighting each other. In this completely useless war, Muslims had to face enormous losses, the likes of which they had perhaps never experienced before in the entire annals of Muslim history.
The fact of the matter is that secularism is not some religious belief. Secularism does not mean irreligiousness or anti-religiousness. Rather, secularism is the adoption of a neutral policy with regard to religion. It is a practical policy. Its purpose is to avoid religious disputes and to conduct the political and economic affairs of a country on a collective basis.
This secularism was actually extremely beneficial for religion and its followers. It gave people the possibility, in both Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority countries equally, to engage in positive religious activities. It provided them the opportunity to organise places of worship and centres for religious instruction, to set up educational institutions, to invite people to God, and so on. All such fields were completely open for the followers of Islam to engage in positive works. Availing of this opportunity, they could have engaged in positively serving God.
But modern-day Muslim leaders, gauging secularism on the basis of an ideal that they had in their minds, remained inimical to it. Had they instead gauged secularism on the basis of practical reality, they might have considered it as a blessing from God and availed of it as a great opportunity.
Branding secularism as an ‘irreligious’, ‘anti-religious’, and ‘devilish’ system and waging war against it proved to be completely unrealistic. This was against the very system of Nature itself. It was a totally impractical programme of trying to live life on the basis of an ideal in a world that runs on the basis of practical realities. That is why it naturally had to fail. And now the very people who ranted and raved against secularism are leading a comfortable life throughout the world under the same secular systems that they had earlier branded as un-Islamic. In other words, the very same secularism that they refused to accept in principle they have now accepted in practice, in a very hypocritical way. This is a clear case of double standards.
