THE POLICY OF THE PROPHET
Pragmatic
FROM a study of the Prophet’s life, we learn an important principle—that of differentiation. That is to say, understanding significant distinctions in practical matters, and dealing with them accordingly. This differentiation is a principle of nature and the course followed by the Prophet of Islam bears out the fact that he made full concession to it.
One of the distinctions to be made is between word and deed. For instance, these words of the Prophet have been recorded in a Hadith: The greatest jihad was to say a word of truth and justice to a tyrant ruler.
On the other hand, a number of traditions have been recorded in books of Hadith which show that even if rulers became tyrants, Muslims had to obey them, and never clash with them or adopt a policy of confrontation.
For instance, one of the Companions of the Prophet has been recorded as saying that the Prophet said,
In later times perversion will set in the rulers, whose bodies will appear to be those of human beings, while their hearts will be those of Satans.
The Companion then asked the Prophet what they were supposed to do at such times. The Prophet replied,
You must pay heed to your ruler and obey him. Even if you are flogged on your back, and your wealth is taken away from you, you must hear and obey him.
Let us make a comparative study of these two traditions. In the first Hadith we are encouraged to perform Jihad against the tyrant ruler, whereas in the second one we are strictly forbidden to do so. The reason for this difference is that the first Hadith relates to verbal advice while the second relates to practical confrontation. According to the Hadith, verbal advice is a desirable act, while practical confrontation is a totally undesirable act.
Here verbal advice does not mean issuing statements in newspapers, making speeches and staging protests. It only means that when one finds some perversion in a ruler, one should pray for him, and meet him by appointment in private and try to make him understand his shortcomings in total sincerity and with expressions of well-wishing. When another Companion asked the Prophet how to perform the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil to the rulers, he replied: If you must do it, it should be done in complete privacy, with no one else between you and the ruler.
Similarly, Islam differentiates between individual and congregational action. In individual action, only one’s own life is in danger (when an action is confined to the individual sphere, only an individual suffers the consequences). But in congregational initiatives, the lives of thousands of people are involved. It is therefore but natural that the command in each case is not identical.
An incident connected with the migration provides a pertinent example. When Umar emigrated from Makkah to Madinah, he took his sword, bow and arrows then came to the Kabah. The Quraysh leaders were seated there in the courtyard. First he circumambulated the Kabah, then performed two units of prayer. Finally he approached the Quraysh leaders and said to them: “Whoever wants his wife to become a widow and his children to become orphans should come and see me outside the city.” (The Quraysh were persecuting everyone, particularly those who were migrating to Madinah, that was why Umar threw down this challenge to them.) Then Umar set off for Madinah and none of them followed him.
Islam always advises proceeding wisely and judiciously, and certainly does not favour acting on impulse.
But, unlike Umar, the Prophet migrated secretly. As we know, in the thirteenth year of the Makkan period, the Quraysh leaders met at Dar-al-Nadwah (Meeting Hall) to decide upon the steps to be taken to remove him from their path. The following night, a few young men wielding swords surrounded his house. But the Prophet, to avoid any confrontation, had quietly left the place at night under the cover of darkness. In this move the Prophet maintained such great secrecy that, although he had to go to Madinah from Makkah, he went in the opposite direction and remained hidden on the way for three days inside the cave of Thaur. Then he reached Madinah by an unfamiliar route. Noting this dissimilarity of strategy, some biographers have raised this question of why Umar departed publicly, after challenging the persecutors and without any fear or apprehension, and why the Prophet migrated secretly, taking every precaution to ensure his safety. Did that mean that Umar was braver than the Prophet?
This question has no validity, for actions have to be judged in terms of their motivations, which will be different at individual and communal levels. Islam always advises proceeding wisely and judiciously, and certainly does not favour acting on impulse. However, an individual may be allowed to take such steps, if it is only he himself who is concerned. This will be no more than his personal choice, and his actions will not serve as a model for others.
The way Umar undertook his journey was justified by it being a personal or individual action, but the position of the Prophet of Islam was not merely that of an individual. The Prophet was the leader of the entire Muslim community. His each and every step served as an example for the entire community. Whatever he did was to be followed by the Muslims for all times, therefore, when it is a question of taking the initiative at the communal level, the same way would be adopted as that of the Prophet at the time of his emigration. That is, before taking any action, all precautions should be taken and full concessions made to the situation and circumstances.
The principle we derive from this incident of the Prophet’s emigration is that if someone on his own personal basis, wanted to take a dangerous step, he would be allowed to do so. However, there is no doubt about it that an individual’s taking such a step would remain a matter of option or concession and not one of compulsion.
But where a group or community is concerned, taking risky steps with no thought for the result is not allowed by Islam. Moreover, the individual enjoys this right solely in his own personal sphere. He is not allowed to instigate people to engage in emotional and ill-considered actions by means of provocative speeches and writings.
When an individual enjoys the position of a leader, he has to give proper consideration to the interests of the community. Even if he is not a leader, he has no right to incite people by his pen and speeches to adopt a course which might imperil them. He may take such a step in his individual capacity but under no circumstances is he allowed to lead unwary people into danger.