REALISM
The second Caliph, Hazrat Umar Farooq, said: “A wise person is not the one who knows good from evil, but the one who knows the better of the two evils.” (Dham al-Hawa by Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 8). In social life, conflicts often arise between individuals or groups. When such conflicts occur, the question always arises about how to resolve them. What guiding principle should be used to settle these disputes?
Often, people see these issues as a battle between good and evil or justice and injustice. They want to avoid evil and bring about good, protect themselves from injustice, and promote justice. However, such individuals often do not reach their goals, ending up with complaints and setbacks despite their efforts.
Why is this? The reason is that in social life, no one can decide things solely based on their own will. In such matters, every conflict has two sides. For any resolution to be reached, both parties must agree. If one party considers something to be good or just but the other party does not accept it, the result will be a confrontation. And confrontation always worsens the problem rather than solving it.
So, what does wisdom require in such situations? It calls for viewing the issue not as good versus evil or justice versus injustice, but as what is possible and what is not. Then, one should pursue what is practically achievable and let go of what is not.
A historical example of this principle is the Arab-Israeli conflict over Palestine in the mid-20th century, which lasted fifty years. The Jews proposed a peace agreement between the two parties, but the Arabs were unwilling, insisting that peace could only be based on justice. Despite countless sacrifices, this approach failed, and by the end of the 20th century, the Arabs set aside their demand for justice and made a peace agreement with Israel solely for the sake of peace.
Theoretically, it makes sense that peace between two conflicting parties should be based on justice. Ideologically, this idea is very appealing, but practical experience shows that such perfection is rarely achievable. In such disputes, wisdom lies in not insisting on perfect justice but accepting pragmatic justice.
The core idea is that linking peace and justice is inherently flawed. In this world, peace is not achieved for the sake of justice. Peace relates to opportunities for work, not to justice. Peace is established not to achieve justice but to secure opportunities that can be used to attain justice.
For example, in 1948, most of Palestine was under Arab control. The wise policy at that time would have been to accept this situation and make peace with the Jews, as was done fifty years later. Doing so would have brought tremendous benefits. The Arabs could have established peace and started their efforts toward development and stability. Over the past fifty years, they have wasted enormous wealth and countless lives in the name of achieving justice. If peace had been established, all these resources could have been invested in building and stabilizing their society. This positive approach would have allowed them to reach all their goals without conflict, which they unsuccessfully tried to do through war.
A clear example of this principle can be seen in the early Islamic period with the event known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. After the Prophet of Islam (e) declared his prophethood, the Quraysh of Makkah became fiercely hostile toward him. They forced him to leave his homeland, Makkah, and continued to commit many other injustices against the Muslims.
If the Prophet had insisted on justice as a condition for peace, peace would never have been reached between the two parties. Instead, he disregarded the issue of justice and made a treaty with the opponents based on the principle of “peace for the sake of peace.” He used this peace as an opportunity for constructive work, using it to build and strengthen Islam. As a result, within just two years, he achieved everything he had seemingly lost at the time of the peace agreement, and even more.
This principle of wisdom applies not only to social conflicts but also to personal disputes and disagreements. In personal matters, the only way to succeed is to resolve issues based on what is possible and impossible, not on what is right or wrong.
When there is a disagreement between two men or two women in a household, the focus should not be on what’s just or unjust, but on what is practically achievable and what is not. Getting caught up in debates about right and wrong will only continue the conflict. On the other hand, if you accept what is possible, you will gain two benefits at once: resolving the conflict quickly and creating opportunities for constructive action.
The same principle applies to all personal disputes. In the course of life, everyone faces situations of disagreement and conflict—sometimes over money and sometimes for other reasons. A person who debates right and wrong in such situations is undoubtedly unwise. Instead, a wise person recognizes the practical demands and, considering them, agrees to what is possible. This is the person who will succeed in this world.
Whenever conflicts occur in social life, people focus solely on what they believe is just or their right, then they fight with the other side to attain that right. These conflicts often last for years without a positive outcome. An alternative approach in such situations is to consider the time and energy spent fighting for an assumed right and instead use that energy for positive development.
Confrontation is always pursued in the name of securing rights. However, the tangible outcome of confrontation is often the loss of valuable opportunities. In this world, wisdom lies in adopting a practical approach in every situation. An individual can pursue ideals in their personal life, but when it comes to social matters, they must always be pragmatic.
