Political Extremism

Pandit Nehru writes in his autobiography that while he was studying at Cambridge, he considered joining the Indian Civil Service after graduation, as this was a prestigious goal for an Indian at the time. However, as his sense of independence grew, he developed an aversion to this idea, realizing, in his words, that joining the Indian Civil Service meant becoming a mere “cog” in the administrative machinery of British rule. And how could someone whose life mission was to expel British rule from his country serve as an agent of that very government? (Autobiography, London, 1936, pp. 24–25)

This issue has always been central to political thought and is bound to arise in any ideology of this nature. It also emerges strongly in the interpretation under discussion. According to this interpretation, the core objective of the Islamic mission is “changing the system.” I acknowledge that systemic change is indeed one stage in Islamic struggle, but this interpretation has removed it from its proper context. In doing so, it has led to distortions similar to those that arose in various religions when the Islamic value of “detachment from the world” was taken out of its true place. The philosophy of monasticism, by indulging in spiritual extremism, imposed many unnecessary hardships upon the devotees of God. Similarly, this modern revolutionary view has led to political extremism, placing God’s servants in difficulties that God did not actually require of them.

A clear example of this is the issue of employment in institutions established under the current un-Islamic system, which this interpretation has labeled as “illicit income.” In this view, there is no distinction between different components of this system—every part is equally tainted, regardless of its apparent innocence. Even the elements that appear entirely harmless are, according to this interpretation, as impure as other components that are more obviously corrupt. Furthermore, they assert that a non-Islamic system governed by Muslims is equally condemnable; Muslim control does not grant it any certification of purity.

Just as many people, under the influence of monasticism, subjected themselves to various forms of self-inflicted suffering, the outcome of this new ideology is that many have abandoned government jobs, considering them forbidden, to the point that even schoolteachers and clerks in the railways and post offices resigned. In doing so, they unnecessarily imposed hardships upon themselves and their families that God did not obligate. A more regrettable aspect of this situation is that most people could not sustain this unnatural course of action for long. Eventually, they were forced by circumstances to either reinterpret their previous stance and return to what they had once condemned as forbidden, or to adopt a means of livelihood even worse than government employment.