A catechism for politics

Thinking of politics as a gentlemanly competition among those who act with as much "good faith" as possible, in order to serve the people and to make the world or the country better, is, in spite of everything, a very respectable wish. Perhaps precisely because of this respectability, even this wish is much abused by those who practice politics on a more common and more real ground, instrumentalized, and used as a false discourse that hides the worst intentions.

Dreams and wishes are of such a politics, but in reality politics is perceived as a friend-enemy relationship, a bone-breaking war, and according to this perception every kind of trick, lie and scheme against the enemy, and every kind of unjust favoritism toward the friend, is seen as normal.

The political nature that makes the human being human gradually turns into a medium in which the human being is lowered to the basest level.

Of course, the political nature does not open only one path to man. After all, the political is a realm shaped by man's choices, and one end of it opens toward "reconstruction" (imar) of the world, the other toward its "corruption" (ifsad), toward mischief-making. Both are choices, and for the Muslim, of course, another kind of political nature is possible and necessary. A Muslim is not obliged to do what everyone does and to keep politics within the limits of a friend-enemy relationship.

The Muslim has no absolute enemy among the people living on earth. Muslim politics is, ultimately, a politics that wants "good" for all people. The manifestation of this good is justice.

Even for the one regarded as an enemy today, what is sought is not destruction but reform and making him a "brother." The order envisaged for the world aims at bringing about the happiness not only of Muslims but of all people. This is the obvious difference of Islamic politics. Of course, the enmity, grudge and hatred shown toward Muslims on this path have a reality, and there is also a vigilance that gives no credit to naive "we are all brothers" rhetoric toward them.

There are many ways, many choices, many dimensions that will make a Muslim politician different. First among them, for example, is his "not demanding a wage." In fact, everyone who is in the political arena with Muslim feelings must first of all question himself on this point: What interest, privilege or wage is he demanding or producing for himself in the world he wants to change? This is also an indicator of how much trust the Muslim politician inspires.

We can say that those who have covered some distance in politics with Muslim feelings up to now have been successful to the extent of the difference they have shown from their rivals in this respect.

And if there is also a loss, we can add that even this loss stems from the difference between them and their rivals having begun to close gradually.

Others may deem every means permissible to reach their goals; a Muslim cannot see it so. On the contrary, the path is an inseparable part of the goal, and that path must be in harmony and consistent with the goal.

Alija Izetbegović, one of the wisest and most exemplary representatives of Islamic politics in our age, speaking about the harsh war he waged even in his darkest days, in days when no ray of hope for victory was visible, used to say that the real defeat is not being overcome or killed by the enemy, but, even if you have apparently prevailed, resembling the enemy. He rejected in this categorical way the methods of struggle offered to him that the enemy habitually applied against the Bosniaks. His answer when it was objected "but they are doing this" was a tremendous lesson, to be taken to heart by Muslim generations: "our enemies are not our teachers."

Muslims are defeated when they come to resemble their enemies; it is that plain.

It is a typical situation that those who make a distinction between the path and the goal, after a while, forget the goal altogether and the path changes them thoroughly. There is no need to look for the cause elsewhere; the very fact that the conceptions of goal and path have been split explains everything. In cases where this split occurs, the companion changes too, and according to the companions acquired on the way, the goal changes as well.

The world is of course not a place where Paradise can be established; it is only a field of trial. Whoever sets out on the path, if he has truly set out, also sees, feels that he is already moving within the destination, and does what is required. The Islamic life, with its principles, values, behaviors, its sunna in the most general sense, is not a life that can be postponed. It is a life that can be applied right today, as soon as one sets out, in all the "small details," in behaviors.

Perhaps all that is required is only a sound knowledge of one's state (hal ilmi), that is, ilmihal; to possess this knowledge and to act upon it.