Violation of Reason

Violation of Reason Citing atrocities by the other party does not justify retaliatory action against ‘enemies’. It is certain that the other party will react after your action, so you have to keep your patience, instead of initiating such action, which, rather than solve any problems, will only create more. One example of this kind is given in a verse in the chapter Al-Naml (The Ants) in the Quran. The story is narrated with silent appreciation. An apparent political injustice was about to be inflicted upon the nation of Sheba, but the inhabitants of that nation avoided a confrontational course of action because, in that situation, confrontation was bound to produce negative results. Their leader accepted the ‘injustice’ by saying: ‘Surely, when mighty kings invade a country, they despoil it and humiliate its noblest inhabitants—these men will do the same.’ (27:34) This precedent narrated by the Quran gives us a very important principle. Sometimes you have to adjust to the situation, even if it seems that it is in violation of human rights. In social matters, justice and human rights are not the criteria: in such matters practical wisdom has to be taken into consideration. Often pragmatism has to be the deciding factor. If you organize a group protest in the streets and some member of your group throw stones at the police, it is but natural that if the police are armed, they will open fire in retaliation. In such a situation it is not possible for the bullets to hit only those who had thrown stones, leaving the others unscathed. They will hit all of your group members, even if they were silent protesters. In such a situation, it is futile to say that this was a violation of human rights. It was, in fact, a violation of reason rather than human rights. You are paying the price of your own unwise policy. So, blame yourself and not others.