In the face of an ideology that one believes to be wrong and harmful—for instance, religious radicalism or its non-religious equivalents—one common reaction is to spend one’s energies denouncing and demonstrating against it, writing against it, holding conferences and seminars to condemn it, and so on. This is what many people waste their time and resources on. Now, it is true that radicalism, in the sense of extremism, is totally wrong, be it in the name of Islam or other religions, or in the name of this or that non-religious cause or ideology. But, according to my experience, the opponent groups who focus simply on writing against and denouncing radicalism are also wrong. Their method is simply one of reaction. It cannot bring about any reform in the present situation. The result of their struggles is in itself an argument against adopting such approach. Does this approach, one might ask, succeed in winning over people from religious radicalism or some other sort of ideology that one finds distasteful? Or, does it only make them more defensive and cling more closely to their ideology, since they come to think it to be under threat? Is this approach positive or a waste of time and resources? Does it help build bridges, or does it only further widen existing divides? The answer to these questions is that everyone knows that this approach has completely failed. No one can point out to any positive results that have been yielded through such an approach. This approach is entirely useless, and it is impossible for it to bring about positive results. I don’t know of any single person who changed his life or thinking after reading negative material. This approach is based on condemnation, and condemnation alone will never work. Those who are busy condemning radical parties have failed to address the problem of radicalism. Their condemnation hasn’t yielded positive results. According to my assessment, the reason is because their method is not correct, as their condemnation is based on the concept that there are some wrong parties which are creating the problem and which ought to be denounced. The fact is that those who condemn in this way are unaware of the Law of Nature. According to the Law of Nature, there will always remain differences between people. Differences are part of nature, and not part of enmity. In this situation, those who are truly concerned about the fate of humankind should try to make others aware that they shouldn’t get provoked in the face of differences. The only practical formula according to Law of Nature is to keep patience on a lesser evil so that you may be able to save yourself from having to face the greater evil. In other words, if you want to save yourself from greater evil, keep patience on lesser evil. This formula is based on the Law of Nature, and, according to the Law of Nature there is no other formula. Every other suggestion is based on romantic ideas, and not a realistic approach. Consider an example. In India, after Independence, there were many communal riots between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims have written an enormous number of books on this subject, but all of it proved to be ineffective. Why? Because, they failed to diagnose the true nature of communal riots, and hence also failed to suggest the right prescription. Almost all communal riots were because of a single reason, that is, after the Partition, both communities in India turned very sensitive. Small things were enough to trigger a flare-up between the two sides. In such situation, the only solution was that one of the two communities should have adopted the formula of tolerating the lesser evil, so that the greater evil of riots didn’t show up. Muslims are in minority in this country, and so they suffered the most in the riots. It was the Muslims’ responsibility to adopt the above principle. In this regard, it is pertinent to note what one of the Prophet’s Companions says: “One who is not ready to keep patience on a lesser [harm] from the ignorant is bound to face a greater [harm] from him.” In every society, even in ‘developed’ countries, there are always reasons for provocation. The basic issue that should be addressed is provocation. So, those who condemn others must instead train the masses in such a way that they become capable of refraining themselves from getting provoked. In the face of provocation, one should exercise patience, not reaction. A provocation is always small, but after reacting to it, a greater evil has to be dealt with. Nature is based on differences. Differences are part of the Creation, so there is no escape from it. This difference is no evil—in fact, it it is a blessing. These differences create challenges, sometimes intellectual and, at other times, practical. It is these challenges that lead to all kinds of development. When differences arise, Islam advises sabr, or patience. Sabr is not a passive attitude. Rather, it is a wise attitude. Sabr means avoiding the unpleasant situation that has come up due to differences. This policy will make your eyes open to opportunities around you, and by availing these opportunities you can achieve your goal. Focussing one’s efforts mainly on denouncing religious radicalism (or any other ideology one finds distasteful) and its proponents actually helps this ideology and its adherents by giving them negative publicity. This kind of condemnation only serves the interests of the radical groups by giving them undue publicity. I will not call it a negative approach, but, rather, an unrealistic approach. The shortcoming of this approach is that it fails to inform people of the realities of life. Instead of providing a positive alternative, I will say these people fail to give a realistic suggestion to people. The positive alternative is to tell them of the realities of life. What, then, someone may ask, is the Islamic approach to winning over one’s ideological opponents? Is it simply through critiquing their wrong ideologies, or are there positive methods, too, that Islam suggests? The right method of presenting our message is to make people understand that the fundamental question of every human being is to know what the plan of the Creator for His creatures is. After having established this point, we have to tell them that Islam is the authentic source to give us the right answer to this question. This is the right way of presenting our message to people. Any other method will only derail the discussion. According to my knowledge, the special feature of Islam that makes it the only option for people is that it tells us the Creation Plan of God. It is the Creation Plan of God that matters the most for any human being. Other ideologies are not in a position to present an authentic answer to this question. At the same time, ideological critique does have a place and role in Islam. But, according to Islam, one should adopt the way of healthy criticism. The difference between healthy criticism and unhealthy criticism is that the former tries to address the real nature of the problem, while unhealthy criticism is simply a reaction meant to registers one’s anger, and which does not offer a reasonable answer to the problem. The Quran talks about amr bil maruf wa nahi an al munkar, enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong. Some people focus only on the latter part, focussing most of their energies vehemently denouncing this and that ideology or practice and even resorting to violence against their ideological opponents. But the fact is that amr bil maruf wa nahi an al munkar is nothing but nasihat or tawasih, that is, peaceful counselling or admonishment. Those who use these terms to justify their violent activism are totally wrong. But this does not mean that Islam does not permit or encourage healthy and meaningful ideological critique. The Prophet always criticized other ideologies that people had adopted. If you go through the Quran, you will find that it always adopts a critical approach. The Quran criticizes the People of the Book and the idol-worshipers in a stern manner. The reason behind adopting this approach is that without it, you cannot bring about any real change in the personality of an individual. The true target is to bring about change in an individual, and only through a critical approach does new thinking develop, and then is change brought about. In some circles, the more angrily one engages in denouncing what are considered to be ‘false’ ideologies, the more ‘progressive’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘sincere’ and ‘committed’ to the ‘true’ cause one is considered to be. One can find this tendency in all radical groups, whether their radicalism is in the name of nation, religion, caste, gender or class. This kind of approach is not an Islamic approach. Those people who employ the language of allegation are engaged in character assassination. This method is totally un-Islamic. Islam believes in peacefully conveying of the message that may address people’s mind. The Quran says: “Speak to them in such terms as will address their minds.” (4:63) Certain ideologies instinctively appeal to people with certain mentalities. For instance, the violent, supremacist and political interpretation of religion may instinctively appeal to people who have very big egos, and who want to dominate or hate others. Given this, can mere critique of their ideology wean people away from the ideology to which they are attracted out of psychological reasons and not simply due to social conditioning? In the absence of a fundamental change in their psychology, can they be expected to give up their allegiance to a version of religion that appeals to their psyche and instincts? Here, I will restrict my response to these questions to the Muslim case. Those Muslims who advocate violence are obsessed with the political interpretation of Islam. They have wrongly developed the belief that the goal of Islam is to establish the Islamic political system and that this kind of system cannot be established without bringing about change in the prevalent political regime. With this self-developed belief, they have adopted the politics of opposition. There are two ways of argument that we may adopt to change their minds. First, we have to convince them that their goal is a self-styled one, and that it is not based in Islam, neither in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. I have published several books for the purpose of clarifying this. The other argument in this regard is that Muslims adopted this kind of oppositional politics in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Two hundred years have passed since then, but in spite of enormous sacrifices in terms of life and money, no positive result could be achieved. This negative result of their self-styled political jihad is enough for people to reassess the whole matter and adopt the policy of the U-turn. Masjid dhaa de, Mandir dhaa de, Dhaa de jo kuch dhenda, Par kissi da dil na dha vee, Rab dilla wich rehnda hae Destroy a mosque, destroy a temple, destroy everything in sight. But don't break a human heart, for that is where God resides (Sufi Baba Bulleh Shah)