At one time, a significant segment of the ulama viewed politics with suspicion. Some regarded it as a sphere of moral degradation, while others directly discouraged participation in it. A few even issued fatwas against political involvement. Consequently, they consciously kept themselves away from party politics, viewing it as incompatible with religious devotion and spiritual self-purification.
In the contemporary context, however, a notable change has taken place. Many who once remained distant from politics have now entered the political arena actively. In many cases, their presence has become unusually vocal and conspicuous.
In principle, participation in politics cannot be considered unacceptable. Rather, politics can serve as an essential means of establishing good governance, justice, and moral values. It is also an important instrument for the effective implementation of Islamic principles and rulings across different spheres of social life.
The problem, therefore, is not political participation itself, but entering the political arena without adequate preparation, sound judgment, and the necessary capabilities.
A closer examination of the situation suggests that a substantial part of this engagement is marked by inadequate preparation, immaturity, and strategic weakness. A lack of political acumen, limited foresight, internal disunity, a leadership vacuum, and self-interest-driven tendencies have together created a disorderly and unpredictable situation that obstructs the ulama from fulfilling their expected role.
Consequently, instead of safeguarding and representing the collective interests of the Din and the Muslim community, they are, in many cases, becoming instruments for advancing the political agendas of other forces. Deficiencies in political etiquette, strategic wisdom, and institutional capacity are pushing them into increasingly vulnerable positions. At times, their inept conduct further complicates the situation; at other times, they unwittingly become tools for serving the interests of individuals, groups, or broader power structures.
In this context, a natural question arises: How beneficial is such immature and short-sighted political engagement? Could their distance from politics in the past have helped preserve their independence, public acceptance, and dignity in certain circumstances?
To put it more clearly, given the present realities, it may be more reasonable and productive for them to step back temporarily from the political arena rather than remain involved in an unprepared and fragmented manner. Such a pause could provide an opportunity for self-criticism, knowledge acquisition, a deeper understanding of political realities, the development of strategic capabilities, and the cultivation of institutional unity.
Otherwise, the consequences of emotionally driven and superficial political engagement may extend beyond individuals and groups, adversely affecting society and the nation at large. The greatest concern is that, instead of consolidating their own position in politics, the ulama may increasingly become appendages of other people's political interests. This could ultimately jeopardize their independent standing, public credibility, and broader influence.