State and government are two
separate entities. In the terminology of political science, a
state signifies the political organization of a society, while
a government refers to those in authority; they are
responsible for running and managing the affairs of the state.
Consider first the state. The types of state which have as yet
emerged are primarily three:
First, the state founded in the
Arabian Peninsula. The Almighty made it specific for His own
self after He Himself had ascertained its boundaries. Thus, at
His behest, the universal centre of His worship and preaching
was set up in Arabia, and at the end of the seventh century AD
it was declared through Muhammad (sws): لا
يجتمع فيها دينان (no non-Muslim can become its citizen
till the Day of Judgement).
Earlier, the same status was enjoyed by Palestine for
centuries. The addressees of Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah
here too are individuals in their various capacities. However,
if for such a state it is said that its religion is Islam and
only Islam shall reign in it, then this statement is very
comprehensible on all grounds. It cannot be objected to.
Second, the states whose
boundaries were determined by their conquerors. They would
govern them by making their inhabitants subservient to them.
In such states, the religion of the royal family or that of
the ruler would be considered as the religion of the state.
Whether their birth was legitimate or illegitimate, if these
states are dubbed as Muslim or Christian or Communist states,
then this too cannot be regarded as incomprehensible.
Third, the nation-states of the
modern era whose boundaries are ascertained by international
treaties and which become a source of nationhood themselves
for their citizens as soon as they come into existence. Thus
in spite of having commonality or diversity in colour,
ancestry, language and culture they call themselves Egyptians,
Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis and express their nationhood
in this respect. No one is superior or subservient here. All,
in fact, are regarded as equal citizens in all respects and in
this capacity participate in the affairs of the state.
About the third type of states I
had written
that they can have no religion. Pakistan is an example of such
a state. Everyone knows that it was not created by a divine
decree like Arabia which can only belong to Muslims nor did
Muslims after conquering it make its non-Muslim inhabitants
subservient to them nor did these inhabitants become the
citizens of this state by virtue of a pact with the Muslims.
They have remained the inhabitants of this land for centuries
the way Muslims have and just as this state belongs to Muslims
it also belongs to non-Muslims. India was not divided on the
basis that one part of it will belong to the Muslims and the
other part to Hindus and people of other religions will be
subservient to them. The principle of this division was that
areas of British India in which Muslims exist in majority were
to be made a separate country and the rulers of the
principalities would have the liberty to either remain free or
become part of India or Pakistan regardless of whether their
public had a majority of Muslims or of Hindus or of any other
religious denomination. If, on the authority of the majority,
such a state is regarded as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu
one, then this will be mere coercion and oppression which
cannot be endorsed by any person who has been directed by his
Lord to adhere to justice at all costs and to bear testimony
to the truth, even if this testimony goes against his own
people. It is essential that now this testimony in favour of
the non-Muslims of Pakistan be penned down in historical
records. This is actually an evidence of the same fact which
the founder of Pakistan, Quaid i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
explained while addressing the Constituent Assembly on 11
August 1947. He had declared:
You are free; you are free to go
to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any
other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may
belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to
do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows
that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse
than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and
the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some
States in existence where there are discriminations made and
bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not
starting in those days. We are starting in the days where
there is no discrimination, no distinction between one
community and another, no discrimination between one caste or
creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental
principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one
State. The people of England in course of time had to face the
realities of the situation and had to discharge the
responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the
government of their country and they went through that fire
step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman
Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is
that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain
and they are all members of the Nation.
Now I think we should keep that in
front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of
time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease
to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the
personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense
as citizens of the State.
A question that can be raised on
this is: does Islam acknowledge such a state? I had tried to
answer this question by saying that Islam addresses the rulers
of a society.
If they are Muslims, then they are the real addressees of
Islam’s directives related to the collectivity. Islam has not
given any directive to turn a state into an Islamic state.
Thus its followers can live as citizens in such nation-states
and as a nation on the basis of nationhood the way they
currently live in many states. Nothing in this is against
Islam and the Islamic shari‘ah.
This is my stance regarding the nation-states of these
times.
Consider next the government. Only
two statements endorsed by knowledge and reason can be given
about it: first, the rulers of a state will be chosen by the
Almighty, and second, they will be chosen by the inhabitants.
After the termination of the institution of prophethood the
first of the above options is not possible. Only the second
one remains. Its essential consequence is that the majority
has the right to rule. If Muslims have this majority and if on
its basis they become the rulers of a state, then it is their
democratic and human right that if their religion has given
them a directive regarding the collectivity, then they should
follow it and also decide all matters of the followers of this
religion in accordance with the shari‘ah revealed by God
through His last prophet. It is precisely this that the Quaid
e Azam implied when he spoke of Islam, Islamic civilization
and the Islamic shari‘ah.
The relationship of the shari‘ah
with the nation-states of today is of the nature just
described. I had endeavoured to put across this understanding.
Thus, in accordance with this understanding, I had also
presented a comprehensive list of directives of the shari‘ah
that relate to collectivity. I had also written that Muslims
have been given these directives with the warning that those
who do not accept the verdicts of the Book of God after
acknowledging it will be regarded as wrongdoers (zalim),
defiant (fasiq) and disbelievers (kafir) on the Day of
Judgedment. Men of learning can differ with the list I have
compiled and also alter it. However, if even after
understanding this difference between state and government and
after viewing this list they claim that I have confined the
shari‘ah to an individual or negated all directives that
relate to the spheres of politics, economics and the social
set-up and they are also not feigning ignorance, then I dare
say that they have not understood at all my musings on this
topic
(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)
|