This part will explore the ideology behind the various demands in the context of the inquiry, in continuation of Part I…
During the course of the inquiry, a large number of Ulama were interviewed to understand the ideology behind the demands along with important concepts such as characteristics of an Islamic state, democracy in an Islamic State, law making in an Islamic state, position of non-Muslims, apostasy, role of Muslims within non-Muslim states etc. The arguments in the interviews are mired in a maze of confusion which exists in the minds of the Ulama as well as ordinary citizens regarding the concept of a functioning Islamic State.
When Pakistan was formed none of its creators had in mind a purely theocratic Islamic state. Neither Quaid-e-Azam nor Allama Iqbal had such convictions. Iqbal stated in his presidential address in 1930 “Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim States will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such States. The principle that each group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism”. And how can we forget the famous words by Quaid-e-Azam in his address “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan”.
Dichotomy no.1 – Islamic State: The Ulama unanimously agreed in the interviews that each of the three demands were religious in nature and were based on the principles of an Islamic state. As per the Ulama, in an Islamic State or in Islam, there is a fundamental distinction between the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, and position of non-Muslims will that of zimmies which means that they will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices. This formed the basis of the 3 demands. However, this concept is in complete disagreement with our constitution which states “every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion”. This concept is also in violation of UN charter on human rights, to which Pakistan was a signatory at that point in time.
Therefore, a question was posed to the Ulama to identify the characteristics of an Islamic state or at least point out a Muslim Islamic state in history. The replies from each of the Ulama non-specific and were poles apart from each other. The perfect Islamic state as pointed out by Ulama varied from government of Holy Prophet PBUH to government of Hazrat Umar PBUH to Salahuddin Ayyubi to Mahmood Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb Alamgir. Some even mentioned that details of the Islamic state would be worked out and agreed upon in future by the Ulama.
Dichotomy no.2 – Legislation: The Ulama agreed that in an Islamic state the institution of legislature is contrary to the Quran and the Sunna. The objectives resolution (section 2A of constitution of Pakistan) states that constitution is to be framed for a sovereign state in which principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed. However, in Islamic laws only God is sovereign not the state, and the law found in the Quran and the Sunna is complete and above all man-made laws. And in case of a conflict, irrespective of its nature, Islamic law will always prevail. Therefore, further legislation is prohibited and the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law is to discover and interpret the law in Quran for the purposes of a particular case. This concept effectively makes our parliamentary system null and void.
Dichotomy no.3 – Democracy: Ulama agreed that principles of Islamic law are not democratic in nature. Democracy implies that people or any other groups of persons in it are entitled to conduct the affairs of that country and frame any law they deem necessary. However, in an Islamic State, sovereignty, in its essentially juristic sense, can only rest with God and since the religion has all answers therefore, there is restriction on the legislative power of a State which in turn is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that State. Therefore, as a result, the sovereignty of the State and its people is essentially taken away. Also, if the legislature in an Islamic State is a sort of ijma’, the masses are expressly disqualified from taking part in it because ijma’-i-ummat in Islamic jurisprudence is restricted to ulama and mujtahids of acknowledged status and does not at all extend, as in democracy, to the populace. Therefore bulk of the responsibility to execute, interpret law will have to be taken up by the Ulama of the time.
Now, let’s imagine for a moment that we can do away with these dichotomies and we intend to define a framework for an Islamic theocratic state. For that to happen, it is absolutely imperative that there is a unanimous and agreed point of view by ulama on matters relating to interpretation of law which can be applied to everyday conduct of life and business. However, during the course of the inquiry, none of the Ulama agreed on similar interpretations and in some cases the ideologies were poles apart. Just to demonstrate the gap, here are replies by various religious leaders on definition of a Muslim.
- Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in tauheed, (2) in all the prophets (ambiya), (3) all the books revealed by God, (4) in mala’ika (angels), and (5) yaum-ul-akhira (the Day of Judgment).
- Maulana Ahmad Ali, President, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Maghribi Pakistan: A person is a Muslim if he believes (1) in the Qur’an and (2) what has been said by the prophet.
- Mufti Muhammad Idris, Jamia Ashrafia, Nila Gumbad, Lahore: I would require pages and pages to describe what a momin is. A person is a Muslim who professes to be obedient to Allah. He should believe in the Unity of God, prophet hood of the ambiya and in the Day of Judgment. A person who does not believe in the azan or in the qurbani goes outside the pale of Islam. Similarly, there are a large number of other things which have been received by tavatir from our prophet. In order to be a Muslim, he must believe in all these things. It is almost impossible for me to give a complete list of such things.
- Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir: A person is a Muslim if he professes his belief in the kalima, namely, and leads a life in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet.
- Maulana Ahsan Islahi, VP Jama’at-i-Islami: There are two kinds of Musalmans; political Muslims and real Muslims. To be a political Muslim 10 basic requirements have to be met and he has to merely profess his belief while a real Muslim needed to believe in and act on all the injunctions by Allah and his prophet in the manner in which they have been enjoined upon him.
This is just one example of the utter confusion that exists but there are several more (read page 200-235 of the report). We are aware of the vast ideological differences that exist between Shia, Sunni, Deobandis etc. Therefore, if one religious leader was to become the head of state there is a high likelihood that he would declare the others as Kafirs, infact some of the so called leaders already have.
The report states a very thought provoking passage “The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim.”
It is also extremely insightful to read the views of Ulama on some international matters. When asked if a Muslim is bound to obey a non-Muslim (Kafir) government, answer was a firm NO. This effectively means that Muslims should not be faithful to governments such as in India or any other place, no matter how fairly the government treats them.
Also the Ulama claim that if for some reason they declare the Pakistan Government as Kafir, no Muslim is bound to obey its laws. But the question remains if the Ulama can’t define and agree on a basic definition of a Muslim, the enactment and enforceability of any law becomes absolutely impossible. In effect, law will be what your own or the Ulama interpretation is and there can be no order in place.
When asked, considering the same ideology which Ulama propagate, what if the Muslims in non-Muslim states are treated under local religious law and are denied basic rights of citizenship answer was of complete indifference or it’s not my problem. Another answer was “I will March on India if such a law is enacted”. When asked that in case of a war between Pakistan and India what millions of Indian Muslims should do, Maulana Maudoodi stated “Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”
Just imagine the consequences. This effectively means that under this ideology all Muslims in non-Muslim countries will become perpetual suspects, will not have basic rights of citizenship, will be denied higher positions in public offices, cannot enroll in army and thus will be completely marginalized.
(To be continued…)