Meezan - The political Shari'ah: [Appendix 16/18]
Question and Answer Session, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
[Hassan Ilyas] Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim
We are studying Meezan, Janab Javed Sahab,
the way you have understood Deen and stated it in this book,
and in the various chapters of this book,
you expressed the opinions you have about the religion of Islam.
We have gone through the Law related to Politics,
and that has ended, where you have stated that
the individual has been given freedom of will and choice.
And this freedom and choice compels him to be a part of a society.
While being a part of a society,
and so that its wrong use may not lead him to a wrongful place,
for this Deen has provided him with some directives.
Individuals form a society, which in turn gives birth to a State.
What are the responsibilities, obligations and the rights,
and how this system comes into existence, you explained all this
in a detailed discussion and elaborated upon your viewpoint.
There are some questions that I wish to put to you,
so that it gets clarified further.
The first question is that the Guidance which the Quran provides to us,
it is the same Guidance that Allah (swt) had been giving
right from the start of the world,
throughout the periods of different Prophets,
and till today.
So the Guidance that the Quran gives regarding politics,
so were those found in the earlier revealed scriptures as well?
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] The history of the revealed religions that we have,
when we study it, we come to know that
one pertains to the fundamental points, for example Tawheed,
the concept of Messengerhood,
the belief in afterlife, these are the fundamental points.
These have remained the same forever.
All the Prophets have presented these teachings.
However, the directives of the Shari'ah are given as per change in civilization.
It is different in case of tribal culture,
it will be different for a feudal setup.
When the beginning of humanity occurred in this world,
it was with a single Adam and Eve,
and they had their children,
so the directives would be given accordingly.
I have explained this point several times that these directives
are as per our circumstances even now.
i.e. when I am an individual, then only those directives of Deen
would apply to me which are given in individual capacity.
When I assume the position of the head of a family,
so the directives for the head would get related to me too.
Similarly, if a society wasn't able to turn into a State,
then the directives for the State would not figure in.
The Quran has been revealed in an age,
where human beings were giving shape to their civilizations,
This is the era of empires.
When the Quran was revealed and the Prophet (pbuh) was appointed,
the Roman and the Sassanid Empires were existing.
During this era of empires, many of the things
assumed the form of an organization.
When we were given the Shariah,
obviously, the conditions prevailing were considered as well.
The points stated in the Quran relating to politics,
some are of the type which had been there since ages,
for example, if you get the Government,
then you will have to be just under all circumstances,
this point is stated by the Quran in reference to Hazrat Dawood.
i.e. When We gave David the authority over the land,
We gave him this command to be just with the people.
So some of the things are of this nature,
and those would have been there forever.
However, there can be a few things which due to the change in civilization,
would have come into the discussion just at that time.
Hence, Allah (swt) has Himself stated that
Shariah changes according to the circumstances.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, with regard to political laws,
you also told us that in the Islamic religion
there are some directives related to the State.
When the State would exist, those would be implemented,
the State would require its implementation.
So were these directives given in the capacity
of a State or in the capacity of an individual
who form a part of the State?
i.e. does the religion of Islam give the directives
to society or to the individual?
When an individual reaches that office,
then those directives start applying, what do you say?
[Ghamidi] The addressee of Deen in essence, is the individual.
i.e. if am a Muslim or if I adopt disbelief,
I have been said,
"Man Sha a Fal Yuu'min Man Sha a Fal Yakfur"
I have different capacities,
I have said earlier that
sitting in a forest I may have the status of an individual,
and when I decide to marry a woman, then the basis of a family is laid down.
When I marry a woman, the foundation of a family is laid,
when the progeny is born, the parental relations develop.
The directives of Deen relate to my different capacities.
In the same way, the Muslims existing in large numbers
forming a big group, so directives related to social life
will be applicable to them.
When they form a regular and organized society,
and lay the basis of a State,
then directives related to it figure in.
It does not address the State, or the society,
it addresses the Muslims in their different capacities.
i.e. he is in the role of an individual
or in the role of the head of the family,
or he occupies a spot in the market and does business,
or he has assumed the role of an authority of a political system.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, your statement that
the Deen addresses in the capacity of an individual,
a collection of individuals following Islam wrote a constitution,
and expressed the point in that constitution that
we in our individual capacities, accept the Guidance of that Allah,
hence, for us, in our collective politics,
in our State or in our law, the Sovereignty will belong to God.
The concept of Sovereignty, that which you have mentioned,
and decided that Sovereignty will belong to God.
He has the highest authority, and He is running the show,
and He has bestowed this to us in this world,
and as long as it remains with us,
we shall make use of it.
Then this debate turns into a natural debate.
[Ghamidi] Why has the need arisen to write it down?
i.e. if there is a Muslim Society
and the people in the Muslim society have awareness of Islam,
and they are seated in the Parliament,
and they have to legislate some law,
some principle, so my question is that
whether they accept the Sovereignty of God over themselves?
If they accept then it will appear in their legislation process too.
And if they do not accept it, then how will it appear?
i.e. what is its need?
It is something which I am saying
or some people are saying
and making our future generations bound to it.
Who has given this right to them?
Though their work is to ascertain the principles they would follow today?
For the future to come, people would ascertain as per their wish.
According to me, it is against the democratic principle
that we fix the nature of any State.
The democracy demands and this is what Islam wants,
that this freedom of the people is maintained.
If they make a certain decision today, they may as well change that in future.
[Hassan] So there isn't the need to include this clause
in the constitution that the Parliament cannot
make any legislation against the Quran and the Sunnah.
[Ghamidi] I consider all these as irrelevant,
and I think that none of these things were required.
What we should have done, i.e. when Pakistan had been created,
we should have decided
whether a family would would rule it?
Or an individual or group would rule it?
Or the people would rule it?
So when we decide that the people would rule it,
this implies that this system would be run in a democratic manner.
This is what Islam demands too.
So when it is ascertained that the system would be run
in a democratic manner,
so legislations are to be done in the Parliament.
Who are the people who are present in the Parliament
at the time of the legislation being enacted?
What is their religious awareness? How much do they understand God?
What is the level of their knowledge,
and what is their understanding of the Quran?
Or what is their stand about such things?
This could be fixed, scholars are present even today,
the scholars would be present in the future too.
They would carry on with the work of guidance and advice as well.
All these things would be taken into consideration
by people who would make legislation,
and have been doing it.
So for this, I think there isn't any need to put a precondition,
and in spite of this pre-condition,
if you look, it still remains confined to the pages of the Constitution.
What, in essence, was the point?
In essence, if you see, the people who have religious awareness,
they should have continuously presented
such Bills in the Parliament,
where all the laws should have been discussed,
which in some way or the other,
had an influence of Islam or the Islamic Shari'ah.
This work should have been done.
What use was of writing it or to what end?
I think this has just resulted in
an endless debate that continues on what Pakistan is
or what it should be?
Pakistan should have been a democratic State,
its founder had wished the same.
The Muslims form the majority in this democratic State,
they have a huge population,
and the awareness Muslims have, would reflect in their decisions,
exactly in the way, the awareness that I have of Islam,
the same reflects in my personal life.
This is the matter with any nation or with the leaders of any nation.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, the points that you have explained
under the head of responsibilities were
that the real objective of the social system
should be that it establishes justice,
and there is equitable distribution of resources among people.
Based upon it, the demands it may make to its citizens is that of Zakah,
and if the citizens living there as Muslims
will have offer Salah necessarily.
The State does not establishes Justice,
what right then the State has to demand Zakah from the people?
[Ghamidi] The point is who all constitute the State?
They are the leaders or authorities.
If they are not just, and do not establish justice,
people have the right to criticize them
and in a democratic State, they have the right to vote for a change.
However, in the pretext of one, the other cannot be suspended.
i.e. for example, if bribe is being given at one point,
then would the remaining law and order would stop working.
i.e. when the police is adopting the right attitude, it will be followed.
Where the mistake is being done, that would be rectified.
I could never understand the logic of seeing
the directives of the State in a single perspective.
When the authorities among Muslims will establish a system,
every directive will be seen in the individual perspective.
If the State has committed some wrong, we will refute it,
we will condemn it, draw attention to it.
We shall criticize it, will mold public opinion against it,
people would be warned,
and if the State does some good work we shall praise it,
this should be the way.
If the State is not able to deliver justice
then it will be told to deliver justice.
And if it demands Zakah, it is justified, the Zakah would be paid.
If it misuses Zakah, then that too would be criticized.
How can we develop anarchy with regard to our State?
Do we do the same in the remaining matters?
i.e. does it happen that when we go out in the street,
we say since the State is not establishing justice,
therefore I have the right to switch over to the Right Hand Drive.
That I won't be stopping at the red signal.
Now I won't follow the Traffic Constable's Instructions.
Do we ever do this?
From now onwards I won't be keeping the Passport in my pocket.
Or I would travel without obtaining a Visa.
You follow the rules which you hold right,
and accept them as the right of the State.
This is the thing that when an Authoritarian Rule was established,
our 'Fuqaha' (Experts of Jurisprudence) have stated it in this way,
though they are Autocratic Rulers,
there can be a dozen objections made in their Rule,
even though their Government is illegitimate,
however, their directives, i.e. when they make a decision,
that will be implemented. If they call us for Hajj,
we shall comply with them. If they call for Jihad,
and if we do not have any objection to it,
then the Jihad would be done. Why this was done?
The reason is that Anarchy cannot be allowed to persist.
So we did this with regard to Autocratic Rulers.
Now we have democratic Governments,
and if some government is unable to establish justice,
then after 5 years, it has to be answerable to the people,
and if the people would feel that it had erred in such and such matter,
then you go to the people, cultivate their minds,
they would bring in a new Government.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, this point gives rise to another two questions,
the first question is as you have said that
the State can demand just two things,
To pay Zakah to the State, a state from which a Muslim demands his rights,
and this can be demonstrated to the State by his offering of the Salah.
What is the extent of the state legislation?
i.e. once the Parliament is formed,
and it will make laws with regard to the people,
so what is its limit in the sphere of forming legislations?
i.e. the things that are permissible in Deen
or things that have been left at the discretion of the people,
does the State possess this right, and if it has, what is the basis of it?
What is the reasoning behind it, as it was said earlier that
only two demands can be made.
And now, constraints are put on permissible things too.
A restriction can be made,
something which is permissible for the people,
can they be stopped from it by the State?
[Ghamidi] These are positive demands.
i.e. for example, a question is whether my authorities can
direct me to have a glass of 'Rooh Afza' drink daily?
This is a positive demand. This cannot be done.
For this, some reasoning is required.
i.e. we have to arrange the Salah,
we have to pay Zakah.
My wealth is being demanded from me,
for this, a reason is required. To stop from 'Munkaraat',
by 'Munkaraat' we mean the things which go beyond the sins
and assume the form of a crime.
This is the right of the State. This is its limit.
Religion has also fixed this and it is agreed over in the world too.
Humanity has accepted the point at the global level
that the State would protect an individual
from the harms to others' life, property and honor.
The State would prevent the infringement of rights.
The State can interfere in matters where,
due to some act of mine, I become the cause of some loss.
I am liable for any loss.
The legislation is done to defend from harms.
No State can go beyond this. So it must tell beforehand
what is the aim of this restriction being done?
You see, there are a lot many things,
which were totally permitted. The smoking of tobacco,
is not a prohibition of the Shari'ah.
Many of our esteemed elders and men of piety
had been regular users of Hookah.
They smoked tobacco.
Tobacco and its use is quite injurious to health,
is a different matter, and it has moral turpitude in it is another thing.
Since religion encompasses morality,
so it cannot be said that the religion had banned it.
But now we declare it prohibited.
What is its reason? The reason is the injury it causes.
It harms others as well.
And this is the basis on which legislation is done in the parliament.
A legislation cannot be made on positive grounds.
You cannot be directed to wear a shirt of a particular type.
Or your spectacles should be of this type.
Or you would wear such a cap. This cannot happen.
For all positive laws, you need to have a reason.
And that directive can only be from God.
There needs to be a reason for it.
For negative things, you have the right.
In the times of the Prophet (pbuh),
was the Left Hand Drive on the roads prohibited the world over?
You have imposed it.
i.e. we have to have a right-hand drive
and the left-hand drive is forbidden.
In a similar situation, for example, a debate happened among us,
whether we can ban polygamy?
i.e. can we put the condition that wife's assent is a must.
Or a Court's permission is obligatory.
So you have to tell the reason why you are applying such a restriction?
Is there any harm done by it that is meant to be stopped?
There may be many things which are harmful
for one society but not for the other.
It might be harmful in one region but not in the other.
Hence, I consider this restriction as just,
these restrictions are imposed by human beings,
and they would elaborate on the reason for it.
When experience will tell that it is wrongly done,
then it would be remedied.
When Shari'ah has put some restrictions then
that cannot be overruled.
For example, earlier too, polygamy had been in practice.
So our Shari'ah imposed two restrictions on it.
One was, it was stated that if you cannot be just then
you cannot have more than one wife.
The second is, if there is an exceptional need,
like it was appealed in the case of orphans,
then in such a case too, not more than four.
These two restrictions were made.
Now you and I cannot infringe upon these two restrictions till Qiyamah.
However, can any other restriction be imposed as well.
It can surely be imposed.
If you tell the reason for the imposition of such a restriction.
If there is a detriment or some harm anticipated,
a debate would ensue, your point may be correct,
or it might be wrong as well.
A similar debate also cropped up when it was decided among us that
the age of marriage should be so and so.
It shouldn't be done before it.
Here too, the harms are discussed, mostly,
you see, the Quran says, "Amrahum Shura Bainahum".
i.e. the government would be formed with the opinion of the people.
You have to take the opinion.
What age group would be entitled to vote?
You have imposed the restriction of 21 or 18 years,
what is the basis of it?
Has it been imposed by Allah or the Messenger of Allah?
The person has turned into an adult.
One is physical maturity and one is mental maturity.
For example, it was stated about the orphans
that when they become adults, and they develop maturity,
then only hand over their belongings to them.
If this can be done with regard to handing over someone's possessions,
then why it cannot be done
while considering the marriage of a boy or a girl?
We will advise it for general circumstances.
However, if people make a mistake,
and there are some harmful effects of it,
i.e. the point is that some other has to be saved from some harm,
or infringement of someone's right is to be stopped.
This is the responsibility of the social system.
They cannot make me bound to some positive law.
Due to some deed of mine,
I have to decide upon the marriage of a boy,
this is resulting in some harm to him.
Now, or in the future or for his future generations,
to save from all this, the laws are being enacted.
To defend the harm, to save from the loss,
to protect from oppression, or to save from tyranny,
legislation is to be done.
[Hassan] Right, Ghamidi Sahab, during the class you have said,
"Al Jama'a" and "Sultan" implies the collective system,
and the Prophet (pbuh) had advised to be attached with them
under all circumstances, rather, he stated,
"Maata meetatan Jahiliya"
'Those who do not follow it, die the death of ignorance'.
You gave the example of it that
after all, these are democratic Governments,
even in case of Authoritarian Rule too,
our elders have instructed us to follow any such Ruler.
However, we see, that some people do not accept this.
For example, in the example of Syedna Hussain,
or the matter of Abdullah Bin Zubair,
or the support of Imam Abu Hanifa of 'Nafs Zakiyah' in his Khuruuj.
So can these people be cited as referents
for the punishment stated in the Hadees?
[Ghamidi] A rule has been established,
has it been established in a rightful manner?
if a government has been established in a legitimate manner
then with regard to it, there cannot be a dispute.
However, if it has gone against the law and imposed itself on us,
then there can be a struggle against it,
there would be rules and manners for that struggle.
There are authoritative rules established in the world.
As far as their existence is concerned
those are illegal Governments,
for example, there is Monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
In the same way, the Clerical Rule in Iran,
and in some other places as well, there are such Governments
where the fundamental right of the people has been seized
in which they can elect their Governments of their free will.
So the people would struggle against it.
This struggle would be within the precincts of the law.
If at some point in time, it crosses the line of the law,
then some limits and conditions would exist,
which I have elaborated in the discussion on 'Khuruuj' in my books.
However, to get rid of the Authoritative Governments,
there is no other way except opposition or struggle against them.
When a way is adopted,
it will be seen whether they have violated some principle,
or they have crossed a certain limit.
This directive is not a religious one.
i.e. the issue in discussion is
whether religion tells us to do such a thing.
No, this is not its topic.
It will tell you that if some directive is given to you
is an act of transgression against Allah then you should refuse to follow it.
i.e. if I am being told that I should not pray,
then I have only two ways,
either I will give away my life by violating this order,
or I will act on 'Rukhsat' which obviously,
is not a very desired thing in Deen.
So if I am being ordered something which is against the directives of God,
then I am bound to violate it.
The Prophet of Allah has stated,
"La Taaa't ali Makhluqin Fi Maasiyatil Khaliq"
however, the Government is violating some law,
I am not being given a directive for transgression,
the Authorities are violating some law, then I have to see,
i.e. if I am trying to bring about a change in that Government,
then is it some democratic Government.
If it is a democratic government then no sort of anarchy is required,
you may approach the people, convince them upon your view,
if they accept your opinion, the Government would change.
If it is an Authoritarian Regime, it is an illegal Government.
There will have to be a struggle against it.
In this struggle, we have to make sure that people's lives,
property and honor are not harmed,
or some big chaos is not created.
You are not creating an anarchy where issues for the people are created.
All these things will have to be taken care of.
Hence there are some conditions as well as some limits of it.
That can be discussed in detail while discussing
'Khuruuj' on some occasion.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, the responsibility of the State is
to abide by the agreements it has done.
The Quran has directed this too.
An Islamic State, in today's era,
is bound to a number of international accords,
if that State is a Member Country of UNO then it is bound by it.
What are the principles given by the Deen,
i.e. what would be the level of abiding of these Accords by the State?
For example, the UN directs some country that
it can make an offensive on some country
and all Member countries are bound to support it in this offensive,
then can the Islamic State decide about any other Islamic State that
it will help others against it.
[Ghamidi] This is just hypothetical, i.e. there are various points
in it which come under discussion in the UN as well.
However, the point in principle is that
if there is a certain agreement done by you,
then you have to follow it in spirit.
Our Deen has made this binding upon us.
i.e. basic morality includes the point that agreement would be honored,
and it has been said that God would make us accountable
in matters of agreement. Whatever agreement is done,
has to be abided by under all circumstances.
If at the time of making the agreement, some mistake is committed,
then that agreement is to be openly canceled.
i.e. for example, in the UN something takes place
which goes against the basic morality,
which we cannot follow with respect to religion,
then we would make an open declaration that we are not bound by it.
If an agreement is done and then it is violated as well, that is not done.
The specific question that you have put to me,
my reply to it is what is the point in essence, with regard to a war?
In essence, it is the taking of other's life,
it is not a joke, here the first question would be
whether we are called for a legitimate war with a valid reason?
You are aware that Allah (swt) has permitted war
only against tyranny and oppression.
So the UN would has to validate it,
so will the US and England too.
Why USA, England or the UN, my own Government will
have to satisfy me that the war is a step against tyranny.
i.e. it is a must, if I am commanded to present myself for war,
and I am convinced that this measure is an act of aggression,
is itself tyrannical, and moral values are being compromised for it,
then I would decline. I will bear its consequences.
i.e. for me to take a step against someone's life,
the first and foremost condition is for me to see
what is the point for which life is being taken?
Is it justified as per the law of God?
So I have told you a very clear point that
war can be waged against tyranny and oppression.
If some nation creates discord and indulges in tyranny and oppression,
then if we have the right, if we have power to stop him,
we should stop him, this is the lone reason for war,
other than this, war cannot be waged for any other reason.
[Hassan] i.e. as per the Deen, the State is bound to
i.e. if a country has waged a war against tyranny
and oppression of another country,
and the State is bound to an international Agreement,
then it is bound by Deen to provide supplies from its place,
and the passage is to be provided,
and if it fails to do so
then it actually is violating the directive of the Deen.
[Ghamidi] You see the point is
if the war is being fought against oppression,
then we have to co-operate for it.
i.e. it should be done,
however, if I am bound by some agreement to not co-operate,
we have the freedom to decide on co-operating,
or not to co-operate if we wish to.
Then we shall decide it as per our situation,
i.e. in the Islamic Shari'ah, it is not that we are bound to wage war
against tyranny and oppression, no, we have the right to wage war.
Binding comes as per the circumstances.
The war becomes obligatory when I have the capability for it.
Like Hajj becomes obligatory only when we can afford it,
likewise, the war also becomes obligatory when we can afford it.
So I have to see, what price I will have to pay for this cooperation?
However, if I am bound as per the agreement,
for example, while signing on the charter of the UNO,
I have accepted this binding, so now wherever the UNO will start a war,
I will despatch my army, as I am bound.
I am bound due to the agreement made.
[Hassan] Ghamidi Sahab, the most important point
which had been under discussion in the law of politics,
and you discussed it succinctly, and in detail,
it was the way in which the system of Government will be established.
You said that it will be "Amrahum Shura Bainahum"
the collective Governance would be based on mutual opinions
and as a consequence of it, you tried to explain that
the Democratic System was in compliance with Islam,
and Islam advocates for democracy.
There are a lot of questions on it.
In the next session, we will discuss those questions,
and try to understand your opinion.