Kia Riyasat Logon Ki Zindagi mein Mudakhlat Kar Sakti Hai - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Can an Islamic government interfere in
people's personal matters?

[Hasan Ilyas] In the name of Allah, the
most Gracious, the most Merciful!

Peace be upon you

We are coming to you directly from
Ghamidi Center, Dallas

with this weekly question answer
session with Ghamidi Sahab.

Let us begin…
Ghamidi Sahab, thanks a lot for your time.

The answer for the question we
desire from you today

is based on such a pertinent topic that
in the past century,

the entire world has criticised Islam
on this issue.

Muslims are themselves unable to find an
answer to this question.

We are not able to defend this issue at
the global level where certain laws have

been legislated in this regard.

Whenever there is a discussion on an
Islamic State or an Islamic government,

a question on the jurisdiction of such a
polity is posed.

Can the state interfere in the private
lives,

the personal affairs or the individual
demands in their lives?

If the state has the right to intervene,

what are the conditions and limitations
for it

in the personal lives of the individuals?

You are very well aware that our religious
clergy is of the opinion

that it is within the jurisdiction of the
state and the ruler to interfere

in the personal lives of its members.

The question that I want to pose and

I would like you to explain this issue
in detail,

I would also like you to address the root
cause, that is,

their rationale based on which our
religious clergy

has reached this conclusion.

What are the bases for such a conclusion
in our religion?

How do you analyse this entire issue?

What is the solution going forward?

[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] What rights do
human beings have?

This is the first point that needs
to be understood.

As human beings, we are beings with
consciousness.

Allah has created human beings.

Knowledge and intellect also demand
that we should bear in mind

the respect that it deserves.

Also, Allah has explained it in great
detail in the Quran that

we have set out the path for you,

we have made everything quite clear

and our guidance forms a part of
human nature

and even His Prophets are sent to
provide people with that guidance

but He have given human beings the
freedom to take decisions

as intelligent beings.

He is free to take decisions with respect
to his faith and other practical aspects.

We should never confuse two things
with each other.

My rights as a human being and
those things that I adopt,

all these things are part of my autonomous
nature

because of which my personality takes a
form

and it becomes a cause for the
purification of my moral being.

And it is due to my free will that I will
face punishment or recompense.

So, the Quran says that We have made the
true path explicit for you

and after that
imma shakiran wa imma kafoora

those who want to tread on the path of
faith can do that

and those who want to tread the path of
disbelief are free to do as they choose.

The Quran has clarified this reality in
the following manner as well:

qad tabaiyyana rushd minal gai

in other words, the guidance given due to
the blessings from Allah

has been severed from deviance and
misguidance.

This aspect has been amply clear.

Allah has through his Prophets clarified
everything

up to the point of a conclusive proof.

What is the principle after the proof has
been conclusively established?

La iqraaha fi l deen

There is no compulsion in religion.

So, if you study the intrinsic
nature of human beings

you will see that he is born free and he
seeks freedom.

Freedom and control over himself
are attributes that distinguish him.

It is only due to Freedom and
control over himself

that he has been given primacy over
another animals.

This is the issue because of which
Allah stated:

innee jaa’ilun fil ardi khaleefatan

I am about to place such a being on earth

whom I will give autonomy and
power over this world.

Then the angels said:

Will you place upon it one who causes
corruption therein and sheds blood.

In response to that, God did not say that
He will take away his powers.

Rather, God clarified the scheme
of guidance which was to be given.

So, Allah has given this
freedom to everyone.

Our glorious Caliph Omar (ra) expressed
this principle

in the following saying:

'Since when did you enslave those people
who were begotten free by their mothers?'

Even in the Farewell Sermon, the Prophet
(pbuh) explicated the same principle

that there can never be any transgressions
against the life,

dignity and property of others.

No one has the right to take such a step
and injure the life,

dignity or property of others

This is a fundamental right of
human beings.

Every intelligent individual has a right
to freedom while deciding for himself.

This freedom, authority, and control
over oneself

is what makes us human beings,

and owing to these attributes He will
be held accountable before his Lord,

he will be held answerable and wherever
he winds up, whether in hell or heaven

it will also have an ethical basis.

This is the religious and worldly
aspect of this issue.

From a worldly point of view as
well,

the universals of knowledge and
intellect demand that

it is indeed human freedom which
holds any worth.

And one is never ready to give these
things up.

The creator of this universe has created
him with the same status.

This is a fundamental point which much
be taken into consideration.

Now, if you want to take any measures
against human freedom

then you will have to provide a
rationale for that.

It is not the case that you, me, the
government, or a mother or father

has the right to take our freedom away.

And if they have a right and it is
being negated,

in that case I will have to provide an
argument? No.

Those people will have to come up with an
argument

who give others the right that he can
take a decision in my stead.

This right has not given by human nature,
axioms of knowledge and intellect,

or the Prophet of God.

Rather, the Prophet is proclaiming in
clear opposition to this proposal

that no one has this right against others.

After comprehending
this fundamental point,

Let us move forward now.

So, once it is established that freedom
is the basic right of human beings

and their freedom will be respected,

and human beings will take their decisions
based on their own free will

and he will be answerable based on these
reasons only.

So, when the almighty claims
something from the human being,

is he bound to it?
Indeed, he is.

In what sense is he bound to it?

He decides based on his free will that now
that he has recognised his Lord,

if He will command me and I will follow
his commandments.

This is a decision taken by him
autonomously.

This is what is known as Islam.

Islam means 'to surrender'.

I gave up my freedom.
If I wasn't free to begin with

and if someone else has forcefully made

me do it then in fact, then it would
mean nothing.

It was my autonomous being which when
accepted the following verse:

Aslamtu li rabil aalameen

it is now that I have entered
the fold of Islam.

Who am I concerned with once I have
entered the fold of Islam?

It is my lord that I am concerned with
now.

In other words, I have to take care of
how I understand the words of my Lord,

I have to consider to what extent I will
follow His commandments.

And what sort of relationship I will have
with my Lord.

I am answerable to my lord for the
mistakes that I will make.

So, religion basically deals with the
relationship between God and his servant.

And no one else has any right to intervene
or interfere in this relationship

except for when Allah himself
gives someone that right.

In other words, He is the only one who
will bestow you with such a right.

He will tell someone else that He is
bestowing this right upon him.

The rights that God has bestowed are
mentioned in His Book.

If a political order or polity of
Muslims comes into being,

what rights would others have in
such a collective order?

We should look at it from
both points of view.

This political order, government, state
or collective order is not only

established in Muslim countries.

It Is established throughout the world.

The reasons for its establishment
would decide the rights that it confers.

This is not a case of accepting a
decision from heaven.

Rather, I have mentioned earlier that
institution of family

which is the fundamental principle that
grounds our society,

the institution that decides on the status
of husband and wife,

about giving birth to children,
getting married

is an institution which was created by
God himself.

The one who has created this institution
has already decided

the rules, codes, rights and everything
else pertaining to it.

About this institution, it is already
decided who the head of this institution

is going to be, how responsibilities,
rights are distributed in this institution

You don't need to look at other manuals
in this regard.

However, the institution of a state or the
organization of a collective order

is initiated by individuals based on their
own free will

in a manner conforming with their own
needs.

What sort of needs did they have?

What is the reason for establishing
a government or a collective order?

Why should we give authority to a state?

There should be a reason behind it.

From an intellectual and
rational point of view,

the reason for the establishment of a
state is that an individual misuses the

authority that he is conferred with
(the same authority I mentioned earlier).

The state therefore, is established In
order to preclude him

from acting unjustly against others by
acting injuriously against the life,

property and dignity of others.

These two things are therefore, the
fundamental reasons because of which

a state comes into being.

Other than these two reasons there
is no cause for the establishment

of a state or a government.

So, this is basis on which human
beings have created

the institution called state.

All throughout the world where you
come across governments

or collective orders, you will see that
they are founded on these two bases only.

If these bases are not justifiable, then there
is no basis for a state to come into being.

It is not a commandment from
God.

And if that is not the case then you
cannot bind me to it.

It is our collective decision that we
will establish a collective order

so that the state will be able to
prevent the criminals

from committing any crimes and
it should be able to

protect the life, dignity and property
of its members.

From a scientific and intellectual
point of view,

if a state wants to go one step ahead
and serve its citizens better

the manner in which contemporary
governments regulate

health, education and serve its
citizens in various other ways,

these are all additional points.

What is the basic aim of its
establishment?

It is to provide its citizens peace.

This collective order has been established
to protect individuals

from transgressions, injustices
and from letting anyone

trample upon the rights of the
individuals.

So, even in our intellect and knowledge,

we don't need to stray away
from these reasons.

Now, let us focus on the God
question.

Let us one by one, analyse the rights
that God has bestowed upon

a government or a nation.

For instance, let us look at the
punishments that God has designated

for crimes of a certain kind.

For instance, the act of going to war
with a nation

when injustice or transgressions are
directed it.

All things of this nature are based on
the same principle.

There are only two issues on which
Allah has given positive commandments

to a government, nation, or a
collective order.

The first one concerns the arrangement
pertaining to offering prayers (salah).

For that matter, a sunnah has been
established by the Prophet of God.

Secondly, Allah has taken away the right
to impose taxes by the government's

own whims, on people's income.

Allah has already fixed the percentage of
tax to be imposed.

Allah stated that He has fixed it himself,
fakhalloo sabeelahum

After people pay their Zakat, let them go
on their way, they are born free.

Other than these two things,

Allah has given no right to the government
or society to interfere

with the workings of the people.

Therefore, in Surah At-Taubah, this point
was clarified by the Quran in two aspects.

fakhalloo sabeelahum. After people pay
their Zakat, let them go on their way,

You have got no right to take any step in
this matter.

fa ikhwaanukum fid deen,
and then they are your equals

and brothers in religion

Therefore, among these people or anyone
else even if they are

the Abu Bakr or Umar(ra), there would
be no difference

in the political and legal matters.

This was amply clarified.

All these things that are said in our
culture about the Islamic government

that it can go to extreme lengths
to socially coerce us.

However, the powers that have been given
to the state are decided and definite.

And I have already elucidated those
powers.

If you want to look at this issue in more
detail then you should read my essay

'Islam and the State: a Counter-Narrative'
in my book Maqamaat.

I have elucidated the entire list of
powers in the

concluding section of the essay.

These are the commandments that concern
the collective life of the populace,

those powers that have been granted to
the government.

The correct terminology is that they
have been granted to the society

which is then manifested in the government,
state and

the political order or the society.

Other than that, there is nothing else
which falls

under the domain of the rulers.

Those things which have led to
misconceptions among people,

those aspects that become the foundations
for arguments of this sort

is the instruction given in the Quran
which says:

Wal takum minkum ummatuy yad'oona
ilal khairi way ya' muroona bil ma'roof.

Wa yanhawna anil munkar

Since a collective order has come into
being from within the Muslim community,

there should be a group within you
that enjoins people to do the right thing

and forbids them from that which
is evil.

Forbiding evil at times entails stopping
others from commiting a criminal offence,

generalising this point people came to
the conclusion that

all religious commandments are well-known,
and

the ones have been given in an affirmative
sense

and all those things that religion has
prohibited us from doing

are forbidden, due to this God has given
us the right to the group

which has power and authority will bind
them to these commandments

and they have been given this right
through this Ayah.

We need to dispel such misconceptions.

Islam has given us no such right.

We must understand that the words
'maaruf' and 'munkar'

are not used to denote religious
obligations.

These words were neither used
in the Quran nor in the Hadith.

Maaruf entails those virtues which are
a common inheritance of all humanity.

This meaning is intrinsic to the literal
meaning of the term.

Allazi Urif
Things that are well known.

Things that are apprehended and recognised
by an individual's moral sense

will be categorised as Maaruf.

If you travel from east to west,
you will find that people

understand these things
in this sense only.

Some minor disagreements do take place
in the application of these things,

although those disagreements also take
place in understanding religion as well.

But even in this contemporary world,
truth, equity, justice and other virtues

are classified as positive virtuous
deeds and known as Maaruf.

All of us are aware of these.

The number of governments and socieites
that are established in the world today

instruct their citizens to do the same.

In other words, it is not an alien point.

For us, in terms of a religious
conception, it becomes

a commandment from God as well.

What is the second aspect?
It has to do with evil.

Those things that are considered morally
reprehensible by humankind.

Who doesn't know that adulteration, theft,
deception, robbery, embezzlement

acting unjustly towards the life, dignity
and property of others

are morally repugnant actions.

These are the things that are considered
evil by everyone

and thus have been categorised as
maaruf and munkar in the Quran.

These things have got nothing to do
with religious commandments.

This is the first mistake that
we have made.

And I am arguing that when a police
department is established

by any government in any part
of the world,

it is basically an institution formed on
the principle of

amr bil maroof nahi anil munkar

This is the task that those agencies
are carrying out.

A government cannot function
without this department.

This is what the politicians keep
talking about

and instructing people to do the same.

They may use different words,
they may have different terminologies

but in fact, the whole society wants
everyone to adopt

the superior values of human nature.

All governments are instructing us
with this.

Reformers and religion leaders are trying
to get the same point across.

I may have mentioned somewhere that
there may be disagreement

on the application of Maaruf, but
in a general sense,

all human beings are on the same page
with respect to this issue

including the issue of Muknar.

The second misconception had to
do with the word 'amr'

In other words, it was thought
that 'amr' entails giving orders only.

In Arabic language the word amr stands for
instruction, advice, persuasion,

all these meanings.

It is also used for giving orders at an
appropriate time and place.

So, this is the responsibity that the
government has to shoulder

as elucidated in the Quran,

I have elucidated this topic in great
detail in my book

under the title 'Religious Obligations'

The same thing has been elucidated
on another occasion.

There were two things the state could
enforce, namely Salah and Zakat

and then amr bil maroof nahi anil munkar

Allazeena im makanahu fil ardh
aqaamus salaata wa aata uz zakaata

wa amr bil maroof wa nahv anil munkar

So, this is a definite principle and the
same point is stated everywhere.

State, authority, collective order, and
the sort of things that

the society has to focus on are these two
things as regards religious commands,

everything else falls under
Maaruf and Munkar.

A government is established in order to
enjoin what is good, in order to establish

a society on the notion of good
and similarly struggle to stave off evil.

Now the question arises that:

what is the nature of religious
obligations in this regard?

The instruction that we are given
about religious obligations

does not concern itself with Maaruf
and Munkar.

The instruction that we are given
on religious commandments is:

ud'u ila sabili Rabbika bil Hikmah
wal mau'izatul hasnah wa jadilhum

billati hiya ahsan

Call to the path of your Lord

with wisdom and if advice needs be given,
then sound advice

and reason them in a courteous manner,
if the need for it arises.

What is the subject matter of religion
with respect to the society?

It is to call people to the path of thier
Lord.

What are the directives that religion
provides as regards the state,

the political order, the society,
relatives, our parents or our teachers?

The directive is to enjoin people
to act virtuously.

Virtue here entails those things
that are universally accepted as good.

Now, take a look at the political
arrangement of the government.

It is obvious that the government
would act on

religious obligations within its
own sphere of jurisdiction.

You would ask whether the sphere was
an extensive one and

the government would function within
those limits?

No. It is because the religious precepts
that a government has to uphold

fall within those limits only.

You can make a list and see for yourself.

In othere words, God has taken
into consideration only those things

for which a government is established.

Therefore, the government will intervene
in case of a perversion of justice.

It is not the job of the government to
create rights.

People are free.

In their private lives, they have the
freedom to do whatever they desire.

Your clothing, education, carreer choice,
your choice of spouses,

or the customs you follow are the sort of
things that fall within the ambit of

an individuals personal affairs.

So, if religion issues certain
precepts in this regard,

they do not concern the state or the
society.

We can, at best, call on people to take
religious precepts into consideration

as regards thier personal affairs.

If religion has something to offer in this
regard then your relatives, parents,

teachers, religious scholars and similarly
the state can instruct its citizens

and put forth its point of view during
friday sermons.

This was as far as religious instruction
is concerned.

But as far as individuals are concerned,
they are free to decide for themselves

on these issues.

The state has no right to interfere
in the private affairs of citizens.

Should I drive or not, how I should dress
while stepping outside home,

the sports I want to play,

my perspective on fine arts, similarly
the limits within which men

and women have to spend their lives,

all these things concern calling upon or
instructing people.

And everyone has the right to call upon
or instruct others through the world.

We have this right and so does the
government.

The rights that Islam has given
a government

have to do with stopping the
infringements of people's rights ...

Our personal affairs; marriage, for
instance, is a personal affair,

while doing business we enter into a
contract at a personal level,

if someone has been deprived
of their rights

and if a party to the contract has filed a
case,

then the jurisdiction of the state begins.

The government will decide in favour
of the one it deems to be in the right.

because you have filed a motion.

And actions depriving others
of thier life, wealth or dignity

are listed under the head of
criminal offences.

In those cases, the government has
every right

to punish the offenders or take actions
against the perpetrators.

Even today, governments througthout
the world

are taking actions against wrongdoers.

However, there is only one difference
vis a vis a Muslim government

which is that if the state wants to
continue with an Islamic government

then the governemnt would uphold
the rights that Allah has given

in the case of waging a war, or
punishing criminals,

and the government would put
restrictions on those actions.

This is the crux of the matter.

The biggest mistake that
governments have commited

is that they have interfered in those
issues...

Here, I am referring to those governments
that have been established

in the name of religion,

for instance, the Taliban regime that
was in power in the previous century

or the Iranian or Saudi government.
This has been thier biggest mistake.

And what have these mistakes led to?
You can see that for yourself.

And what are the consequences of such
social coercion?

People became terrified because of
such social coercion.

Since, their freedoms were snatched
away

and they were prevented from
taking their own decisions

they were, essentially, dispossessed of
all those attributes

that make humanity elegant.

Allah has also recognised that people
should stand by the principle

that they should act autonomously.

Snatching away thier freedoms
has engendered a feeling of terror.

If you rectify this ailment, you will
be amazed that

the Shariah we have been blessed with,
when an individual acts according

to the shariah and his life becomes
incredibly balanced,

if governments act on the shariah, they
will act as a source of blessing,

prosperity and mercy.

But if they were to transgress their
boundaries,

if an individual transgresses his
jurisdiction and

starts enforcing the rights that are in
the exclusive jurisdiction of the state,

that is, if individuals start flogging
people and punishing criminals,

it would result in a state of anarchy.

If governments start interfering in the
private lives of the citizen.

the citizenry would feel suffocated and
terrified

and they would try to escape the clutches
of such a government.

If they obtain freedom, you will see the
same visuals

that you have observed in history.

Try to remember those scenes when
the Taliban regime was put to an end

and look at the visuals coming out
from Saudi Arabia

now that they have given limited
autonomy to their people.

This is the religioius perspective
on this issue.

Thorough instruction, teaching and
education

the government, the citizenry, and the
clergy should explain

those aspects of religion in the society
which deal with the personal affairs.

People are free and which interpretation
they accept is up to them.

For their actions, whether good or bad,
they are accountable to their Lord.

Those actions wihch have to do with
infringement of rights,

or transgressions against the life,
property and dignity of others,

from an intellectual and rational
point of view

the governments are bound to redress
those issues and God has given this law

within that jurisdiction.

Other than that, there is no
transgression of jurisdiction

either in the Quran or the Hadith.

[Ilyas] Ghamidi sb, what are the
legitimate grounds for interference

in an individual's life by an Islamic
government?

You have explained this debate on
the rights,

obligations and responsibility
of an Islamic government

in a very coherent and scientific manner.

We will conclude the session with one
final question

and I would like an answer to that
question in this session only

to put these misconceptions to rest.

After listenting to this conversation,
an individual presents a Hadith

saying that the Prophet (pbuh) has
said that:

Whosoever of you sees an evil action,
let him change it with his hand;

Ilam yastati

and if he is not able to do so, then
with his tongue;

and if he is not able to do so,
then with his heart

Az'aful imaan

and that is the weakest of faith.

We may accept the entire discourse that
people will be instructed and educated,

and state will interfere in matters of
transgression against

the life, property and dignity of its
citizens.

But the aforementioned narration
is saying,

that the highest form of faith is to stop
evil with your own hands.

[Ghamidi] Yes, in order to stop evil,
the individual

will take law into his own hands?

It means that here again, the meaning of
the narration

has been misunderstood entirely.

It describes the domain of jurisdiction.

Which means that if an individual sees
evil being perpetrated within

his sphere of authority, he should try
to rectify it in this way alone.

And which sort of evil is being talked
about here?

Again, evil is categorised as 'Munkar'
here.

And I have clarified what is meant
by 'Munkar'.

If an act, which is perceived or accepted
as forbidden, is committed within

your domain of jurisdiction, then each
and every individual should rectify it.

As a father, I have a domain of
jurisdiction.

You can have a realm of authority as
an institution’s leader.

In the same way, the ruler also has a
domain of jurisdiction.

Within that realm of authority,

they will punish the culprits and
protect the rights of people.

Traditions are understood within these
terms and limitations and not like this.

[Ilyas] Alright, Gamidhi sahib. And the
time for our programme ends here.

We had a conversation with you on
a very significant question that

what are the legitimate grounds for
interference in an individual's life?

What do religious texts
have to offer in this regard.

We also found out what the traditions
of knowledge and

intellect offer in this regard.

We shall be back.
Thanks a lot for your time!

[Ghamidi] Thank you

Translated by Faizan Rashid
Edited by Danish Hamid for

Sophist Translations Solutions
[e-mail]