The Political Shari‘ah: Question and Answer [16/18] | Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

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.