Verily, Allah commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. And surely excellent is what Allah admonishes you with! Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.—The Holy Quran, 2:266
*
Chapter Five
As far as national politics is concerned, the foremost issue is which political system is good or bad for man. Again, we need to discover whether it is the failure of political systems and their inherent defects which are responsible for the miseries and dissatisfaction of a people or is it something else. Is the system to be blamed or those who run it? Can immoral selfish, greedy, or corrupt political leadership which rises to power by democratic means be really good and beneficial for society as against benign dictatorship, for instance?
In order to establish and guarantee international peace, Islam has a word of advice for the contemporary politicians.
Islam lays extraordinary stress on introducing absolute morality to all spheres of human activity—politics being no exception.
We begin with the observation that no political system is mentioned in Islam as the only valid system against all others.
There is no doubt the Holy Quran speaks of a democratic system where the rulers can be elected by the people, but it is not the only system recommended by Islam. Nor can it be the fundamental prerogative of a universal religion to choose a single system of government without due regard to the fact that it is not practically possible for a single system to be applicable to all regions and societies of the world.
Democracy has not developed enough even in the most advanced nations of the world to reach the stage of polity which is the ultimate political vision of democracy. With the rise of capitalism and the building of extremely powerful machinery in capitalist countries, truly democratic elections cannot be held anywhere. Add to this the growing problem of corruption, and the coming into being of the Mafia and other pressure groups. One can safely conclude that democracy is not in safe hands even in the most democratic countries of the world. Then, how can it be suitable in the Third World? So, to say that Western democracy can prevail in African, Asian or South American countries or the so-called Islamic countries of the world would be tantamount to making a hollow and unrealistic claim.
As far as I am concerned, Islamic teachings do not reject any political system of the world, but Islam leaves it to the choice of the people and historically established traditions prevailing in any country. What Islam emphasises is not the form of government but how the government should discharge itself.
Provided a system of rule conforms to the Islamic ideal in the discharge of the trust owed to the subjects, different systems of government, such as feudal lordship, monarchy, democracy, etc., can be accommodated under Islam.
Monarchy is mentioned repeatedly in the Holy Quran without being condemned as an institution.
A Prophet of Israel reminds the Israelites of Talut:
Their Prophet said to them: Allah has appointed for you Talut as a king. They demurred, saying: How can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he, and he has not even been granted abundance of wealth? He answered; Surely Allah has granted him superiority over you and has given him a large portion of knowledge and strength. And Allah bestows sovereignty upon whom He pleases. Allah is Lord of vast bounty, All-Knowing.1
Monarchy is also mentioned in the broader sense of the people being the monarch themselves:
Call to mind when Moses said to his people: O my people, recall the favour that Allah bestowed upon you when He appointed Prophets among you and made you kings, and gave you that which He had not given to any other of the peoples.2
Again, sovereignties created or expanded by conquest in general do not enjoy a good reputation as we find in the verse about the Queen of Sheba advising her counsel.
The Queen of Sheba’s decision is set out as follows:
She said; Surely when mighty kings invade a country, they despoil it and humiliate its leading people. And that has been their way.3
Kings can be good or bad, of course, just as democratically elected prime ministers and presidents can also be good or bad.
But the Holy Quran mentions a category of kings who were appointed by God. They are of the type, such as King Solomon(as), who was not only a king as understood by the Jews and Christians, but also a Prophet of God according to the Holy Quran.
This demonstrates that sometimes the offices of prophethood and sovereignty combine in one person and they are sovereigns directly commissioned by God.
Another type of sovereignty through the authority of a Prophet is mentioned in the Holy Quran. The following verse illustrates this fact:
O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. Then if you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you are believers in Allah and His Messenger and the Last Day. That is the best and most commendable in the end.4
We have chosen this verse not only to enumerate the categories of sovereignty but to emphasise that according to the Holy Quran, sometimes democratic choices are not necessarily always the right ones. It is quite likely that the overwhelming majority of people fail to recognise the essential qualities of great leadership in a person and protest against his election if he is imposed upon them. By all political criteria, his appointment would be decried as dictatorial. The choice may be against popular will but is certainly not against public interest.
The inherent weakness in the democratic form of elections is that the masses make their choice on superficial impressions and latest assessment and are incapable of judging for themselves the sound qualities of leadership which are best suited for their ultimate benefit.
It seems that in the history of God’s favoured people, there have been times when their political survival required Divine intervention. At such times, God takes the choice of a king, sovereign or leader into His own hands. It should not be inferred from this that all monarchs or leaders are divinely chosen by God or sanctified as such. This misconception which has been common in the medieval Christian system is not shared by the Holy Quran. For instance, King Richard laments:
Not all the waters of rough rude seas can wash the balm of an anointed King.5
The concept of democracy, despite its Greek origins, is based on Abraham Lincoln’s brief definition of government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is a very interesting cliché indeed but seldom applied in totality anywhere in the world.
The third part of this definition for the people is very vague and rife with dangers. What can be declared to be for the people with full confidence? In a system of majority rule, it can very often happen that what is considered to be for the people is merely for the majority and not for the remaining minority.
In a democratic system, it is also possible for vital decisions to be taken solely on the basis of absolute majority. Yet, when you further dissect and analyse the facts and figures, you discover that it was in reality a minority decision, democratically passed, and imposed on the majority. One of the numerous possibilities is that the ruling party is voted into power on a first past the post basis having obtained a minor majority in most constituencies. Again, if the turnout on polling day is rather low, it becomes dubious if the ruling party does in fact enjoy the support of the majority. Even if the party emerges with an overall majority of the electorate, many things may happen during the term of its tenure. Public opinion may change drastically so that the sitting government is no longer a true representative of the majority. After all, a gradual process of change of heart by the electorate manifests itself at each change of government.
Even if the government remains popular with its voters, it is not unlikely that when certain key decisions are made, a considerable number of the ruling party’s members do not agree at heart with the majority but may have voted out of party loyalty. If the difference is in the strength of the ruling party over the opposition party or parties, then, more often than not, the so-called majority decision would in reality be a minority decision imposed on the people.
It is also noteworthy that the concept of what is seen as good for the people changes from time to time. If decisions are not taken on absolute principles but what one considers to be good for the people, or at least what the party considers to be good, it may lead to a constant shift in policy from time to time. What appears good today may be bad tomorrow and good the day after.
For the man in the street, this can be a tricky situation. The experimentation of communism on such a large scale for over half a century was after all based on the same slogan of for the people. Not all socialist states were dictatorial.
It should also be noted that the line separating the socialist states from the democratic ones, as far as government by the people is concerned, is very thin and sometimes non-existent. How can one condemn all world governments elected in socialist countries as having been brought to power not by the people? Of course, in a totalitarian state, it is possible to dictate the choice of candidates to the electorate in such a manner as leaves them little room to elect any alternates. Yet similar and other high-handed tactics can also be employed, save for a few exceptions in the Western world, in countries with a democratic system of government.
In fact, democracy in most parts of the world is not given a free hand and the elections are seldom by the people. With election-rigging, horse trading, rule of fear through police tactics and other similar corrupt measures, the spirit and substance of democracy in the world are attenuated with adulteration so that there is little of democracy left in the end.
According to the Holy Quran, people have a free choice to adopt any system of rule which suits them. Democracy, sovereignty, tribal or feudal systems are valid provided they are accepted by the people as the traditional heritage of their society.
However, it seems that democracy is preferred and highly commended in the Holy Quran. The Muslims are advised to have a democratic system though not exactly on the pattern of Western style democracy.
Islam does not present a hollow definition of democracy anywhere in the Holy Quran. It only deals with principles of vital significance and leaves the rest to the people. Follow and benefit, or stray and be destroyed.
There are only two pillars to the Islamic concept of democracy. These are:
1) Democratic process of elections must be based on trust and integrity. Islam teaches that whenever you exercise your vote, do it with the consciousness that God is watching over you and will hold you responsible for your decision. Vote for those who are most capable of discharging their national trust and are in themselves trustworthy. Implicit in this teaching is the requirement that the ones entitled to vote, must exercise their voting right unless there are circumstances beyond their control or impediments exist in the exercise of that right.
2) Governments must function on the principle of absolute justice. The second pillar of Islamic democracy is that whenever you make decisions; make them on the principle of absolute justice. Be the matter political, religious, social or economic, justice may never be compromised. After the formation of government, voting within the party should also always remain oriented towards justice. Hence no partisan interest or political consideration should be permitted to influence the process of decision-making. In the long run, every decision taken in this spirit is bound to be truly of the people, by the people and for the people.
The substance of democracy is very clearly discussed in the Holy Quran and as far as the advice to Muslims is concerned, though monarchy has never been ruled out as an irreligious and ungodly institution, democracy is most certainly preferred to all other forms of government.
Describing the ideal Muslim society, the Holy Quran declares:
Whatever you have been given is only a temporary provision of this life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; and those who eschew the graver sin and indecencies, and when they are wroth they forgive; and those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer and whose affairs are administered by mutual consultation, and who spend out of whatever We have provided for them; and those who, when a wrong is done them, defend themselves.6
The Arabic words amruhum shura bainahum (whose affairs are administered by mutual consultation) relate to the political life of the Muslim society, clearly indicating that in matters of government, its decisions are made through mutual consultation, which, of course, reminds one of the first part of the definition of democracy i.e. government of the people. The common will of the people becomes the ruling will of the people through mutual consultation.
The second part of the definition of democracy relates to by the people. This is clearly referred to in the following part of the verse:
Allah commands you to make over the trusts to those best fitted to discharge them.7
This means that whenever you express your will to choose your rulers, always place the trust where it rightfully belongs.
The right of the people to choose their rulers is of course mentioned but incidentally. The real emphasis is on how one should exercise this right. The Muslims are reminded that it is not just a question of their personal will which they can exercise in any way that they please, but far more than that, it is a question of national trust. In matters of trust, you are not left with many choices. You must discharge the trust with all honesty, integrity and a spirit of selflessness. The trust must repose where it truly belongs.
Many Muslim scholars quote this verse simply to indicate that Islam propounds the system and theory of democracy as understood in the Western political philosophy, but it is only partly true.
The system of consultation mentioned in the Holy Quran has no room for the party politics of the contemporary Western democracies nor does it give licence to the style and spirit of political debates in democratically elected parliaments and houses of representatives. As we have discussed this aspect in detail, no more is necessary here.
It should also be noted with regards to the second part of the definition of democracy that according to this concept of mutual consultation, the right to vote belongs to the voters almost absolutely without any provisos or conditions infringing this right.
According to the established norms of democracy, the voter can cast his vote in favour of a puppet, or spoil or toss his ballot paper in a dustbin instead of the ballot box. He will remain irreproachable, nor can he be censured for violating any principles of democracy.
According to the Quranic definition, however, a voter is not the absolute master of his vote, but a trustee. As a trustee, he must discharge his trust fairly and squarely and place it where he feels it truly belongs. He must be vigilant and aware that he will be held responsible for his act in the sight of God.
In view of this Islamic concept, if a political party has nominated a candidate who an individual party member considers will fail to discharge his national trust, that member should quit the party rather than vote for someone who does not merit the trust. Loyalty to a party is not allowed to interfere in his choice.
Again, a trust must be discharged in good faith. Therefore, every voter must participate fully in exercising his vote during the elections unless he is unable to do so. Otherwise, he will have failed in the discharge of his own trust. The concept of abstention or refraining from exercising the vote, as happens in the USA where reportedly almost half the electorate actually bothers to vote, has no room in the Islamic concept of democracy.
It is becoming popular among Muslim political thinkers of the contemporary age to claim that Islam stands for democracy. According to their political philosophy, God being the ultimate authority, sovereignty belongs to Him.
Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. The Holy Quran sums up His domain in the following verse:
Then exalted be Allah, the True King. There is no god but He, the Lord of the Glorious Throne.8
The fundamental principle, that ultimately all rights to govern belong to God and He is the Lord of Sovereignty, is mentioned in different ways in the Holy Quran of which the above verse is but one example.
In the running of political affairs, God’s sovereignty is expressed in two ways:
The Law (shariah) as derived from the Holy Quran, the conduct of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam and also from the established traditions attributed to him by early Muslims are supreme. They bear essential guidelines for legislation and no democratically elected government can interfere with the express Will of God.
No legislative process would be valid in contradiction of the aforesaid principle.
Unfortunately, however, there is no unanimity among the scholars of various sects of Islam as to what are the clear cut Laws (shariah). On this, all the scholars are agreed that legislation is the prerogative of God and that He has expressed His Will through the Quranic revelation to the Holy Founder(sa) of Islam.
Regarding the manner in which Muslim governments should be run, the popular idea is that in the day to day administrative matters, affairs and measures, the government, as representatives of the people, becomes instrumental in the expression of God’s Will. As sovereignty belongs to the people by way of delegated power, therefore, such a system is democratic.
This is the rigid view of the so-called orthodoxy who would come to an understanding with the modern democratic tendencies of the Muslim populace only on the condition that the mullah9 be granted the ultimate right to judge the validity of democratic decisions on the basis of shariah.
If accepted, this demand would be tantamount to placing ultimate legislative authority not in the hands of God but in the hands of the orthodox or some other school of clergy. When you consider the awesome power placed in their hands in the background of fundamental differences prevailing among the Muslim clergy itself regarding their understanding of what is and what is not shariah, the consequences appear horrendous. There are so many schools of jurisprudence among the orthodoxy. Even within each school of jurisprudence, the clergy is not always unanimous on every edict. Again, their position regarding what the actual Will of God as expressed in Islamic shariah is has been changing in different periods of history.
This presents a complex problem to the contemporary world of Islam which still seems to be in search of its true identity. It is gradually becoming more apparent to Muslim intellectuals that the only meeting point amongst the clergy is their uncompromising demand for the enforcement of shariah.
The Iranian revolution has further whetted the appetite of the Mullah in countries where Sunni Muslims are a majority. According to them, if Khomeini can succeed, why must they fail? Beyond this lies their fantasia—the land of their dreams.
The masses are confused. Would you prefer the Word of God and that of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam or would you rather have men under a godless and fearless society to guide and shape your political manifestos? This question is extremely difficult for a common person, who finds himself in a state of bewilderment and confusion. The masses in many Muslim countries adore Islam and would readily die for the Will of God and the honour of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam. Yet there is something within the whole scenario, which leaves them confused, disturbed and very uneasy. Despite their love of God and that of the Holy Prophet(sa), it invokes many a bloody memory of governments in the past, which were either under the influence of mullahs or exploited mullahism to their political advantage.
As for the Muslim politicians, they seem to be divided and indecisive. Some cannot resist exploiting this situation by siding with the mullah and patronising them. They cherish the secret hope, however, that at the time of elections, it will not be the mullah but they who will be elected as stalwart champions of shariah. The masses would prefer to trust them more as guardians of shariah than the mullah. Life would be easier and more down to earth in their hands than under the stiff and uncompromising control of the ‘custodians of heaven’. Most scrupulous amongst the politicians are the foresighted ones who consider this to be a dangerous game. Alas! They are fast turning into a minority. Politics and hypocrisy and truth and scruples, or for that matter any noble virtue, do not seem to go hand in hand. By and large, the intellectuals are inclined ever more towards democracy. They love Islam but are afraid of theocratic rule. They view democracy not as an alternative to Islam, but genuinely believe that as a political philosophy, it is the Holy Quran itself, which propounds democracy:
Those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer, and whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what we have provided for them.10
And consult them in matters of administration; and when thou art determined, then put thy trust wholly in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who put their trust in Him.11
As a net result of this tug of war between various factions, young Muslim countries, like Pakistan, find themselves in rigmarole of confusion and contradiction. The electorate is temperamentally averse to the return of the mullah to the constituent assemblies in any sizeable number. Even at the height of shariah fever, hardly five to ten percent of the mullahs succeed in winning elections. Yet, having committed themselves to the Law of God in return for additional support from the mullah, the politicians find themselves in a very unenviable position. Deep within, they are fully convinced that the acceptance of shariah is in reality paradoxical to the principle of legislature through a democratically elected house of representatives.
If the authority for legislation lies with God, which a Muslim cannot deny, then, as a logical consequence, it is the divines and the mullahs who possess the prerogative of understanding and defining the law of shariah. In this scenario, the whole exercise of electing legislative bodies would become futile and meaningless. After all, members of Parliament are not required to sign only on the dotted lines where the mullah so indicates.
It is rather tragic that neither the politician nor the intellectual has ever genuinely attempted to understand the form or forms of government, which the Holy Quran really propounds or recognises.
There is no contradiction between the Word of God and Act of God. There is no clash between loyalty to one’s state and religion in Islam. But this question does not relate to Islam alone.
There are many episodes in human history where many an established state was confronted with this question.
The Roman Empire, particularly, during the first three centuries of the Christian period, blamed Christianity for split loyalties between the Empire and Christianity. This allegation from the state resulted in extremely barbaric and inhumane persecution of early Christians in their homes for the alleged crime of treason and disloyalty to the Emperor.
Such struggle between the Church and the state has always been an important factor in shaping European history. Napoleon Bonaparte, for instance, blamed Roman Catholicism for divided loyalties and asserted that the first loyalty would be to the French people and the government of France and no Vatican Pope would be permitted to govern the affairs of Roman Catholics in France nor would Roman Catholicism be permitted to interfere in the affairs of the state.
In recent history, my own community, the Ahmadi Muslims, in Pakistan faced serious problems on similar grounds. As the influence of medievalist clergy began to rise under the patronage of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the longest ruling military dictator of Pakistan, Ahmadis became increasingly popular victims of this age-old accusation of divided loyalties. The Government of Pakistan under General Zia even proceeded to issue a sort of White Paper against Ahmadis proclaiming that Ahmadis were neither loyal to Islam nor to the state of Pakistan.
It was the same spirit of madness possessing new subjects. The wine remains the same though the goblets have changed.
More recently, during the notorious Salman Rushdie affair, Muslims in Britain and many parts of Europe faced a similar problem of being accused of possessing divided loyalties. Although its intensity did not reach a fever pitch, yet the potent damage it poses to inter-community relations should not be under-estimated.
It is a universal phenomenon, therefore, which has never been seriously investigated. Neither politicians nor religious leaders have ever resolved the thin blue dividing line between religion and the state.
As far as the Christians are concerned, this issue should have stood resolved once for all when Jesus(as), gave his historic reply to the Pharisees:
Then he said to them: Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.12
These few words are profoundly rich with wisdom; all that need be said has been.
Religion and statecraft are two of the many wheels of the wagon of society. It is, in reality, irrelevant whether there are two, four and eight wheels as long as they keep their orientation correct and revolve within their orbits. There can be no question of mutual conflict or confrontation.
In total agreement with its earlier Divine teachings, the Holy Quran elaborates this theme by clearly demarcating the sphere of activities of each component of society. It will be over-simplifying the matter if one conceives that there is no meeting point or common ground, which religion and the state share with each other. They do indeed overlap, but only in a spirit of cooperation with each other. There is no intent to monopolise.
For instance, a large part of moral education in each religion becomes an integral part of legislation in every state of the world. In some states, it may constitute a small part; in others a relatively larger part of the law. The penalties prescribed may be mild or harsh but religious disapprovals against many crimes, which are penalised, are always traceable without reference to religion. Though they may be in disagreement with many secular laws, yet, as far as people belonging to different religions are concerned, they seldom choose to come in confrontation with the established government on such issues.
This applies not only to Muslims or Christians but to all religions of the world equally as well. Of course, the pure Hindu laws of Manusmarti are at complete variance with the secular rule of political governments in India. Yet, somehow, people seem to live in a state of compromise.
If religious law were invoked seriously against the prevailing political systems in different countries, the world would most certainly turn into a blood bath. But fortunately for man, this is not so.
As far as Islam is concerned, there should be no such problem because the ultimate and unyielding principle propounded by Islam in this regard is the principle of absolute justice. This principle remains central and fundamental to all forms of governments which claim to be Islamic in spirit.
Alas! This most pivotal point in understanding the Islamic concept of statecraft is little, if at all, understood by the political thinkers in Islam. They fail to make a distinction between the application of the common law relating to crimes, which are universal in nature and without any religious bearing, and such crimes as are specific to certain injunctions of that religion. Therefore, only adherents of such religions are liable for prosecution.
These two categories are not clearly defined. There is a fair size of grey area where common crimes can have religious or moral bearing as well as rank as offences against accepted human norms. For instance, the act of stealing is a crime varying in degrees of condemnation and prescribed punishment. Similarly, there is the question of murder, drinking and public disorder, which are partially or wholly forbidden by many religions. Some religions have prescribed specific punishments for these offences.
The question then arises as to how a state should dispense with such crimes. This question raises further the question of whether Islam at all gives a clear-cut and well-defined formula for a Muslim government and for a non-Muslim government to adopt. If a Muslim government has been defined as such in Islam, then other very important questions will be raised e.g. the validity of any state considering itself under some specific religious instruction and imposing that religion’s teachings upon all its citizens irrespective of whether or not they belong to that religion.
Religions have a duty to draw the attention of the legislature to moral issues. It is not necessary that all legislation be placed under the jurisdiction of religions.
With so many different sects and shades of varying beliefs between one sect and another and one religion and another, nothing short of total confusion and anarchy would be the result. Take for instance the punishment for alcohol. Although it is forbidden in the Holy Quran, there is no punishment specified by the Quran itself. Reliance is placed on some traditions, which are challenged by various schools of jurisprudence. In one locality or country, the punishment would be one thing and completely another elsewhere. Ignorance of the law would be rampant. What holds true for Islam is also true for other faiths. The Talmudic law would be totally impractical. The same can be said about Christianity.
A believer of any religion can practise his beliefs even under a secular law. He can abide by truth without any state law interfering with his ability to speak the truth. He can observe his Prayers and perform his acts of worship without the need of a specific law being passed by the state to permit him to do so.
This question can also be examined from another interesting angle. If Islam agrees with the question of a Muslim government in countries where Muslims are in the majority, then by the same token of absolute justice, Islam must concede the right to other governments to govern the countries according to the dictates of the religion of the majority. Therefore, in the next-door neighbour, India, Pakistan will have to concede Hindu law for all Indian citizens. That being so, it will indeed be a very tragic day for more than one hundred million Indian Muslims who would lose all their rights to honourable survival in India. Again, if India is to be ruled by Manusmarti, why should the state of Israel be denied the right to rule the Jews as well as the Gentiles by the law of Talmud? If this happens, life would become extremely miserable not only for the people of Israel but also a large number of Jews themselves.
But this concept of different religious states in different countries can only have a valid place in Islam if it propounds that in countries with a Muslim majority, Islamic shariah must prevail by force of law. This will again create a universally paradoxic situation because on the one hand, in the name of absolute justice, all states will be provided with the right to impose upon its people the law of the majority religion. On the other hand, each act of the religious minority in the countries of the world would be brought under the severe rule of a religion in which they do not believe. This will be an affront to the very concept of absolute justice.
This dilemma has neither been addressed nor attempted to be resolved by the proponents of Islamic law in the so-called Muslim states. According to my understanding of Islamic teachings, all states should be run on the same principle of absolute justice and as such every state becomes a Muslim state.
In view of these arguments and the over-riding concept of there being no compulsion in matters of faith, religion does not need to be the predominant legislative authority in the political affairs of a state.
My study has unambiguously revealed to me that the Holy Quran deals with the subject of government without making any distinction whatsoever between a Muslim and a non-Muslim state.
The instructions on how a state should be run are common to humanity though it is the believers who are primarily addressed in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran speaks of statecraft equally applicable to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Confucians, Christians, Jews and Muslims etc.
The essence of this instruction is contained in the verse quoted earlier and other similar verses, which we quote now.
But no, by thy Lord, they will not truly believe until they make thee judge in all that is in dispute between them and they find not in their hearts any demur concerning that which thou decidest and submit with full submission.13
O ye who believe, be strict in observing justice and bear witness only for the sake of Allah, even if it be against your ownselves or against parents or kindred. Whether the person be rich or poor. In either case, Allah is more regardful of him than you could be. Therefore, follow not vain desires so that you may act equitably. And if you conceal the truth or evade it, then remember that Allah is well aware of that which you do.14
The traditions of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam are very clear on this subject. He holds every ruler and anyone in authority over another, in the way he treats his subjects or those under his authority, as being directly answerable to God. But since these discussions have already been exhausted earlier, we need not discuss them further.
The substance of this study is that Islam propounds a completely neutral central government in which the matters of statecraft are common and equally applicable to all subjects of the state and religious differences are allowed to play no part therein.
Islam most certainly admonishes Muslims to follow the rule of the law in all worldly matters.
O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. Then if you differ in anything refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best and most commendable in the end.15
But as far as relations between man and God are concerned, it is an area exclusive to religion and the state has no right to interfere. There is total freedom of mind and heart in the affairs of belief and profession of faith. It is a fundamental right of man not only to believe in anything, which he so pleases, but also to worship God or idols as dictated by his religion or pagan belief.
According to Islam, therefore, religion has no right to interfere in areas exclusive to the state nor has the state any right to interfere in areas commonly shared by them. Rights and responsibilities are so clearly defined in Islam that any question of a clash is obviated. Many verses relating to this subject have already been quoted in the section dealing with religious peace.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency among many secular states to sometimes extend the domain of secularisation beyond its natural borders. The same is true of theocratic states or states unduly influenced by a religious hierarchy.
Though one may not sympathise with them, one can understand to a degree the lopsided views of states governed by religious fanatics. But when one observes such an immature attitude in the so-called advanced and broad-minded people of secular countries, it is hard to believe. This is not the only thing difficult to understand in the political behaviour of man.
As long as politics remains rigidly wedded to national interest and contributes to its philosophy, there can be no such thing as absolute morality. As long as political attitudes are governed by national prejudices and truth, honesty, justice and fair play are discarded whenever they clash with the perceived national interest, and as long as this remains the definition of loyalty to one’s state, the political behaviour of man will remain dubious, controversial and ever paradoxical.
The Holy Quran mentions the responsibilities of government and people. Some of these responsibilities have been mentioned in the earlier sections of this lecture—the provision of food, clothing, shelter and the basic needs of its citizens; the principles of international aid; answerability to both the government and the people; their interplay; absolute justice; and sensibility to the problems of the people so that they do not have to raise their voice in demand of their rights.
In a true Islamic system of government, it is the responsibility of the government to be watchful so that people do not have to resort to strikes, industrial strife, demonstration, sabotage or cause of complaint, to get their rights. Let us turn briefly to some other responsibilities.
If thou apprehend treachery from the people who have made a pact with thee, terminate the pact and their covenant with equity in a manner that should occasion no prejudice. Surely, Allah loves not the treacherous.16
Those who govern may not govern in a manner so as to promote disorder, chaos, suffering and pain but should work diligently and effectively so as to establish peace in every sphere of society.
Or, Who responds to the afflicted person when he calls upon Him, and removes the affliction, and will make you inheritors of the earth? Then, is there a god beside Allah? Little is it that you heed.17
Even the politicians and the statesmen of today stand in need of Islamic teachings. It is a faith whose cornerstone in international affairs is absolute justice.
O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.18
I cannot claim to have read everything about all major religions of the world but neither am I entirely ignorant of their teachings. During my studies, however, I have failed to find a similar injunction as the verse under discussion in their scriptures. Even the mention of international relations is rare. If a similar teaching is also found in another religion, then let me assure you that Islam is in full agreement with that teaching for therein lies the key to world peace.
The world at large is worried today at the future prospects of world peace. The momentous and epoch-making changes in the socialist world and the improving relationship of the superpowers offer a glimmer of hope. The world is in an exultant mood. The general consensus of opinion amongst leading politicians seems to be extremely optimistic, even euphoric, at the likely outcome of the momentous revolutionary changes we are witnessing today.
The West, in particular, seems to be over confident and jubilant. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Americans to suppress their jubilation at what they consider to be a grand slam victory over the communist hemisphere, a victory viewed by some as good over evil and of right over wrong.
It will be out of place to analyse in detail the current geo-political situation and its outcome. Perhaps I will be able to devote a few hours to this subject at the UK Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s Annual Conference at the end of July this year (1990).
Of the many debates raging around the future prospects of world peace as a result of the recent events, one in particular needs special mention. It relates to the role that the United Nations Organisation is going to play in being able to secure and maintain (i.e. make and keep) world peace far more effectively than ever before.
With the cold war between the two super-giants coming to an end, it is said that there is a fair chance of closing the gap between their hitherto divergent outlooks: less veto in the Security Council’s sessions, it seems, and more united decisions on how global problems should be resolved. This may present a completely new look to the Security Council of the future.
The only snag so far is the danger of China playing the odd-man out, but in view of China’s immensely complicated economic and political problems; it should not be impossible to convince China of the advantages of agreement.
Whether this dream comes true or not is beside the point. Given that the Security Council as well as the United Nations emerged as the most powerful political instrument to influence the events of the globe and coerce smaller nations to submit to the supreme will of the nations of the world, such a scenario was inconceivable prior to the tumbling of the Berlin Wall. But the question remains, nay, it looms larger on the political horizon than ever before, whether or not the United Nations in its new role of combined judicial and executive powers of such enormous proportion, will be actually able to achieve global peace?
I beg to be excused if I may sound over-pessimistic, but my answer to this question is a very apologetic, ‘No’. The issue of war and peace in the world does not only hang by the thread of superpower relationships. It is a deep and complex question with its roots embedded in the political philosophies and moral attitudes of the nations of the world.
Moreover, economic disparity and the widening gap between the haves and have-nots of the world are bound to play an important role in the future events of the world. Some effects have already been discussed in the previous section of this address. Unless the principle of absolute justice in the economic relationship between countries is accepted and strictly adhered to and unfair market practices which exploit the resources of the poor are removed by and for all members of the United Nations, no peace can ever be guaranteed or even visualised for the nations of the world. As long as the relationship of the United Nations Organisation with its individual member states is not more clearly defined than at present, the prospects of world peace will remain bleak.
There is a need to devise some measure to prevent governments from being cruel to their own subjects. Some instrument has to be made available to the United Nations to justly fight injustice wherever it prevails. Till then, one cannot dream of peace for the world.
How far the United Nations can interfere with the so-called internal affairs of a country is a very sensitive question and yet vital to the attainment of world peace. But if, in the final analysis, the policy of the United Nations is not governed by the principle of absolute justice, and different standards are applied to individual nations, then providing greater leverage to the United Nations Organisations to interfere in the internal affairs of a state may create more problems than it can resolve. Therefore, this issue requires a thorough, cool and detached study.
What has happened so far is simply that the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries have been compelled to confess the failure of scientific socialist philosophies in improving the quality of life in the Soviet Union and her neighbouring East European countries. This has created great confusion.
The fog is yet to clear before we can see the shape of things to be. Will it be a total defeat for scientific socialism followed by a mad rush back to capitalism in its entirety or will there be new experimentation with mixed economies? Will there be a complete breakdown of strict central control by totalitarian governments or will the totalitarian control itself break down into pieces resulting in a near state of anarchy? Or, will there be a gradual transition into totalitarian state control to a new compromised system of give and take between the state and individual so that, with the passage of time, civil liberties are progressively introduced and fundamental human rights restored?
It is important to wait for the outcome of a new struggle between Mr. Gorbachev’s ideas of perestroika and glasnost on the one hand and the attitude of the strict orthodox in the communist hierarchy. To the best of my knowledge, most of the benefits in the USSR’s classless society are mutually shared by the party hierarchy, civil service and the defence forces. The vital question is what role are they going to play at this critical nascent stage of the bloodless counter-revolution, which is now taking shape?
This and similar questions have to be answered before one can reasonably visualise the impact of these changes on the prospects of world peace.
Merely a détente between the two superpowers in itself does not bring any hope of peace. On the contrary it invokes many phantoms of lurking dangers for the Third World countries in particular. It was the mistrust prevailing between the two superpowers and their jealousies, which, in fact, provided a sort of canopy for weaker nations. Also, it was the ability of the weaker nations to change sides and allegiances from the West to East or vice versa which gave them a small measure of manoeuvrability and bargaining power. But this is no longer so. What hope can these weaker nations entertain now to survive respectably as independent nations in the future?
The thought at this stage shifts to the UNO—a bastion of peace and the only torch of hope for the establishment of a new world order. At least, one wishes it was so. However, upon a closer critical examination, a completely bleak, oppressive and even threatening picture emerges.
In the newly emerging balance of power, will not the United Nations be practically governed by only one superpower? This presents the smaller and weaker nations no chance to escape the inevitable fate of hunted animals.
The present United Nations has proved again and again to be a powerful organisation working not for justice but for the political ends of whichever nation has the greatest lobbying power. The concept of right and wrong has never played a part in the decision-making process of the United Nations in our recent memory nor in the present set up can it play a meaningful role in the future. Politics and diplomacy are too deeply and inextricably rooted in the soil of modern politics to leave any room for absolute justice to take root and be given a fair chance of survival. It is a hard and bitter fact, which no man with respect for truth can deny, that this great and awesome institution has been reduced to an arena of intricate diplomatic activities, lobbying, secret paramours and power struggles, all carried out in the name of world peace.
According to the Holy Quran, therefore, what the world needs is an institution, which sets itself the task of establishing justice. Without absolute justice, no peace is conceivable. One can wage wars in protestation in the name of peace, stifle conscience and still dissent for the purported aim of establishing peace, but all that one can achieve is death but not peace.
Alas! Few among the great politicians of the world understand the difference between death and peace.
Death is borne out of inequity, tyranny and persecution by the mighty. Peace is the child of justice.
The Holy Quran often speaks of peace but always in relation to justice. Peace is oft-mentioned as conditional to the dispensation of justice.
In a situation erupting into belligerence and active hostility between two Muslim individuals or nations, the Holy Quran has this to propose:
In case two parties among the believers, be they individuals or nations, fight each other, bring about reconciliation between them. If, however, one of them persists in belligerence and transgresses against the other, bring your collective might to bear upon the one that transgresses to force him until he agrees that his dispute be resolved in accordance with the word of Allah. Then if both parties having so submitted, effect reconciliation between them and make them resolve their dispute with equity and We advise that you must exercise absolute justice, act justly. Remember, Allah loves the just. All believers are brothers, so make peace between your brothers and be mindful of your duty to Allah that you may be shown mercy.19
In the above verse, non-Muslims are not mentioned for the obvious reason that they cannot be expected to submit to the teachings of the Quran. Yet, the verse serves as an excellent model for the whole world to follow.
While the eyes of the world are turning to the United Nations and the Security Council in the hope that it will acquire a more active, wider and meaningful role in resolving international disputes and thus transforming the world into a more secure, safe and peaceful abode, there is very little in the past record of the performance of the United Nations to give credence to this wishful thinking. A world arena of lobbying, intrigue, intense diplomatic activity aimed at formation of pressure groups and attempts to gain an upper hand over one’s opponents by any means available, where scruples have no part to play and human conscience is barred entry, may of course be called a House of Nations even though in conflict and disarray. But it would be an irony to call such a house a House of United Nations. If that be the concept of unity, I for one would much rather risk survival in a community of Nations which are disunited but united in truth and justice.
The will to muster power to crush adversaries and still the voice of dissent is a most vital question which every nation must address and resolve. One wonders with a deep sense of sorrow as to how long the member nations of this august House would continue to shut their eyes and refuse to open their minds to the dangers inherent in the style in which the affairs of nations are run.
World peace hangs precariously on the string of a feeble hope that justice will prevail and justice will be done.
1 Ch. 2: Al-Baqarah: 248
2 Ch. 5: Al-Ma’idah: 21
3 Ch. 27: Al-Naml: 35
4 Ch. 4: Al-Nisa’: 60
5 Shakespeare
6 Ch. 42: Al-Shura: 37–40
7 Ch. 4: Al-Nisa’: 59
8 Ch. 23: Al-Mu’minun: 117
9 Nearest translation Muslim ‘clergy’.
10 Ch. 42: Al-Shura: 39
11 Ch. 3: Al-‘Imran: 160
12 Matthew 22: 21
13 Ch. 4: Al-Nisa’: 66
14 Ch. 4: Al-Nisa’: 136
15 Ch. 4: Al-Nisa’: 60
16 Ch. 8: Al-Anfal: 59
17 Ch. 27: Al-Naml: 63
18 Ch. 5: Al-Ma’idah: 9
19 Ch. 49: Al-Hujurat: 10–11