Questions and Answers
After the speech many questions were put to the speaker and following are the answers to some of them. Unfortunately, as will be noticed, some questions were not recorded properly but the answers do indicate what the question was about.
Q. There is a particular confusion in the Western world about Shariah?
A. Thank you for this pointed question. But I thought that such questions are outside the realm of discussion.
What we are discussing is whether it is possible to adopt religious law as the law of the country. By any state or any other religion, for that matter.
I believe it's not possible. It's not possible even if you genuinely and fervently so desire, in the name of God, even then it's not possible. We have gone so far away from religion. We have become hypocrites. The whole human society has become hypocrite. There is hypocrisy in politics and society everywhere. And hypocrisy does not permit honesty to flourish. It does not permit the word of God to take root. That is the main problem.
Q. I feel that we cannot really apply a law that came for older times to the modern times. Please explain?
A. I have studied this question in depth. I believe that religion can be permanent and universal; provided its principles are deep-rooted in the human psyche. The human psyche is unchangeable. And that is exactly what the Holy Quran claims. It says it's Deenul-Fitra: meaning a faith or a law based on human nature. And also 'La tabdeela lekhalqillah' meaning that the creation of God and whatever he has created in you, the dispensation, the dispositions, etc. and the basic propensity to do something or not to do so, all these remain the same.
Consequently, any law which is rooted in human psyche, must be also universal and permanent. But, the Holy Quran does not stop there. It does not monopolise this truth. It goes on to say that all the religions, at their nascent stages and at the stages of their development, were fundamentally the same and they all carried such basic truths as were related to human nature. This is referred to by the Quran as Deenul Qayyema. It says there were three fundamental features in every religious teaching:
Firstly, to mend your relations with God, to be honest and devoted to Him.
Secondly, to worship Him. In the Quranic sense, worship does not mean just to pay homage by lip services; but to try to acquire God's attributes.
And thirdly, to do service to mankind and spend in the cause of the needy.
These are the three fundamental branches, according to the Holy Quran, which are common to all religions. However, with the passage of the time and through interpolations they were changed later on. So, what is needed is rectification of the change. Not a new faith. And that is what has been happening with the advent of every prophet.
So, it's a highly complex question and also not directly related to the issue we are discussing. I hope this much should suffice.
As far as the question of whether Islamic law, or any other religious law, can be imposed perforce. I say no. Because it is against the spirit of religions themselves. The Holy Qur'an says:
This is a statement of the Holy Qur'an of course; but it is a universal statement which can never be changed. It is an example of how laws can become permanent and universal. It says there is no coercion in faith or in matters of faith. No coercion is possible and no coercion is permitted. So, here is the question: If one religion imposes its law on a society where people of other religions and denominations also live, how will this verse stand against your attempt to coerce? Not only vis-à-vis the people from other religions, but vis-à-vis people from the same religion who are not willing.
So, this is the fundamental question. Therefore the conclusion is that coercion is not an instrument in religion, not a valid instrument in religion.
The only authority in Islam, which was genuinely capable of being given the right to coerce, was the Founder of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Why? Because he was a living model of Islam and because when enquired about his character, his holy wife, Hazrat Ayesha, said, he was the living Qur'an.
So, the only person who could be genuinely entrusted with the faith of others, and be permitted to use coercion also where he felt that rectification was to be made by force, was the Holy Prophet.
Yet, addressing him, Allah says in the Qur'an, (88:22-23):
Innama ania mozakkir lasta alaihim be mosaitir
You are just an admonisher. No more. You are given no authority to coerce. You are not a superintendent of police. Mosaitir is exactly the superintendent of police.
So, that is why I say neither coercion is possible, nor permitted by God. Moreover, what prevents a Muslim from following the Muslim law? Why should he wait for the whole legislation to be changed.
Most of Islam and most of Christianity and most of Hinduism can be practised without their being the law of the country. The more so since the general principle accepted by the modern political thinkers is that religion should not be permitted to interfere with politics and politics should not be permitted to interfere with religion.
Interference is what I am talking about, not co-operation. Co-operation is the second part of the same subject. So, if a society is permitted to live according to their own religious aspirations, why should the religious law concerned be made law of the land?
I quote an example how the Shariah law has already failed in Pakistan. During the late General Zia's regime, Muslim Shariah Courts were also constituted. And the choice was left to the police either to charge a criminal and channel him through the Muslim Shariah Court or to channel him through the ordinary court. Do you know what was the result? Hardly any case was tried by the Muslim Shariah Court because police had raised the price of bribery and they threatened everyone that if they did not pay double the price of ordinary bribe, they would channel their case through the Shariah Court.
That was the net outcome. And you will be surprised to find that out of thousands and thousands of possible choices, hardly two or three were those which were directed through Shariah Court and also because of political pressure. Because some political parties wanted to punish their enemies and they wanted such cases to be tackled by the Shariah Court.
So this is the reality of life. How can we change it?
Q. So what is the reason for the change in laws as new prophets came along?
A. First of all let me say that this generalization is rather too bold. Because when you study the history of religion, it is not the case that every prophet came to change the law of the previous prophet's revelation.
Most often than not, prophets came to strengthen the law and rehabilitate the law, rather than to change it.
For instance, if you study the history of Judaism, you'll be surprised to find that even up to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), no new laws were enacted or introduced.
They were changed or abandoned by the people, and efforts were made by prophets to rehabilitate them, to make people practise and to again interpret them in the light of the original.
So, the history of religion as revealed to us by the study of major religions of the world, tells a completely different story. Turn to China, for instance. Tao came with a teaching. Not a jot of that teaching was changed by Confucius. It was exactly the same teaching which was re-inforced and re-interpreted by the latter.
But I agree. The Holy Qur'an also, positively dictates that sometimes, the laws are changed. But the question is are they changed in fundamentals or superficials? And how they are changed? Whether they require further change or not, this is also a very important question and which is a genuine question for me to answer.
Now, I quote three examples from history, of change of law of nature, ending up in the final verdict of Islam.
In Judaism, because of a long history of oppression, by Pharaohs, of the Israelites, the latter had lost that human quality of courage and defiance even when they were in the right. To take their rightful revenge was something beyond their power and strength because they had been far too long trampled upon. This is similar to what happens sometimes to the Kashmiris in India: Those who were cruelly treated started saying after a while, 'All right, we forgive our powerful enemy. But not the weak enemy.'
So, when such distortions appear, then the law has only to be a temporary law to rectify the error done. And that is exactly what happened in regard to the Mosaic law of revenge: Tooth for a tooth; Eye for eye. And, it was emphasized so much, as if there was no room for pardon.
That law was practised for a long period. Then came Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). By that time, the Jews had forgotten the very name of forgiveness. You have only to read Shakespeare's Shylock to know what they had come to. And, if Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) had permitted them also to take revenge, people whose hearts were hardened would never have forgiven. They would have said, 'Revenge is also permissible; why not take revenge?' To appease their own anguish.
So, Jesus took away from them the right of revenge. But that injunction could not be a permanent one.
These are the areas where, sometimes, superficial teachings are revealed, but only for certain periods and for times, for historical epochs and not permanently.
Then comes the Holy Qur'an, and the law regarding the matter mentioned in the Holy Qur'an is:
(Al-Shoora: 41)
You have a right to take revenge. The whole verse in fact says: 'You have a right to take revenge when you are wronged but not beyond the measure to which you are wronged'.
This is one principle. Secondly, you can also forgive, but not unconditionally. You can only forgive if your forgiveness promotes reformation. If it promotes crime, then you cannot forgive.
Now, this is the Qur'anic version which stands on the summit of the development of the same thought. And, I have been meeting some Bahai friends, some other scholars from various part of the world; I have travelled a lot, and I always give the following problem to them: Please try to change this law according to the new dictates of time.
So far, I have not met a single person who could suggest any change in this final law.
So, if the laws are resilient, accommodating and are based on principles and also are rooted in human psyche, I do not think that they need to be changed. But again, this is a discussion outside the main discussion. So please, I hope that would suffice and we'll turn to other guests, for any other question they would like to ask.
Q. Please explain the difference between 'Shariah' and 'Deen'?
A. Thank you. You see, Deen is a word applicable to any philosophy, any ism, anything which you adopt as a course of conduct. For instance, according to some Muslim scholars idolators had no 'deen' and they would be abhorred with the idea that they did have a Deen. However the Holy Qur'an, addressing them says:
(Al-Kafiroon: 7)
You have your faith and I have mine. When it is said:
(Al-Baqarah: 257)
La Ikraha fiddeen the word Deen encompasses every course which people adopt for their codes of life. It is not just a faith in God. Even a denial of God could be a Deen.
Shariah on other hand is founded on the concept of God. So, where a 'Deen' is founded on the belief that:
There is a God.
Who also reveals His desires of how man should shape his destiny and
Where that will is defined in form of certain laws or principles, that is called Shariah. Not necessarily that of Islam. Every faith has its own Shariah.
Now, the question is can Shariah be adopted even though it is not a part of the Law of the Land? We can quote an example from our Community that it is not impossible at all.
The fact is that almost every country of the world permits members of its society to resolve their differences mutually through arbitration. And in most countries, to my knowledge, arbitration is respected so much by the law that if, irreversible arbitration is signed by both the parties involved, even then the Supreme Court would not annul that decision.
We have created a Qadha Board and Qadis in Ahmadiyya Community. And all Ahmadis who do not want to go to the common law for resolving their disputes and problems, they come to the Qadha, signing a document that we, with volition and without any coercion, require you to resolve our dispute according to the law of the Qur'an.
And in such cases, no government has ever interfered, no government has ever obstructed its passage and it goes on smoothly.
Similarly, as far as worship is concerned, it's an ongoing process that is carried on everywhere. Everybody is free to worship God as he pleases, or should be free. Except Ahmadis in Pakistan. But that's a different issue. Otherwise, there is absolutely no attempt made by any law to obstruct the passage of worship.
Normally speaking, in most areas of life, Shariah can be practised without it becoming a law.
Q. You have stated in your lecture, that the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharf, has decided that the Shariah shall be the law in Pakistan without rules and regulations but referring to the Holy Qur'an. However, you find that this is NOT a practical way. I have observed that you have studied this subject very thoroughly. So, I want to ask your opinion regarding the type of legislation a country should adopt. Should the Shariah be rejected? Should it be modified? Should it be the secular type of legislation? What do you think should be the way out?
A. Thank you very much for this question, which I should have touched upon during my address. The fact is that the concept of government in Islam, is a very important issue which must be resolved before we proceed further.
I have studied this issue in depth. I have studied the Muslim scholars of the past century who have spoken on this subject and written a lot on it, and who have not been able to resolve the issue properly. If Islam proposes a government which is representative of God, then the issue is to be looked at from a different angle altogether.
If, on the other hand, Islam proposes a system of government which is common to various denominations of religions and different people, then an entirely different outlook would appear.
In my opinion, the first is not the case. Because Islam pleads for the secular type of government more than any religion and more than any political system.
Now, this is surprising for some. But I can quote from the Holy Qur'an and prove the point. The very essence of secularism is that absolute justice must be practised regardless of the differences of faith and religion and colour and creed and group.
This, in essence, is the true definition of secularism. And this is exactly what the Holy Qur'an admonishes us to do in matters of state, how things should be done and how the state should be run. The Holy Qur'an says:
(Al-Nahl: 91)
Allah orders you to always practise justice. And then it develops the theme by saying:
(Al-Ma'idah: 9)
No amount of enmity between you and any other people, should permit you to deviate from absolute justice. Be always just that is nearer to righteousness.
When you dispense your responsibility as a government, you must dispense those responsibilities with absolute justice in mind. Now, when absolute justice is established as the central theme of a government, how could Islamic law be imposed upon non-Muslim? Because it would be against justice. And so many contradictions would arise.
So, if you study this central core in depth, you will be surprised to find also that the interpretation which I am giving to this or I understand to be the right interpretation, is also the interpretation proved from the practice of the Holy Founder of Islam, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
In Medina, when he moved there after Hijra, he came into contact with the Jewish and other communities who accepted him not as their religious leader, but a political leader. They agreed - and this is called the Charter of Medina - to refer to him all disputes and trust his superior judgement to resolve all the contentions between various parties.
Islamic law had already been revealed at that time. Jews came to him for guidance or for decisions. Without fail, every time he enquired from them: 'Would you like your dispute to be settled according to the Jewish law or according to the Islamic law or according to the arbitration?'
Without fail he never imposed Islamic law on a non-agreeing party, which did not belong to the faith.
This is what I call absolute justice. So, absolute justice has to be employed by a truly Islamic government, if it ever dreams of calling itself 'Islamic government'. And this is in other terms, a secular government.
Q. If you decide to have different legislation; legislation for the Hindus, the Christians and so on, I think it would be very disturbing in the society.
A. Exactly, that is what I am saying. I am not proposing that every political government should have a paraphernalia of legislation applicable to different religions. It's not possible. It's not practical.
Closing Comments of Chairperson
We are here working together, different religious communities, the Christians, the Hindus, the Muslims and it seems that we are working here on a very good basis, on mutual cooperation without interfering in internal affairs of each other and, on behalf of all organisations. I thank you sincerely and I hope that when you will leave our country Suriname, you will leave it with good thoughts, good sentiments and also, leaving a lot of friends here.
I wish you a very safe journey.