Islam's response to contemporary world problems (52)

POLITICAL PEACE 

In this issue, we will discuss a topic that needs special clarification as far as Islam is concerned: "Should religion have exclusive legislative authority?" 

(You can refer to the Holy Quran references at https://www.ahmadiyya-islam.org/es/coran/) 

Should religion have exclusive legislative authority? 

This is a universal phenomenon, therefore, that has never been seriously investigated. Neither politicians nor religious leaders have ever resolved the fine blue line that divides Religion from State. 

As far as Christians are concerned, this issue should have been settled once and for all when Jesus, peace be upon him, gave his historic reply to the Pharisees: 

Then he replied to them, " what belongs to Caesar return it to Caesar, and what belongs to God return it to God." (Matthew 22,21) 

These brief words are full of profound wisdom. All that needs to be said has been said. 

Religion and the mode of government are two of the many wheels in the wagon of society. It is, in fact, irrelevant whether there are two, four or eight wheels as long as they maintain the right orientation and turn within their orbits. There can be no problem of mutual conflict or confrontation. 

In full accordance with its early divine teachings, The Holy Quran studies this issue by clearly demarcating the sphere of activities of each component of society. It would be oversimplifying the issue to conceive that there is no common ground or common ground shared by Religion and State. Of course they overlap, but only in a mutual spirit of cooperation. There is no intention to monopolise. 

For example, a large part of the moral education of each religion becomes an essential part of the law in every State in the world. In some States, it may constitute a small part; in others a relatively larger part of the law. The prescribed punishments may be mild or severe, but the religious disapprovals of many crimes that are punished can always be discovered without reference to religion. Although they may disagree with many secular laws, as far as people belonging to different religions are concerned, they rarely choose to confront the established government on such issues. 

This applies not only to Muslims or Christians but to all world religions alike. Of course, the pure Hindu laws of Manusmarti are in total contrast to the secular legislation of India's political governments. Yet, in a way, people seem to live in a state of compromise. 

If religious law were to be invoked in a serious way against the political systems prevailing in the different countries, the world would most likely turn into a bloodbath. But fortunately for mankind, this is not the case. 

As far as Islam is concerned, there should be no such problem because the definite and firm principle propounded by Islam in this regard is the principle of absolute justice. This principle stands as the centre and foundation for all forms of government that claim to be Islamic in spirit. 

Alas, this very fundamental point in the understanding of the Islamic concept of the mode of government is little understood, if at all, by the political thinkers of Islam. They are wrong in making a distinction between the application of the common law relating to crimes that are universal in nature and without any religious underpinning, and crimes that are specific to certain precepts of that religion. Therefore, only adherents of such religions are liable to prosecution. 

These two categories are not clearly defined. There is a grey area of considerable size where common crimes may have a religious or moral underpinning, while at the same time constituting a series of offences against accepted human norms. For example, the act of stealing is a crime that varies in degrees of conviction and prescribed penalty. Similarly, there are the issues of murder, drunkenness or public disorder which are partially or totally prohibited by many religions. Some religions have prescribed specific penalties for these offences. 

The question then arises as to how a state should administer such crimes. This question in turn raises the question of whether Islam provides a clear and well-defined formula that can be adopted by a Muslim and a non-Muslim government. If a Muslim government has been defined as such in Islam, then other very important questions arise, for example, the validity of a state considering itself to be under some specific religious instruction and imposing the teachings of that religion on all its citizens, regardless of whether they belong to that religion or not. 

Religions have a duty to bring moral issues to the attention of the legislature. It is not necessary for all legislation to be placed under the jurisdiction of religions. 

With so many different sects and shades of diverse beliefs between one sect and another and one religion and another, nothing but total confusion and anarchy would be the result. Take for example the penalty for alcohol consumption. Although it is forbidden in the Holy Quran, there is no punishment specified by the Quran itself. There are those who rely on certain traditions which are, in turn, challenged by various schools of jurisprudence. In one locality or country, the punishment would be completely different from anywhere else. Ignorance of the law would be predominant. What holds true for Islam is also true for other faiths. Talmudic law would be completely impracticable. The same could be said of Christianity. 

A believer of any religion can practice his beliefs even under secular law. He can be guided by the truth, without any law of the State interfering with his ability to speak the truth. He can observe his Prayers and perform his rites of worship without any specific law passed by the State having to permit him to do so. 

This question can also be examined from another interesting angle. If Islam agrees to the question of a Muslim Government in countries where Muslims are in the majority, then by the same rule of absolute justice, Islam must grant the right to other governments to govern their countries according to the dictates of the religion of the majority. For example, as far as its next-door neighbour India is concerned, Pakistan would have to accept Hindu law for all Hindu citizens. If so, it would of course be a very tragic day for the more than 100 million Hindu Muslims who would lose all rights to survive honourably in India. Once again, if India were to be ruled by the Manusmarti, why should the State of Israel be denied the right to rule both Jews and gentiles by Talmudic law? If this were to happen, life would become extremely unhappy not only for the people of Israel, but also for 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 Islam were to propose that, in Muslim-majority countries, Islamic Shariah (law) should prevail by force of law. This would again create a universal paradoxical situation, because on the one hand, in the name of absolute justice, all states would be given the right to impose the law of the majority religion on their people. On the other hand, every rite of the religious minority in the various countries of the world would be subjected to the severe rule of a religion in which they do not believe. This would be an affront to the very concept of absolute justice. 

This dilemma has not been considered or attempted to be resolved by the proponents of Islamic law in the so-called Muslim states. According to my interpretation of Islamic teachings, all states should be governed by the same principle of absolute justice and as such every state becomes a Muslim state. 

In view of these arguments and the overriding concept that there is to be no coercion in matters of faith, religion need not be the predominant legislative authority in the political affairs of a state. 

(lpbD) - God's peace and blessings be upon him. 

(To be continued in the next installment, number 53, which deals with the Islamic mode of government).