By Saud Ahmad Khan, Norwalk, CA
Commenting on Mr. Wajid Shamsul Hasan’s column, Mr. Ajit Dongre in his letter ‘Religion and Business of State’ (Pakistan Link , October 26) has sought clarification to three questions that he poses:
Is Islam not inimical to the concept of church state separation?
The answer to this question is in the affirmative - a positive yes. The Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) established the first politically multi-tribal nation-State in the history of the Arabian Peninsula. It consisted of the Muhajireen Quraishites, Muhajireen , the Muslim immigrants from Mecca, the Muslim native Arab tribes, Aus and Khazrajs, who were called the Ansars (the helpers) along with a few polytheists who had not accepted Islam by then but continued to keep themselves on their tribal administrative setup, and three Jewish tribes of Bani Nazir, Bani Qainqa and Bani Quraiza who had settled there for centuries with their own tribal system in alliance with Aus and Khazraj. The Muhajireen and Ansars were already sworn in Ba’it, i.e. the pledge of submission to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as their spiritual Master in his divinely revealed teachings. But for territorial security and administration of law and order, he did not consider that enough. The Prophet explained to all tribal as well as religious groups that before the Muslims emerged as a religious group in Madina, there were only two groups in the town. But now with the Muslims, there were three groups. It was proper that they entered into an agreement which should be binding upon all and which should assure to all a measure of peace. Eventually, an agreement, called Mithaq i Madina, was arrived at.
Its salient features, according to seerat (life of Prophet Mohammed) by Ibn Hashaam in Arabic and Sulaiman Mansurpuri’s Rahmatul lil alameen Vol. I in Urdu, are as follows:
Madina would be regarded as sacred and inviolate by those who signed the covenant; whoever rebels or promotes enmity and disorder will be considered a common enemy. It will be the duty of all others to fight against him, even though he happens to be a son or close relative.
All religious groups were allowed to observe freely and equally their religious rites and worship, and maintain their organization. What was needed most essentially was that they should remain united in peace as in war. No party should enter into a separate peace. But no party will be obliged to take part in war.
It was also an aspect of religious freedom guaranteed to the non-Muslim citizens because the danger of invasion on Madina was not so much territorial as the enemy wanted to wipe out the religion of Islam so that no one could worship Allah, the only Almighty God, freely according to ones conscience as the Muslims claim to do. So Allah Almighty allowed the Muslims also to raise arms to defend this human right of freedom of faith and worship as the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had given the same to the Jews and the remaining polytheists of Madina in as much as they remained peaceful citizens of the state.
So when the enemy wanted to invade Madina, as the intelligence reports of Meccan machination against the Muslims of Madina were reaching, their aim was not to rule Madina as their colony but the destruction of the faith of Islam. Hence it was called “Jihad fi Sabilillah,” i.e. holy striving in the way of God. How could one be obliged to fight for a cause one did not believe in at heart? But by another clause if a common enemy attacked Madina, the Jews would side with the Muslims and vice versa and share the expenses of the battle. Such a defensive war was a national right of the state by all norms of civilized society and even it is so today also.
Another important clause of the covenant was that the stranger who came under the protection of Madina would be treated as a citizen. It meant the scattered Muslim communities or individuals outside Madina were not incorporated within the political state entity of Madina, unless they also migrated and settled there for naturalization as citizens. In the covenant the Jews were mentioned in terms of “Ummatun ma’ahum,” i.e. one nation (obviously politically) with the Muslims. In the light of Mithaq-i-Madina, how can it be said that Islam is inimical to the ideal of Church State separation?
A religious state is an ideological state. Those who do not believe in the ideology of such a country are but traitors of that country. Ideology and democracy cannot go together in politics and statesmanship. Ideology is faith that can differ in case of individuals while democracy means the general will of the people of a country and this Mr. Jinnah aspired for Pakistan and the same the Holy Prophet laid down as a principle in the constitution to initiate the city state of Madina.
Now the second question: Did Mr. Jinnah really want the fledgling nation not to be governed as an Islamic State? Yes. In the light of his inaugural address of Augut 11, 1947 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly as its first President, which Mr. Wajid Shamsul Hassan has cites in his column “he told them on August 11, 1947 that from that day they would cease to be Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians in the political sense. They were to be Pakistanis first and last”, the question is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Quaid Azam spoke with more insight of Islam than those mullahs who pay only lip service to make Pakistan an Islamic state. Especially when there are so many sects of Islam and each wants to give its own brand of Islam to the state as instrument to weaken Pakistan from within, not to be strong enough to face the enemy from outside.
Finally, we come to the third question: Does the intelligentsia of the country today espouse this idea of Church State separation? If the mullahs who are in minority remain peaceful and accept Pakistan as an independent state and aspire it to be a strong and prosperous country and do not think taking vengeance on Quaid Azam and the Muslim League, over which he presided and which they opposed trying to undo the struggle for Pakistan, then the intelligentsia of the country can again support the idea of church state separation wholeheartedly as they did in the days of their Quaid prior to Pakistan as well as after its achievement. They don’t have the courage of the Quaid nor a leader of his stature and sincerity. They fear the street politics like the intelligentsia of Hindus of “secular” India who too fear the Shive Sena and Rashtrya Sevak of Mr. Bal Thackery and remained quiet at the demolition of the Babri Mosque in India.
It should also be reminded that Mr. Jinnah was the last stalwart among the Muslim political leaders who acquiesced to separate electorate and that, too, on the condition that it should be allowed only to those minorities who demanded it. For the Muslims he agreed on a trial basis for ten years (his Fourteen Points 1929).