Before I discuss the human rights in Islam I would like to
explain a few points about two major approaches to the question
of human rights: the Western and Islamic. This will enable us to
study the issue in its proper perspective and avoid some of the
confusion which normally befogs such a discussion.
The Western Approach
The people in the West have the habit of attributing every good
thing to themselves and try to prove that it is because of them
that the world got this blessing, otherwise the world was
steeped in ignorance and completely unaware of all these
benefits. Now let us look at the question of human rights. It is
very loudly and vociferously claimed that the world got the
concept of basic human rights from the Magna Carta of Britain;
though the Magna Carta itself came into existence six hundred
years after the advent of Islam. But the truth of the matter is
that until the seventeenth century no one even knew that the
Magna Carta contained the principles of Trial by Jury; Habeas
Corpus, and the Control of Parliament on the Right of Taxation.
If the people who had drafted the Magna Carta were living today
they would have been greatly surprised if they were told that
their document also contained all these ideals and principles.
They had no such intention, nor were they conscious of all these
concepts which are now being attributed to them. As far as my
knowledge goes the Westerners had no concept of human rights and
civic rights before the seventeenth century. Even after the
seventeenth century the philosophers and the thinkers on
jurisprudence though presented these ideas, the practical proof
and demonstration of these concepts can only be found at the end
of the eighteenth century in the proclamations and constitutions
of America and France. After this there appeared a reference to
the basic human rights in the constitutions of different
countries. But more often the rights which were given on paper
were not actually given to the people in real life. In the
middle of the present century, the United Nations, which can now
be more aptly and truly described as the Divided Nations, made a
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passed a resolution
against genocide and framed regulations to check it. But as you
all know there is not a single resolution or regulation of the
United Nations which can be enforced. They are just an
expression of a pious hope. They have no sanctions behind them,
no force, physical or moral to enforce them. Despite all the
high-sounding ambitious resolutions of the United Nations, human
rights have been violated and trampled upon at different places,
and the United Nations has been a helpless spectator. She is not
in a position to exercise an effective check on the violation of
human rights. Even the heinous crime of genocide is being
perpetrated despite all proclamations of the United Nations.
Right in the neighboring country of Pakistan, genocide of the
Muslims has been taking place for the last twenty-eight years,
but the United Nations does not have the power and strength to
take any steps against India. No action has even been taken
against any country guilty of this most serious and revolting
crime.
The Islamic Approach
The second point which I would like to clarify at the very
outset is that when we speak of human rights in Islam we really
mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not
been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The
rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can
also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are
conferred. The same is the case with the rights accepted and
recognized by the dictators. They can confer them when they
please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can openly
violate them when they like. But since in Islam human rights
have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the
world, or any government on earth has the right or authority to
make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No
one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are
they the basic human rights which are conferred on paper for the
sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the
show is over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which
have no sanctions behind them.
The charter and the proclamations and the resolutions of the
United Nations cannot be compared with the rights sanctioned by
God; because the former is not applicable to anybody while the
latter is applicable to every believer. They are a part and
parcel of the Islamic faith. Every Muslim or administrators who
claim themselves to be Muslims will have to accept, recognize
and enforce them. If they fail to enforce them, and start
denying the rights that have been guaranteed by God or make
amendments and changes in them, or practically violate them
while paying lip-service to them, the verdict of the Holy Qur’án
for such governments is clear and unequivocal:
Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the
disbelievers (kafirun) [5:44]. The following verse also
proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" [5:45], while a
third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers
(fasiqun)" [5:47]. In other words this means that if the
temporal authorities regard their own words and decisions to be
right and those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers. If
on the other hand they regard God's commands as right but
wittingly reject them and enforce their own decisions against
God's, then they are the mischief-makers and the wrongdoers.
Fasiq, the law-breaker, is the one who disregards the bond of
allegiance, and zalim is he who works against the truth. Thus
all those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims and yet
violate the rights sanctioned by God belong to one of these two
categories, either they are the disbelievers or are the wrong-
doers and mischief-makers. The rights which have been sanctioned
by God are permanent, perpetual and eternal. They are not
subject to any alterations or modifications, and there is no
scope for any change or abrogation.
Basic Human Rights
The first thing that we find in Islam in this connection is that
it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other
words it means that every man whether he belongs to this country
or that, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he
lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the
case, he has some basic human rights simply because he is a
human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim. In fact
it will be his duty to fulfill these obligations.
The Right to Life
The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and
respect human life. The Holy Qur’án lays down:
Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man
slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed
all mankind ... (5:32)
As far as the question of taking life in retaliation for murder
or the question of punishment for spreading corruption on this
earth is concerned, it can be decided only by a proper and
competent court of law. If there is any war with any nation or
country, it can be decided only by a properly established
government. In any case, no human being has any right by himself
to take human life in retaliation or for causing mischief on
this earth. Therefore it is incumbent on every human being that
under no circumstances should he be guilty of taking a human
life. If anyone has murdered a human being, it is as if he has
slain the entire human race. These instructions have been
repeated in the Holy Qur’án in another place saying:
Do not kill a soul which God has made sacred except through the
due process of law ... [6:151]
Here also homicide has been distinguished from destruction of
life carried out in pursuit of justice. Only a proper and
competent court will be able to decide whether or not an
individual has forfeited his right to life by disregarding the
right to life and peace of other human beings. The Prophet, may
God's blessings be on him, has declared homicide as the greatest
sin only next to polytheism. The Tradition of the Prophet reads:
"The greatest sins are to associate something with God and to
kill human beings." In all these verses of the Qur’án and the
Traditions of the Prophet the word 'soul' (nafs) has been used
in general terms without any distinction or particularization
which might have lent itself to the elucidation that the persons
belonging to one's nation, the citizens of one's country, the
people of a particular race or religion should not be killed.
The injunction applies to all human beings and the destruction
of human life in itself has been prohibited.
The “Right to Life” has been given to man only by Islam. You
will observe that the people who talk about human rights if they
have ever mentioned them in their Constitutions or Declarations,
then it is clearly implied in them that these rights are
applicable only to their citizens or they have been framed for
the white race alone. This can clearly be gleaned by the fact
that human beings were hunted down like animals in Australia and
the land was cleared of the aborigines for the white man.
Similarly the aboriginal population of America was
systematically destroyed and the Red Indians who somehow
survived this genocide were confined to specified areas called
Reservations. They also penetrated into Africa and hunted down
human beings like wild animals. All these instances go to prove
that they have no respect for human life as such and if they
have, it is only on the basis of their nationality, blind or
race. Contrary to this, Islam recognizes this right for all
human beings. If a man belongs to a primitive or savage tribe,
even then Islam regards him as a human being.
The Right to the Safety of Life
Immediately after the verse of the Holy Qur’án which has been
mentioned in connection with the right to life, God has said:
"And whoever saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives
of all mankind" (5:32). There can be several forms of saving man
from death. A man may be ill or wounded, irrespective of his
nationality, race or blind. If you know that he is in need of
your help, then it is your duty that you should arrange for his
treatment for disease or wound. If he is dying of starvation,
then it is your duty to feed him so that he can ward off death.
If he is drowning or his life is at stake, then it is your duty
to save him. You will be surprised to hear that the Talmud, the
religious book of the Jews, contains a verse of similar nature,
but records it in altogether different form. It says: "Whoever
destroyed a life of the Israelite, in the eyes of the Scripture,
it is as if he destroyed the whole world. Whoever protected and
saved one life of the Israelite, in the light of the Scripture,
it is as if he saved the whole world." Talmud also contains the
view that if a non-Israelite is drowning and you tried to save
him then you are a sinner. Can it be given a name other than
racialism? We regard it as our duty to save every human life,
because it is thus that we have been enjoined in the Holy Qur’án.
On the other hand, if they regard it necessary to save the life
of a human being at all, it should be the life of an Israelite.
As far as other people are concerned, according to this view,
they do not seem to be human enough to deserve protection of
their persons. In their literature the concept of 'Goyim' for
which the English word 'Gentile' and the Arabic word ummi
(illiterate) is used, is that they enjoy no human rights; human
rights are reserved only for the children of Israel. The Qur’án
has mentioned this belief of the Israelites and quotes the Jews
saying: "There is no blame on us (for anything we may do) with
regard to the unlettered folk (i.e. the ummi)" (3:75).
Respect for the Chastity of Women
The third important thing that we find in the Charter of Human
Rights granted by Islam is that a woman's chastity has to be
respected and protected under all circumstances, whether she
belongs to our own nation or to the nation of an enemy, whether
we find her in the wild forest or in a conquered city; whether
she is our co-religionist or belongs to some other religion or
has no religion at all. A Muslim cannot outrage her under any
circumstances. All promiscuous relation- ship has been forbidden
to him, irrespective of the status or position of the woman,
whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling partner to the
act. The words of the Holy Qur’án in this respect are: "Do not
approach (the bounds of) adultery" (17:32). Heavy punishment has
been prescribed for this crime, and the order has not been
qualified by any conditions. Since the violation of chastity of
a woman is forbidden in Islam, a Muslim who perpetrates this
crime cannot escape punishment whether he receives it in this
world or in the Hereafter. This concept of sanctity of chastity
and protection of women can be found nowhere else except in
Islam. The armies of the Western powers need the daughters of
their nation to satisfy their carnal appetites even in their own
countries, and if they happen to occupy another country, the
fate of its women folk can better be imagined than described.
But the history of the Muslims, apart from a few lapses of the
individuals here or there, has been free from this crime against
womanhood. It has never happened that after the conquest of a
foreign country the Muslim army has gone about raping the women
of the conquered people, or in their own country, the government
has arranged to provide prostitutes1for them. This is also a
great blessing which the human race has received through Islam.2
The Right to a Basic Standard of Life
Speaking about the economic rights the Holy Qur’án enjoins upon
its followers:
And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy
and destitute. [51:19]
The words of this injunction show that it is a categorical and
un- qualified order. Furthermore this injunction was given in
Mecca where there was no Muslim society in existence and where
generally the Muslims had to come in contact with the population
of the disbelievers. Therefore the clear meaning of this verse
is that anyone who asks for help and anyone who is suffering
from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the
Muslims; irrespective of the fact whether he belongs to this
nation or to that nation, to this country or to that country, to
this race or to that race. If you are in a position to help and
a needy person asks you for help or if you come to know that he
is in need, then it is your duty to help him. God has
established his right over you, which you have to honor as a
Muslim.
Individual's Right to Freedom
Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive
practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell
him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words
of the Prophet (S) are as follows: "There are three categories
of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day
of Judgment; of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man,
then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majah).
The words of this Tradition of the Prophet are also general,
they have not been qualified or made applicable to a particular
nation, race, country or followers of a particular religion. The
Europeans take great pride in claiming that they abolished
slavery from the world, though they had the decency to do so
only in the middle of the last century. Before this, these
Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale,
capturing their free men, putting them in bondage and
transporting them to their new colonies. The treatment which
they have meted out to these unfortunate people has been worse
than the treatment given to animals. The books written by the
Western people themselves bear testimony to this fact.
The Slave Trade of Western Nations
After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three
hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The
African coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were
brought from the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing
out from those ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast.
During only one century (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of
free people who were captured and enslaved only for British
Colonies amounts, according to the estimate of British authors,
to 20 million human beings. Over the period of only one year
(1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings were captured and
sent for slave labor in the Colonies. The ships which were used
for transporting the slaves were small and dirty. These
unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships
like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to
the wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these
were only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other.
They were not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill
or were injured, no attempt was made to provide them with
medical treatment. The Western writers themselves state that at
least 20% of the total number of people who were captured for
slavery and forced labor perished during their transportation
from the African coast to America. It has also been estimated
that the total number of people who were captured for slavery by
the various European nations during the heyday of the slave
trade comes to at least one hundred million. This is the record
of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for recognizing
the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding
his finger of blame towards an innocent man.
The Position of Slavery in Islam
Briefly I would like to tell you about the position and nature
of slavery in Islam. Islam tried to solve the problem of the
slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in
different ways to set their slaves free. The Muslims were
ordered that in expiation of some of their sins they should set
their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was
declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that it was
said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be
protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed
by him. The result of this policy was that by the time the
period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old
slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as
many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by Aishah was 67,
Abbas liberated 70, Abdullah Ibn `Umar liberated one thousand,
and Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free.
Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large
number of slaves, the details of which are given in the
Traditions and books of history of that period.
Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short
period of thirty or forty years. After this the only form of
slavery which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of
war, who were captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of
war were retained by the Muslim Government until their
government agreed to receive them back in exchange for Muslim
soldiers captured by them, or arranged the payment of ransom on
their behalf. If the soldiers they captured were not exchanged
with Muslim prisoners of war, or their people did not pay their
ransom money to purchase their liberty, then the Muslim
government used to distribute them among the soldiers of the
army which had captured them. This was a more humane and proper
way of disposing of them than retaining them like cattle in
concentration camps and taking forced labor from them and, if
their women folk were also captured, setting them aside for
prostitution. In place of such a cruel and outrageous way of
disposing of the prisoners of war, Islam preferred to spread
them in the population and thus brought them in contact with
individual human beings. Over and above, their guardians were
ordered to treat them well. The result of this humane policy was
that most of the men who were captured on foreign battlefields
and brought to the Muslim countries as slaves embraced Islam and
their descendants produced great scholars, imams, jurists,
commentators, statesmen and generals of the army. So much so
that later on they became the rulers of the Muslim world. The
solution of this problem which has been proposed in the present
age is that after the cessation of hostilities the prisoners of
war of the combatant countries should be exchanged. Whereas
Muslims have been practicing it from the very beginning and
whenever the adversary accepted the exchange of prisoners of war
from both sides, it was implemented without the least hesitation
or delay. In modern warfare we also find that if one government
is completely routed leaving her in no position of bargaining
for the prisoners of war and the winning party gets its
prisoners easily, then experience has shown that the prisoners
of war of the vanquished army are kept in conditions which are
much worse than the conditions of slaves. Can anyone tell us
what has been the fate of the thousands of prisoners of war
captured by Russia from the defeated armies of Germany and Japan
in the Second World War? No one has given their account so far.
No one knows how many thousands of them are still alive and how
many thousands of them have perished due to the hardship of the
Russian concentration and labor camps. The forced labor which
has been taken from them is much worse than the service one can
exact from slaves. Even perhaps in the times of ancient Pharaohs
of Egypt such harsh labor might not have been exacted from the
slaves in building the pyramids of Egypt, as has been exacted
from the prisoners of war in Russia in developing Siberia and
other backward areas of Russia, or working in coal and other
mines in below zero temperatures, ill-clad, ill-fed and brutally
treated by their supervisors.
The Right to Justice
This is a very important and valuable right which Islam has
given to man as a human being. The Holy Qur’án has laid down:
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression"
[5:2]. "And do not let ill-will towards any folk incite you so
that you swerve from dealing justly. Be just; that is nearest to
heedfulness" [5:8]. Stressing this point the Qur’án again says:
"You who believe stand steadfast before God as witness for
(truth and) fair play" [4:135]. This makes the point clear that
Muslims have to be just not only with ordinary human beings but
even with their enemies. In other words, the justice to which
Islam invites her followers is not limited only to the citizens
of their own country, or the people of their own tribe, nation
or race, or the Muslim community as a whole, but it is meant for
all the human beings of the world. Muslims therefore, cannot be
unjust to anyone. Their permanent habit and character should be
such that no man should ever fear injustice at their hands, and
they should treat every human being everywhere with justice and
fairness.
Equality of Human Beings
Islam not only recognizes absolute equality between men
irrespective of any distinction of blind, race or nationality,
but makes it an important and significant principle, a reality.
The Almighty God has laid down in the Holy Qur’án: "O mankind,
we have created you from a male and female." In other words all
human beings are brothers to one another. They all are the
descendants from one father and one mother. "And we set you up
as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognize each
other" (49:13). This means that the division of human beings
into nations, races, groups and tribes is for the sake of
distinction, so that people of one race or tribe may meet and be
acquainted with the people belonging to another race or tribe
and cooperate with one another. This division of the human race
is neither meant for one nation to take pride in its superiority
over others nor is it meant for one nation to treat another with
contempt or disgrace, or regard them as a mean and degraded race
and usurp their rights. "Indeed, the noblest among you before
God are the most heedful of you" (49:13). In other words the
superiority of one man over another is only on the basis of
God-consciousness, purity of character and high morals, and not
on the basis of blind, race, language or nationality, and even
this superiority based on piety and pure conduct does not
justify that such people should play lord or assume airs of
superiority over other human beings. Assuming airs of
superiority is in itself a reprehensible vice which no
God-fearing and pious man can ever dream of perpetrating. Nor
does the righteous have more privileged rights over others,
because this runs counter to human equality, which has been laid
down in the beginning of this verse as a general principle. From
the moral point of view, goodness and virtue is in all cases
better than vice and evil.
This has been exemplified by the Prophet in one of his sayings
thus: "No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a
non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man
have any superiority over a black man, or the black man any
superiority over the white man; you are all the children of
Adam, and Adam was created from clay" (al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzaz).
In this manner Islam established equality for the entire human
race and struck at the very root of all distinctions based on
blind, race, language or nationality. According to Islam, God
has given man this right of equality as a birthright. Therefore
no man should be discriminated against on the ground of the
blind of his skin, his place of birth, the race or the nation in
which he was born. Malcolm X, the famous leader of African
Negroes in America, who had launched a bitter struggle against
the white people of America in order to win civil rights for his
black compatriots, when he went to perform the pilgrimage, and
saw how the Muslims of Asia, Africa, Europe, America and those
of different races, languages and colors of skin, were wearing
one dress and were hurrying towards God's House-the Ka'bah and
offering prayers standing in one row and there was no
distinction of any kind between them, then he realized that this
was the solution to the problem of blind and race, and not what
he had been trying to seek or achieve in America so far. Today,
a number of non- Muslim thinkers, who are free from blind
prejudice, openly admit that no other religion or way of life
has solved this problem with the same degree of success with
which Islam has done so.
The Right to Cooperate and Not to Cooperate
Islam has prescribed a general principle of paramount importance
and universal application saying: "Co-operate with one another
for virtue and heedfulness and do not co-operate with one
another for the purpose of vice and aggression" [5:2]. This
means that the man who undertakes a noble and righteous work,
irrespective of the fact whether he is living at the North Pole
or the South Pole, has the right to expect support and active
co-operation from the Muslims. On the contrary he who
perpetrates deeds of vice and aggression, even if he is our
closest relation or neighbor, does not have the right to win our
support and help in the name of race, country, language or
nationality, nor should he have the expectation that Muslims
will co-operate with him or support him. Nor is it permissible
for Muslims to co-operate with him. The wicked and vicious
person may be our own brother, but he is not of us, and he can
have no help or support from us as long as he does not repent
and reform his ways. On the other hand the man who is doing
deeds of virtue and righteousness may have no kinship with
Muslims, but Muslims will be his companions and supporters or at
least his well- wishers.
Rights of Citizens in an Islamic State
We have discussed the human rights in general. Now we would like
to take up the question of rights of the citizens in an Islamic
State. As these rights are more extensive than the general human
rights which have been described earlier, they need separate
treatment.
1. The Security of Life and Property
In the address which the Prophet delivered on the occasion of
the Farewell Hajj, he said: "Your lives and properties are
forbidden to one another until you meet your Lord on the Day of
Resurrection." God Almighty has laid down in the Holy Qur’án:
"Anyone who kills a believer deliberately will receive as his
reward (a sentence) to live in Hell for ever. God will be angry
with him and curse him, and prepare dreadful torment for him"
[4:93]. The Prophet has also said about the dhimmis (the
non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim State): "One who kills a man
under covenant (i.e. a dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance
of Paradise" (al-Bukhari and AD). Islam prohibits homicide but
allows only one exception, that the killing is done in the due
process of law which the Qur’án refers to as bi al-haqq (with
the truth). Therefore a man can be killed only when the law
demands it, and it is obvious that only a court of law can
decide whether the execution is being carried out with justice
or without justification. In case of war or insurrection a just
and righteous government alone, which follows the Sharí`ah or
the Islamic Law, can decide whether a war is just or unjust,
whether taking of a life is justified or not; and whether a
person is a rebel or not and who can be sentenced to death as a
punishment. These weighty decisions cannot be left in the hands
of a court which has become heedless to God and is under the
influence of the administration. A judiciary like this will not
bring about justice. Nor can the crimes of state be justified on
the authority of the Holy Qur’án or Traditions (Hadíth) when the
state murders its citizens openly and secretly without any
hesitation or on the slightest pretext, because they are opposed
to its unjust policies and actions or criticize it for its
misdeed, and also provides protection to its hired assassins who
have been guilty of the heinous crime of murder of an innocent
person resulting in the fact, that neither the police take any
action against such criminals nor can any proof or witnesses
against these criminals be produced in the courts of law. The
very existence of such a government is a crime and none of the
killings carried out by them can be called "execution for the
sake of justice" in the phraseology of the Holy Qur’án.
Along with security of life, Islam has with equal clarity and
definiteness conferred the right of security of ownership of
property, as mentioned earlier with reference to the address of
the Farewell Hajj. On the other hand, the Holy Qur’án goes so
far as to declare that the taking of people's possessions or
property is completely prohibited unless they are acquired by
lawful means as permitted in the Laws of God. The Law of God
categorically declares "Do not devour one another's wealth by
false and illegal means" [2:188].
2. The Protection of Honor
The second important right is the right of the citizens to the
protection of their honor. In the address delivered on the
occasion of the Farewell Hajj, to which I have referred earlier,
the Prophet did not only prohibit the life and property of the
Muslims to one another, but also any encroachment upon their
honor, respect and chastity were forbidden to one another. The
Holy Qur’án clearly lays down:
(a) "You who believe, do not let one (set of) people make fun of
another set. (b) Do not defame one another. (c) Do not insult by
using nicknames. (d) And do not backbite or speak ill of one
another" [49:11-12].
This is the law of Islam for the protection of honor which is
indeed much superior to and better than the Western Law of
Defamation. According to the Islamic Law if it is proved that
someone has attacked the honor of another person, then
irrespective of the fact whether or not the victim is able to
prove himself a respectable and honorable person the culprit
will in any case get his due punishment. But the interesting
fact about the Western Law of Defamation is that the person who
files suit for defamation has first to prove that he is a man of
honor and public esteem and during the interrogation he is
subjected to the scurrilous attacks, accusations and innuendoes
of the defense council to such an extent that he earns more
disgrace than the attack on his reputation against which he had
knocked the door of the court of law. On top of it he has also
to produce such witnesses as would testify in the court that due
to the defamatory accusations of the culprit, the accused stands
disgraced in their eyes. Good Gracious! what a subtle point of
law, and what an adherence to the spirit of Law! How can this
unfair and unjust law be compared to the Divine law? Islam
declared blasphemy as a crime irrespective of the fact whether
the accused is a man of honor or not, and whether the words used
for blasphemy have actually disgraced the victim and harmed his
reputation in the eyes of the public or not. According to the
Islamic Law the mere proof of the fact that the accused said
things which according to common sense could have damaged the
reputation and honor of the plaintiff, is enough for the accused
to be declared guilty of defamation.
3. The Sanctity and Security of Private Life
Islam recognizes the right of every citizen of its state that
there should be no undue interference or encroachment on the
privacy of his life. The Holy Qur’án has laid down the
injunction: "Do not spy on one another" [49:12]. "Do not enter
any houses except your own homes unless you are sure of their
occupants' consent" [24:27]. The Prophet has gone to the extent
of instructing his followers that a man should not enter even
his own house suddenly or surreptitiously. He should somehow or
other inform or indicate to the dwellers of the house that he is
entering the house, so that he may not see his mother, sister or
daughter in a condition in which they would not like to be seen,
nor would he himself like to see them in that condition. Peering
into the houses of other people has also been strictly
prohibited, so much so that there is the saying of the Prophet
that if a man finds another person secretly peering into his
house, and he blinds his eye or eyes as a punishment then he
cannot be called to question nor will he be liable to
prosecution. The Prophet has even prohibited people from reading
the letters of others, so much so that if a man is reading his
letter and another man casts sidelong glances at it and tries to
read it, his conduct becomes reprehensible. This is the sanctity
of privacy that Islam grants to individuals. On the other hand
in the modern civilized world we find that not only the letters
of other people are read and their correspondence censored, but
even their Photostat copies are retained for future use or
blackmail. Even bugging devices are secretly fixed in the houses
of the people so that one can hear and tape from a distance the
conversation-taking place behind closed doors. In other words it
means that there is no such thing as privacy and to all
practical purposes the private life of an individual does not
exist.
This espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified
on moral grounds by the government saying that it is necessary
to know the secrets of the dangerous persons. Though, to all
intents and purposes, the basis of this policy is the fear and
suspicion with which modern governments look at their citizens
who are intelligent and dissatisfied with the official policies
of the government. This is exactly what Islam has called as the
root cause of mischief in politics. The injunction of the
Prophet is: "When the ruler begins to search for the causes of
dissatisfaction amongst his people, he spoils them" (AD). The
Amir Mu`awiyyah has said that he himself heard the Prophet
saying: "If you try to find out the secrets of the people, then
you will definitely spoil them or at least you will bring them
to the verge of ruin." The meaning of the phrase 'spoil them' is
that when spies (C.I.D. or F.B.I. agents) are spread all around
the country to find out the affairs of men, then the people
begin to look at one another with suspicion, so much so that
people are afraid of talking freely in their houses lest some
word should escape from the lips of their wives and children
which may put them in embarrassing situations. In this manner it
becomes difficult for a common citizen to speak freely, even in
his own house and society begins to suffer from a state of
general distrust and suspicion.
4. The Security of Personal Freedom
Islam has also laid down the principle that no citizen can be
imprisoned unless his guilt has been proved in an open court. To
arrest a man only on the basis of suspicion and to throw him
into a prison without proper court proceedings and without
providing him a reason- able opportunity to produce his defense
is not permissible in Islam. It is related in the Hadíth that
once the Prophet was delivering a lecture in the mosque, when a
man rose during the lecture and said: "O Prophet of God, for
what crime have my neighbors been arrested?" The Prophet heard
the question and continued his speech. The man rose once again
and repeated the same question. The Prophet again did not answer
and continued his speech. The man rose for a third time and
repeated the same question. Then the Prophet ordered that the
man's neighbors be released. The reason why the Prophet had kept
quiet when the question was repeated twice earlier was that the
police officer was present in the mosque and if there were
proper reasons for the arrest of the neighbors of this man, he
would have got up to explain his position. Since the police
officer gave no reasons for these arrests the Prophet ordered
that the arrested persons should be released. The police officer
was aware of the Islamic law and therefore he did not get up to
say: "the administration is aware of the charges against the
arrested men, but they cannot be disclosed in public. If the
Prophet would inquire about their guilt in camera I would
enlighten him." If the police officer had made such a statement,
he would have been dismissed then and there. The fact that the
police officer did not give any reasons for the arrests in the
open court was sufficient reason for the Prophet to give
immediate orders for the release of the arrested men. The
injunction of the Holy Qur’án is very clear on this point.
"Whenever you judge between people, you should judge with (a
sense of) justice" [4:58]. The Prophet has also been asked by
God: "I have been ordered to dispense justice between you." This
was the reason why the Caliph `Umar said: "In Islam no one can
be imprisoned except in pursuance of justice." The words used
here clearly indicate that justice means due process of law.
What has been prohibited and condemned is that a man be arrested
and imprisoned without proof of his guilt in an open court and
without providing him an opportunity to defend himself against
those charges. If the Government suspects that a particular
individual has committed a crime or he is likely to commit an
offence in the near future then they should give reasons for
their suspicion before a court of law and the culprit or the
suspect should be allowed to produce his defense in an open
court, so that the court may decide whether the suspicion
against him is based on sound grounds or not and if there is
good reason for suspicion, then he should be informed of how
long he will be in preventive detention. This decision should be
taken under all circumstances in an open court, so that the
public may hear the charges brought by the government, as well
as the defense made by the accused and see that the due process
of law is being applied to him and he is not being victimized.
The correct method of dealing with such cases in Islam is
exemplified in the famous decision of the Prophet which took
place before the conquest of Mecca. The Prophet was making
preparations for the attack on Mecca, when one of his
Companions, Hatib Ibn Abi Balta'ah sent a letter through a woman
to the authorities in Mecca informing them about the impending
attack. The Prophet came to know of this through a Divine
inspiration. He ordered `Ali and Zubayr: "Go quickly on the
route to Mecca, at such and such a place, you will find a woman
carrying a letter. Recover the letter from her and bring it to
me." So they went and found the woman exactly where the Prophet
had said. They recovered the letter from her and brought it to
the Prophet. This was indeed a clear case of treachery. To
inform the enemy about a secret of an army and that too at the
time of a war is a very serious offence tantamount to treachery.
In fact one cannot think of a more serious crime during war than
giving out a military secret to one's enemy. What could have
been a more suitable case for a secret hearing; a military
secret had been betrayed and common sense demanded that he
should be tried in camera. But the Prophet summoned Hatib to the
open court of the Mosque of the Prophet and in the presence of
hundreds of people asked him to explain his position with regard
to his letter addressed to the leaders of Quraysh which had been
intercepted on its way. The accused said: "O God's Messenger
(may God's blessings be on you) I have not revolted against
Islam, nor have I done this with the intention of betraying a
military secret. The truth of the matter is that my wife and
children are living in Mecca and I do not have my tribe to
protect them there. I had written this letter so that the
leaders of Quraysh may be indebted to me and may protect my wife
and children out of gratitude." `Umar rose and respect- fully
submitted: "O Prophet, please permit me to put this traitor to
the sword." The Prophet replied: "He is one of those people who
had participated in the Battle of Badr, and the explanation he
has advanced in his defense would seem to be correct."
Let us look at this decision of the Prophet in perspective. It
was a clear case of treachery and betrayal of military secrets.
But the Prophet acquitted Hatib on two counts. Firstly, that his
past records were very clean and showed that he could not have
betrayed the cause of Islam, since on the occasion of the Battle
of Badr when there were heavy odds against the Muslims, he had
risked his life for them. Secondly, his family was in fact in
danger at Mecca. Therefore, if he had shown some human weakness
for his children and written this letter, then this punishment
was quite sufficient for him that his secret offence was
divulged in public and he had been disgraced and humiliated in
the eyes of the believers. God has referred to this offence of
Hatib in the Holy Qur’án but did not propose any punishment for
him except rebuke and admonition.
The attitude and activities of the Kharijis in the days of the
Caliph `Ali are well-known to the students of Muslim history.
They used to abuse the Caliph openly, and threaten him with
murder. But whenever they were arrested for these offences, `Ali
would set them free and tell his officers "As long as they do
not actually perpetrate offences against the State, the mere use
of abusive language or the threat of use of force are not such
offences for which they can be imprisoned." The imam Abu Hanifah
has recorded the following saying of the Caliph `Ali (A): "As
long as they do not set out on armed rebellion, the Caliph of
the Faithful will not interfere with them." On another occasion
`Ali was delivering a lecture in the mosque when the Kharijis
raised their special slogan there. `Ali said: "We will not deny
you the right to come to the mosques to worship God, nor will we
stop to give your share from the wealth of the State, as long as
you are with us (and support us in our wars with the
unbelievers) and we shall never take military action against you
as long as you do not fight with us." One can visualize the
opposition which `Ali was facing; more violent and vituperative
opposition cannot even be imagined in a present-day democratic
State; but the freedom that he had allowed to the opposition was
such that no government has ever been able to give to its
opposition. He did not arrest even those who threatened him with
murder nor did he imprison them.
5. The Right to Protest against Tyranny
Amongst the rights that Islam has conferred on human beings is
the right to protest against government's tyranny. Referring to
it the Qur’án says: "God does not love evil talk in public
unless it is by some- one who has been injured thereby" [4:148].
This means that God strongly disapproves of abusive language or
strong words of condemnation, but the person who has been the
victim of injustice or tyranny, God gives him the right to
openly protest against the injury that has been done to him.
This right is not limited only to individuals. The words of the
verse are general. Therefore if an individual or a group of
people or a party usurps power, and after assuming the reins of
authority begins to tyrannize individuals or groups of men or
the entire population of the country, then to raise the voice of
protest against it openly is the God-given right of man and no
one has the authority to usurp or deny this right. If anyone
tries to usurp this right of citizens then he rebels against
God. The talisman of Section 1444 may protect such a tyrant in
this world, but it cannot save him from the hell-fire in the
Hereafter.
6. Freedom of Expression
Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to
all citizens of the Islamic State on the condition that it
should be used for the propagation of virtue and truth and not
for spreading evil and wickedness. This Islamic concept of
freedom of expression is much superior to the concept prevalent
in the West. Under no circumstances would Islam allow evil and
wickedness to be propagated. It also does not give anybody the
right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of
criticism. The right to freedom of expression for the sake of
propagating virtue and righteousness is not only a right in
Islam but also an obligation. One who tries to deny this right
to his people is openly at war with God, the All-Powerful. The
same thing applies to the attempt to stop people from evil.
Whether this evil is perpetrated by an individual or by a group
of people or the government of one's own country or the
government of some other country; it is the right of a Muslim
and it is also his obligation that he should warn and reprimand
the evildoer and try to stop him from doing it. Over and above,
he should openly and publicly condemn it and show the course of
righteousness which that individual, nation or government should
adopt.
The Holy Qur’án has described this quality of the Faithful in
the following words: "They enjoin what is proper and forbid what
is improper" [9:71]. In contrast, describing the qualities of a
hypocrite, the Qur’án mentions: "They bid what is improper and
forbid what is proper" [9:67]. The main purpose of an Islamic
Government has been defined by God in the Qur’án as follows: "If
we give authority to these men on earth they will keep up
prayers, and offer poor-due, bid what is proper and forbid what
is improper" [22:41]. The Prophet has said: "If any one of you
comes across an evil, he should try to stop it with his hand
(using force), if he is not in a position to stop it with his
hand then he should try to stop it by means of his tongue
(meaning he should speak against it). If he is not even able to
use his tongue then he should at least condemn it in his heart.
This is the weakest degree of faith" (Muslim). This obligation
of inviting people to righteousness and forbidding them to adopt
the paths of evil is incumbent on all true Muslims. If any
government deprives its citizens of this right, and prevents
them from performing this duty, then it is in direct conflict
with the injunction of God. The government is not in conflict
with its people, but is in conflict with God. In this way it is
at war with God and is trying to usurp that right of its people
which God has conferred not only as a right but also as an
obligation. As far as the government which itself propagates
evil, wickedness and obscenity and interferes with those who are
inviting people to virtue and righteousness is concerned,
according to the Holy Qur’án it is the government of the
hypocrites.
7. Freedom of Association
Islam has also given people the right to freedom of association
and formation of parties or organizations. This right is also
subject to certain general rules. It should be exercised for
propagating virtue and righteousness and should never be used
for spreading evil and mischief. We have not only been given
this right for spreading righteousness and virtue, but have been
ordered to exercise this right. Addressing the Muslims, the Holy
Qur’án declares:
You are the best community which has been brought forth for
mankind. You command what is proper and forbid what is improper
and you believe in God ... [3:110]
This means that it is the obligation and duty of the entire
Muslim community that it should invite and enjoin people to
righteousness and virtue and forbid them from doing evil. If the
entire Muslim community is not able to perform this duty then
"let there be a community among you who will invite (people) to
(do) good, command what is proper and forbid what is improper,
those will be prosperous" [3:104]. This clearly indicates that
if the entire Muslim nation collectively begins to neglect its
obligation to invite people to goodness and forbid them from
doing evil then it is absolutely essential that it should
contain at least a group of people which may perform this
obligation. As has been said before this is not only a right but
an obligation and on the fulfillment of which depends success
and prosperity here as well as in the Hereafter. It is an irony
with the religion of God that in a Muslim country the assembly
and association that is formed for the purposes of spreading
evil and mischief should have the right to rule over the country
and the association and party which has been formed for
propagating righteous- ness and virtue should live in perpetual
fear of harassment and of being declared illegal. Conditions
here are just the reverse of what has been prescribed by God.
The claim is that we are Muslims and this is an Islamic State
but the work that is being done is directed to spreading evil,
to corrupt and morally degrade and debase the people while there
is an active and effective check on the work being carried out
for reforming society and inviting people to righteousness.
Moreover the life of those who are engaged in spreading
righteousness and checking the spread of evil and wickedness is
made intolerable and hard to bear.
8. Freedom of Conscience and Conviction
Islam also gives the right to freedom of conscience and
conviction to its citizens in an Islamic State. The Holy Qur’án
has laid down the injunction: "There should be no coercion in
the matter of faith" [2:256]. Though there is no truth and
virtue greater than the religion of Truth-Islam, and Muslims are
enjoined to invite people to embrace Islam and advance arguments
in favor of it, they are not asked to enforce this faith on
them. No force will be applied in order to compel them to accept
Islam. Whoever accepts it he does so by his own choice. Muslims
will welcome such a convert to Islam with open arms and admit
him to their community with equal rights and privileges. But if
somebody does not accept Islam, Muslims will have to recognize
and respect his decision, and no moral, social or political
pressure will be put on him to change his mind.
9. Protection of Religious Sentiments
Along with the freedom of conviction and freedom of conscience,
Islam has given the right to the individual that his religious
sentiments will be given due respect and nothing will be said or
done which may encroach upon this right. It has been ordained by
God in the Holy Qur’án: "Do not abuse those they appeal to
instead of God" [6:108]. These instructions are not only limited
to idols and deities, but they also apply to the leaders or
national heroes of the people. If a group of people holds a
conviction which according to you is wrong, and holds certain
persons in high esteem which according to you is not deserved by
them, then it will not be justified in Islam that you use
abusive language for them and thus injure their feelings. Islam
does not prohibit people from holding debate and discussion on
religious matters, but it wants that these discussions should be
conducted in decency. "Do not argue with the people of the Book
unless it is in the politest manner" [29:46]. This order is not
merely limited to the people of the Scriptures, but applies with
equal force to those following other faiths.
10. Protection from Arbitrary Imprisonment
Islam also recognizes the right of the individual that he will
not be arrested or imprisoned for the offences of others. The
Holy Qur’án has laid down this principle clearly: "No bearer of
burdens shall be made to bear the burden of another" [6:164].
Islam believes in personal responsibility. We ourselves are
responsible for our acts, and the consequence of our actions
cannot be transferred to someone else. In other words this means
that every man is responsible for his actions. If another man
has not shared this action then he cannot be held responsible
for it, nor can he be arrested. It is a matter of great regret
and shame that we are seeing this just and equitable principle
which has not been framed by any human being, but by the Creator
and Nourisher of the entire universe, being flouted and violated
before our eyes. So much so that a man is guilty of a crime or
he is a suspect, but his wife being arrested for his crime.
Things have gone so far that innocent people are being punished
for the crimes of others. To give a recent example, in Karachi
(Pakistan), a man was suspected of being involved in a bomb
throwing incident. In the course of police investigation he was
subjected to horrible torture in order to extract a confession
from him. When he insisted on his innocence, then the police
arrested his mother, his wife, daughter and sister and brought
them to the police station. They were all stripped naked in his
presence and he was stripped naked of all his clothes before
their eyes so that a confession of the crime could be extracted
from him. It appears as if for the sake of investigation of
crime it has become proper and legal in our country to strip the
innocent women folk of the household in order to bring pressure
on the suspect. This is indeed very outrageous and shameful.
This is the height of meanness and depravity. This is not a mere
hearsay which I am repeating here, but I have full information
about this case and can prove my allegations in any court of
law. I would here like to ask what right such tyrants who
perpetrate these crimes against mankind have to tell us that
they are Muslims or that they are conducting the affairs of the
state according to the teachings of Islam and their state is an
Islamic State; they are breaching and flouting a clear law of
the Holy Qur’án. They are stripping men and women naked which is
strictly forbidden in Islam. They disgrace and humiliate
humanity and then they claim that they are Muslims.
11. The Right to Basic Necessities of Life
Islam has recognized the right of the needy people that help and
assistance will be provided for them. "And in their wealth there
is acknowledged right for the needy and the destitute" [51:19].
In this verse, the Qur’án has not only conferred a right on
every man who asks for assistance in the wealth of the Muslims,
but has also laid down that if a Muslim comes to know that a
certain man is without the basic necessities of life, then
irrespective of the fact whether he asks for assistance or not,
it is his duty to reach him and give all the help that he can
extend. For this purpose Islam has not depended only on the help
and charity that is given voluntarily, but has made compulsory
charity, Zakat as the third pillar of Islam, next only to
profession of faith and worship of God through holding regular
prayers. The Prophet has clearly instructed in this respect
that: "It will be taken from their rich and given to those in
the community in need" (al-Bukhari and Muslim). In addition to
this, it has also been declared that the Islamic State should
support those who have nobody to support them. The Prophet has
said: "The Head of state is the guardian of him, who has nobody
to support him" (AD, al-Tirmidhi). The word wali which has been
used by the Prophet is a very comprehensive word and has a wide
range of meanings. If there is an orphan or an aged man, if
there is a crippled or unemployed person, if one is invalid or
poor and has no one else to support him or help him, then it is
the duty and the responsibility of the state to support and
assist him. If a dead man has no guardian or heir, then it is
the duty of the state to arrange for his proper burial. In short
the state has been entrusted with the duty and responsibility of
looking after all those who need help and assistance. A truly
Islamic State is therefore a truly welfare state which will be
the guardian and protector of all those in need.
12. Equality before Law
Islam gives its citizens the right to absolute and complete
equality in the eyes of the law. As far as the Muslims are
concerned, there are clear instructions in the Holy Qur’án and
Hadíth that in their rights and obligations they are all equal:
"The believers are brothers (to each other)" [49:10]. "If they
(disbelievers) repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-due,
they are your brothers in faith" [9:11]. The Prophet has said
that: "The life and blood of Muslims are equally precious" (AD;
Ibn Majah). In another Hadíth he has said: "The protection given
by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man of them can grant
protection to any man" (al-Bukhari; Sahih Muslim; AD). In
another more detailed Tradition of the Prophet, it has been said
that those who accept the Oneness of God, believe in the
Prophet- hood of His Messenger, give up primitive prejudices and
join the Muslim community and brotherhood, "then they have the
same rights and obligations as other Muslims have" (al-Bukhari;
al-Nasa'i). Thus there is absolute equality between the new
converts to Islam and the old followers of the faith.
This religious brotherhood and the uniformity of their rights
and obligations is the foundation of equality in Islamic
society, in which the rights and obligations of any person are
neither greater nor lesser in any way than the rights and
obligations of other people. As far as the non- Muslim citizens
of the Islamic State are concerned, the rule of Islamic Sharí`ah
(law) about them has been very well expressed by the Caliph `Ali
in these words: "They have accepted our protection only because
their lives may be like our lives and their properties like our
properties" (AD). In other words, their (of the dhimmis) lives
and properties are as sacred as the lives and properties of the
Muslims. Discrimination of people into different classes was one
of the greatest crimes that, according to the Qur’án, Pharaoh
used to indulge in: "He had divided his people into different
classes," ... "And he suppressed one group of them (at the cost
of others)" [28:4].
13. Rulers Not Above the Law
Islam clearly insists and demands that all officials of the
Islamic State, whether he be the head or an ordinary employee,
are equal in the eyes of the law. None of them is above the law
or can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen in Islam has the
right to put forward a claim or file a legal complaint against
the highest executive of the country. The Caliph `Umar said, "I
have myself seen the Prophet, may God's blessings be on him,
taking revenge against himself (penalizing himself for some
shortcoming or failing)." On the occasion of the Battle of Badr,
when the Prophet was straightening the rows of the Muslim army
he hit the belly of a soldier in an attempt to push him back in
line. The soldier complained "O Prophet, you have hurt me with
your stick." The Prophet immediately bared his belly and said:
"I am very sorry, you can revenge by doing the same to me." The
soldier came forward and kissed the abdomen of the Prophet and
said that this was all that he wanted.
A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in
connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet,
and it was recommended that she may be spared the punishment of
theft. The Prophet replied: "The nations that lived before you
were destroyed by God because they punished the common men for
their offences and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their
crimes; I swear by Him (God) who holds my life in His hand that
even if Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, has committed this
crime then I would have amputated her hand." During the
caliphate of `Umar, Muhammad the son of 'Amr Ibn al-'As the
Governor of Egypt, whipped an Egyptian. The Egyptian went to
Medina and lodged his complaint with the Righteous Caliph, who
immediately summoned the Governor and his son to Medina. When
they appeared before him in Medina, the Caliph handed a whip to
the Egyptian complainant and asked him to whip the son of the
Governor in his presence. After taking his revenge when the
Egyptian was about to hand over the whip to `Umar, he said to
the Egyptian: "Give one stroke of the whip to the Honorable
Governor as well. His son would certainly have not beaten you
were it not for the false pride that he had in his father's high
office." The plaintiff submitted: "The person who had beaten me,
I have already avenged myself on him." `Umar said: "By God, if
you had beaten him (the Governor) I would not have checked you
from doing so. You have spared him of your own free will." Then
he (`Umar) angrily turned to 'Amr Ibn al-'As and said: "O 'Amr,
when did you start to enslave the people, though they were born
free of their mothers?" When the Islamic State was flourishing
in its pristine glory and splendor, the common people could
equally lodge complaints against the caliph of the time in the
court and the caliph had to appear before the qadi to answer the
charges. If the caliph had any complaint against any citizen, he
could not use his administrative powers and authority to set the
matter right, but had to refer the case to the court of law for
proper adjudication.
14. The Right to Avoid Sin
Islam also confers this right on every citizen that he will not
be ordered to commit a sin, a crime or an offence; and if any
government, or the administrator, or the head of department
orders an individual to do a wrong, then he has the right to
refuse to comply with the order. His refusal to carry out such
crime or unjust instructions would not be regarded as an offence
in the eyes of the Islamic law. On the contrary giving orders to
one's subordinates to commit a sin or do a wrong is itself an
offence and such a serious offence that the officer who gives
this sinful order whatever his rank and position may be, is
liable to be summarily dismissed. These clear instructions of
the Prophet are summarized in the following Hadíth: "It is not
permissible to disobey God in obedience to the orders of any
human being" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal). In other words, no one has
the right to order his subordinates to do anything against the
laws of God. If such an order is given, the subordinate has the
right to ignore it or openly refuse to carry out such
instructions. According to this rule no offender will be able to
prove his innocence or escape punishment by saying that this
offence was committed on the orders of the government or
superior officers. If such a situation arises then the person
who commits the offence and the person who orders that such an
offence be committed, will both be liable to face criminal
proceedings against them. If an officer takes any improper and
unjust measures against a subordinate who refuses to carry out
illegal orders, then the subordinate has the right to go to the
court of law for the protection of his rights, and he can demand
that the officer be punished for his wrong or unjust orders.
15. The Right to Participate in the Affairs of State
According to Islam, governments in this world are actually
representatives (khulafa') of the Creator of the universe, and
this responsibility is not entrusted to any individual or family
or a particular class or group of people but to the entire
Muslim nation. The Holy Qur’án says: "God has promised to
appoint those of you who believe and do good deeds as (His)
representatives on earth" [24:55]. This clearly indicates that
khilafah is a collective gift of God in which the right of every
individual Muslim is neither more nor less than the right of any
other person. The correct method recommended by the Holy Qur’án
for running the affairs of the state is as follows: "And their
business is (conducted) through consultation among themselves"
[42:38]. According to this principle it is the right of every
Muslim that either he should have a direct say in the affairs of
the state or a representative chosen by him and other Muslims
should participate in the consultation of the state. Islam,
under no circumstance, permits or tolerates that an individual
or a group or party of individuals may deprive the common
Muslims of their rights, and usurp powers of the state.
Similarly, Islam does not regard it right and proper that an
individual may put up a false show of setting up a legislative
assembly and by means of underhand tactics such as fraud,
persecution, bribery, etc., gets himself and men of his choice
elected in the assembly. This is not only a treachery against
the people whose rights are usurped by illegal and unfair means,
but against the Creator Who has entrusted the Muslims to rule on
this earth on His behalf, and has prescribed the procedure of an
assembly for exercising these powers. The shura or the
legislative assembly has no other meaning except that:
1. The executive head of the government and the members of the
assembly should be elected by free and independent choice of the
people.
2. The people and their representatives should have the right to
criticize and freely express their opinions.
3. The real conditions of the country should be brought before
the people without suppressing any fact so that they may be able
to form their opinion about whether the government is working
properly or not.
4. There should be adequate guarantee that only those people who
have the support of the masses should rule over the country and
those who fail to win this support should be removed from their
position of authority.
0 comments:
Post a Comment