“Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God. These few words are profoundly rich with wisdom…. Religion and statecraft are two of the many wheels of the wagon of society. It is, in reality, irrelevant whether there are two, four and eight wheels as long as they keep their orientation correct and revolve within their orbits. There can be no question of mutual conflict or confrontation.”
In worldly matters, Islam enjoins obedience to “those who are in authority among you” (4:60) and forbids anarchy of any kind, even that exercised in the name of reform, as is admonished, “And when it is said to them, ‘Create not disorder in the earth,’ they say ‘We are only promoters of peace’. Beware! It is surely they who create disorder, but they do not perceive it” (2:12-13)” Prophet Muhammad(saw) advised, “You are obligated to hear and to obey in prosperity and in adversity, willingly or unwillingly, and even when you are treated unjustly”.
Following the law, and seeking recourse through appropriate means, is not to be abandoned as long as there is freedom of religion in the land. Prophet Muhammad(saw) is reported to have said that, “Your worst rulers will be those whom you hate and who hate you.” When the companions asked him if they should boycott them he said, “Not so long as they maintain the prayer services; not so long as they maintain the prayer services.” Thus, Muslim subjects can never be a threat to any system of governance that does not interfere with their right to pray.
Richardson’s allegation that Prophet Muhammad had the goal of ‘total Islamic supremacy’ is belied by the content of the Constitution of Medina which “is a clear indication of the lines on which the Apostle was building the ummah. It was a multi-religious community.” It is interesting to note that this first constitution of the Arabian Prophet dealt almost exclusively with the civil and political relations of the citizens among themselves and with the outside.”
Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(ra) stated
“The Holy Qur’an says: “There is no compulsion in religion (2:257).” [....] It says there is NO coercion in faith or in matters of faith[.….] 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. The only authority in Islam, which was genuinely capable of being given the right to coerce, was the Founder of Islam, Prophet Muhammad(saw)…because he was a living model of Islam….Yet, addressing him, Allah says in the Qur’an: “Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher; Thou hast no authority to compel them (88:22-23).” You are just an admonisher. No more. You are given NO authority to coerce. Most of Islam and most of Christianity and most of Hinduism can be practiced 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.”
Don Richardson raises the question of divided loyalties of Muslims living in Western countries, especially the U.S.. He asserts that this question has been resolved for Christians by Jesus but Muslims cannot be obedient to a constitution that is not based on Shariah, and will pose a dilemma for those Muslims who might be asked to fight for their adopted countries.Since the U.S. Constitution is not opposed to shariah, there is no room for confusion or conflict in the minds of intelligent Muslims. Fortunately for the Ahmadiyya Community this matter has been expounded on with such clarity that they are free from the danger of being influenced by the hate-filled rhetoric of the militant factions.
The Promised Messiahas, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, laid down very clearly:
“Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘those in authority’ does not include a non-Muslim-Government would be a manifest error.For,a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘authority from among you.’ Those who are not against us are among us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.”
(Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)So also in the Hadith, the Holy Prophet(saw) says:
“He who obeys me, obeys God; he who disobeys me disobeys God. He who obeys his authority obeys me; he who disobeys his authority disobeys me”
(Muslim, Kitab al Imarah).
“In this hadith the whole subject of obedience becomes illuminated… Loyalty and obedience belong by right only to God, Creator, Master, Lord of Men and Nations. Others have authority derived from Him….[O]ne who has authority among men is responsible for discipline, for order among God’s creatures; a guardian of their lives, property and honor. Obedience to such a one is most pleasing to God. It is obedience to God.”
The Ahmadiyya Muslim stance on whether a Muslim would fight for America is unequivocal:
“One imaginary situation is often posed. Two countries, both with Ahmadi populations, go to war, Ahmadis in the two countries profess loyalty to their respective Governments. What are Ahmadis going to do in such a contingency? Our answer has always been this: Yes, even in such a contingency, Ahmadis will remain loyal to their respective Governments. This belief…is…taught by God and explained by His Prophet…. If loyalty to their respective Governments results in the killing of Ahmadis by Ahmadis, well that is there and, there is nothing more to be said or done. It is but a consequence, an obligation entailed by our religious belief. Principles have priority over persons. Persons may be sacrificed for the sake of principles, not principles for the sake of persons. Such mutual killing will be forgiven [and] … will be the result of His Own teaching, of conditions, over which we have no control.”
“To be brief, the Ahmadiyya stand is clear and clean. Need we reiterate that we Ahmadis living in different countries, under different states and Governments, are loyal to the countries in which we live, to the states and Government under which we live…. This is the divine command and the voice of our hearts. And he who does not believe us and attributes some other belief to us, offends against God and grievously wrongs us.”
Islam has a long history of governing vast empires, comprising populations of diverse religions, cultures, races, and languages with the golden principle of freedom of religion and speech. Islam conquered lands to improve the condition of people by establishing the rule of law and freedom of religion, providing social services, investing in science and philosophy, and eradicating differences in class, gender, and race. Today, the moral and intellectual condition of Muslims is such that they need to look towards their own reformation rather than try to conquer countries that have already adopted the very principles taught by Islam.
Historically, the correct interpretation of Islamic theology led to a concept of human rights that the West arrived at almost a thousand years later. “In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field. These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of “bidding unto good” (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women’s rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation..”
The charge that Muslims do not feel obligated to obey laws that are not dictated by ‘shariah’ is erroneous since the laws that govern the temporal aspects of a Muslim’s life are secular in nature. “[T]he manner in which an act was qualified as morally good or bad in the spiritual domain of Islamic religion was quite different from the manner in which that same act was qualified as legally valid or invalid in the temporal domain of Islamic law. Islamic law was… focused on ensuring that an individual received justice, not that one be a good person.”
In terms of women’s rights, women generally had more legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, “French married women, unlike their Muslim sisters, suffered from restrictions on their legal capacity which were removed only in 1965.” Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, notes: “As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them.”
In today’s political and religious climate, it is understandable that concerns about the separation of church and state may arise. However, intellectual integrity dictates that answers to these concerns be thoroughly sought. Richardson’s allegations bear the marks of extreme haste in jumping to conclusions and blatant intellectual dishonesty. Without question, Islam does not posit that Shariah be a trump card to state government.
No comments:
Post a Comment