Human Rights in Islam

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 till you meet your Lord on the Day of Resurrection." God
Almighty has laid down in the Holy Quran:

"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
Abu Dawud). Islam prohibits homicide but allows only one exception, that the killing is done in the due
process of law which the Quran 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 Shari'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 may miscarry justice.

Nor can the crimes of state be justified on the authority of the Holy Quran or Traditions (hadith) 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 Quran.

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 Quran 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).

The Protection of Honour

The second important right is the right of the citizens to the protection of their honour. 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
honour, respect and chastity were forbidden to one another. The Holy Quran 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 honour which is indeed much superior to and better than
the Western Law of Defama- tion. According to the Islamic Law if it is proved that someone has attacked
the honour of another person, then irrespective of the fact whether or not the victim is able to prove
himself a respectable and honourable 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 honour and public esteem and during the interrogation he is
subjected to the scurrilous attacks, accusations and innuendoes of the defence 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 honour 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
honour of the plaintiff, is enough for the accused to be declared guilty of defamation.

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 Quran 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" (Abu
Dawud). The Amir Mu'awiyah 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.

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 defence
is not permissible in Islam. It is related in the hadith 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
neighbours 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 neighbours 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
neighbours 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
Quran is very clear on this point.

"Whenever you judge between people, you should judge with (a sense of) justice" (4:58).

And 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 defence 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 defence 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 Makkah. The Prophet was making preparations for the
attack on Makkah, when one of his Companions, Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah sent a letter through a woman to
the authorities in Makkah 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 Makkah, 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 Makkah 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 defence 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 Makkah.

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 Quran 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.

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 Quran says:

"God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone 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.

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 an obligation. One who tries to deny this right to his people is openly at war with God,
the All-Powerful. And 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 evil-doer 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 Quran 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 Quran 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 Quran 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 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 Quran it is the
government of the hypocrites.

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 Quran 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 fulfilment 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 righteousness
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.

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 Quran 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 favour 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.
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 Quran:

"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)

says the Quran. This order is not merely limited to the people of the Scriptures, but applies with equal
force to those following other faiths.

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 Quran 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 conduct- ing 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 Quran. 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.

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 Quran 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" (Abu Dawud, 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.

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 Quran and hadith 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 Ipoor-due, they are your brothers in faith"
(9:11).

The Prophet has said that: "The life and blood of Muslims are equally precious" (Abu Dawud; Ibn
Majjah). In another hadith 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; Muslim; Abu Dawud). 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-
Nisa'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 Shari'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" (Abu Dawud).

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 Quran, 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).

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 Honourable 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 splendour, 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. And 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.

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 hadith: "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. And 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.

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 Quran 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 Quran 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.

Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic state

Introduction:
Most Muslim states of the present times are secular and we have no working model on which to base
the study of the rights of non-Muslims in Islamic state. Like other aspects of the Islamic system, once it is
adopted in practice in our times, a great deal of innovative thinking and creative interpretation and
application would be called for. Nevertheless, we can form an idea of the rights and obligations of non-
Muslim groups in an Islamic state of the modern age by going back to the Qur’an,Hadith and early
history of Islam to discover what rights in principle are granted to those in an Islamic state who do not
subscribe to the ideology of the state and what humanistic values an Islamic society is under absolute
obligation to uphold. The Qur’an declares that man is the noblest of all the creation1 . The universe is
made for him and is subservient to his purposes. Among all the creation he alone is endowed with moral
and rational powers and is charged with the grave and all important responsibility of subduing nature
and pressing it in the service of good ends2 . For the realization of these objective ends first of all umma
was established and integrated at Makkah3 and then it was politically organized at Madinah4 . No doubt
the setting up of a state and government was regarded by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
as a much less important event than the original compact leading to the establishment of umma but
using Rousseau’s language, state and government had to be considered as a necessary means for the
development of the moral potentialities of man’s original nature.

Following the foundation of the Islamic state at Madinah, the Charter (Mithaq al-Madinah) that
Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave to the citizens of the newly founded state was not merely a
treaty of alliance but a written constitution5 defining the rights and obligations of the citizens and
subjects of the new polity. It granted to the citizens and subjects alike the liberty of thought, conscience,
equality, equity and fraternity irrespective of their caste, colour, creed or social status. It was a time
when the Christians still preached the doctrine that “man is born sinful and that Jesus Christ had
sacrificed himself for the atonement of Christians”.

In view of the above statements, we have to examine first the concept of dhimma in Islam and the
nominal obligation imposed on the nonMuslims. Next we shall proceed to discuss the rights of dhimmis
or nonMuslim minorities in the Islamic state.

THE CONCEPT OF DHIMMA AND DHIMMI

Non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state whose protection is guaranteed by the state as well as
individual Muslims are called dhimmis. The term dhimmi or ahl al-dhimma means those Christians, Jews
and others who agree to live in Dar al-Islam under the protection of Muslim umma subject to rendering
military service or in lieu thereof a nominal obligation, i.e. payment of Jizya6 . Muslim jurists hold that
protection can be given to all in the Dar al-Islam save the idolators of Arab. As Prophet himself gave
protection to the Magians (Majus) of Hajr by realizaing jizyah from them so they are also treated at par
with the men of book (ahl al-kitab) in the writings of Muslim jurists7 . The acceptance of jizyah from the
Magians of Hajr implies that it can be exacted from the polytheists of the state as well.

According to al-Baladhuri, the Prophet exacted it from the Magians of Hahr, ‘Umar took it from the
Persians and ‘Uthman from the Berbers of Africa8 . The non-acceptance of jizyah from the Arab idolators
by the Prophet seems to be due to the fact that by that time the revelation regarding jizyah had not
been received. “Had any of the idolators remained outside the orbit of Islam after the revelation about
jizyah, the Prophet would have accepted it from them too and they would have become the dimma of
the Islamic state9 .”

It is noteworthy that the concept of dhimma and dhimmi emerged only after the conquest of Makkah
which took place in the year 8 A.H, Prior to that the agreements entered into between the Prophet and
the polytheists were pacts of mutual help and cooperation. Hence they were neither the protected
people (ahl al-dhimma) nor any law of the Islamic state could be applied to them10. This is warranted by
the fact that the injunctions regarding Jizya11 were received by the Prophet only in the year 9 A.H. that
is to say, only after the conquest of Makkah12.

The imposition of jizyah on non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state has been differently interpreted by
the Muslim jurists. The general view that can fairly be guessed from the writings of the jurists is that
jizyah is imposed upon the non-Muslims as a badge of humiliation for their unbelief or by way of mercy
for the protection given to them by the Islamic state. Some consider it as a mark of punishment for their
unbelief because of their continuous stay in the Dar al-Islam which is a crime. Hence they have no
escape from being humiliated through the imposition of tax13. Others contend that protection is given
to non-Muslims with a view that they may mix up with the Muslim population, adopt their good
qualities and ultimately embrace Islam14. However, there was an economic motive behind the
imposition of Jizyah on non-Muslims, they insist.

Commenting upon the various theories of jizyah by the classical jurists, a scholar of the present age says
that the Qur’anic verse IX:29 regarding jizyah has been understood in compact literal sense without
taking it in its true historical perspective. Perhaps it is due to this misunderstanding, he adds,that jurists
and exegetes consider jizyah as a mark of degradation for the non-Muslims in Islam and infer corollaries
reflective of their humiliation15. It appears as if these jurists “in making farfetched theories about the
term saghirun (used in the Qur’an and upon which they constructed their theories) have suggested such
provisions as are probably contrary to the facts and certainly opposed to the (very) ethics of Islam16.”

A close study of the early history of jizyah, particularly since its imposition by the Prophet till late in the
period of the Khulafa Rashidin will reveal that it was an obligation through the payment of which non-
Mulim citizens of the Islamic state were exempted from rendering military service and through which
they were expected to pay allegiance to the political authority of Islam. There is nothing to prove that it
was imposed just to humiliate the non-Muslims or to make them socially degraded. Had it been so then
women, children, monks, unemployed, blind,sick and crippled would never have been exempted from
the payment of jizyah17. The categories of persons mentioned above were not only exempted from
jizyah but were also given stipends from the state treasury as and when needy were detected18. There
are living examples of return of jizyah to non-Muslims by the Muslim generals when they found
themselves unable to protect them against their enemies because of their engagements in the war.19

It is to be observed that jizyah has been misunderstood as a discriminatory tax, making as invidious
distinction among the citizens of the Islamic state. This charge is perhaps based on ignorance of the
Islamic 112 polity. “If it discriminated at all, it discriminated against Muslim protectrors themselves who
were compelled to pay higher taxes and also had the duty to fight for the state: there is no compulsory
military service for the nonMuslims20. Jizyah was an obligation and non-Muslim citizens agreed to pay
it. Its payment entitled them to reap the fruit of almost all the rights and privileges in the state and at
par with the Muslim subjects. To put it into other words, non-Muslims owed their loyalty to the state
through the payment of this tax or rendering military service and enjoyed the rights and unfolding of
themselves which is the other side of that loyalty. With the above preliminary discussion about the
concept of dhimma and dhimmi, the nature of jizyah and its payment we shall now discuss the rights
and status of non-Muslims in the Islamic state

RIGHTS OF NON-MUSLIMS IN ISLAMIC STATE

A cursory glance at the verses of the holy Qur’an and Hadith literature reveals the fact that Islam stands
for universal peace and prosperity. It aims at the betterment of humanity at large. It strives to create
those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best.
Liberty, according to Islam, therefore, means the absence of restraint upon the exsistence of those
conditions which are the essential guarantees of individual happiness both in this world and the world to
come. The address of Qur’an is to humanity at large and not to Muslims alone. Hence these conditions
of social life are meant not only for the Muslims but for those as well who do not subscribe to the
ideology of the Islamic state and live in the Islamic state21.

Civil Rights of Non-Muslims

Civil rights of citizens are those recognized claims in the state which enable them to lead a decent and
honourable life in the society and which provide them with opportunities to seek happiness and develop
their 113 personality. Again, it is through civil rights that citizens of a state attain the highest goals in
civilized society. These rights, beside others, include the right to life and property, freedom of
movement and vocation in life, family relations and freedom of conscience and faith. The content of civil
rights vary from time to time but it is an admitted fact that civil liberty will be at its greatest if two
conditions are established: when the rights of private action are clearly defined in ample terms to cover
the widest range of such action and when these rights are so defined, are strictly enforced by definite
remedies which can be applied as speedily and effectively as possible. Islam grants and protects the
right to life and honour to every individual regardless of one’s creed or colour. According to the holy
Qur’an, he who deprives another from his life without lawful authority and just cause is regarded as the
one who has killed humanity at large22. Allah does not like injustice or wrong to His creation23.

Islam regards the life of a dhimmi as sacred as that of a Muslim. He cannot be deprived of his right to life
save in accordance with the law of the state24. If a non-Muslim suffers the loss of life or property at the
hands of a Muslim, the latter will be dealt with in accordance with the law and he will have to make
good for that. Just as a Muslim cannot do wrong or injustice to his fellow being, similarly he cannot do
wrong to non-Muslims25. A Prophetic Tradition is quoted in this regard:

“He who wrongs a man to whom a covenant has been given or burdens him above his capacity, I shall
advocate against him on the Day of Judgement26.”

A Muslim can neither torture a non-Muslim nor can he insult him in any way 27. The Prophet is
reported to have said: 114

“He who tortures a dhimmi is like the one who has counteracted him (the Prophet). I sahall counteract
against him (he who tortures a dhimmi) on the Day of Judgment who has counteracted him28.”
Jurists of different schools of thought agree that it is the responsibility of all the Muslims to protect the
civil rights of non-Muslim minorities and to see that none of them is wronged29. The reason is that after
coming under the protectioin of Islam, they now belong to the Dar al-Islam. They shall enjoy the
privileges granted by Islam30. In this connection a statement ascribed to “Ali is worth mentioning. He is
reported to have once said:

“They (Dhimmis) give jizyah to us generously so that their wealth become like that of ours and their
blood like our blood31.”

It must be noted here that Muslim jurists not only remained contented with that they theorized about
the rights of non-Muslims but when they saw something wrong done to the non-Muslims they warned
the rulers reminding them of the obligations Islam had imposed on them in connection with the rights of
non-Muslim minorities32

. As said earlier, Muslim generals returned jizyah to their nonMuslim subjects in case they felt that due
to military operations against their enemies, they would not be in a position to protect them. Muslim
generals and other responsible leaders scrupulously adhered to the injunctions of the Shari’ah regarding
the right of non-Muslim minorities in the Dar al-Islam. Even if it is supposed for the time being that some
one ill-treated nonMuslims, that cannot be ascribed to Islam. The failings of a person or group of
persons, only superficially professing a religion itself.

Islam allows its non-Muslim minorities the freedom of their movement and profession. They can move
anywhere they like and settle 115 anywhere they please subject to certain restrictions. One such
restriction is that they cannot enter the sacred places of Muslims33. They may visit the holy cities of
Muslims but cannot settle there permanently34. Such restrictions are made on the authority of certain
Traditions from the Prophet35. As non-Muslims do not believe in the ideology of Islam, so naturally they
would not go to such places or cities and settle there. On the part of the Islamic state these are
precautionary measures only. Such restrictions are also necessary from the law and order point of view
because if non-Muslims enter the sanctuaries of Muslims and something unusual happens, it will injure
the feelings of one another and jeopardize their cordial relations.

Just as non-Muslims have been given the right to freely move in the country subject to the common law
of the land, similarly they are also permitted to visit foreign countries in connection with their business
activities subject to certain conditions common for all. Outside the state too they are the dhimma of the
Muslims and the Islamic state. They are, however, not allowed to visit a state or states hostile to the
Islamic state36. If a dhimmi falls captive at the hands of a foreign state, Islam imposes a duty on the
rulers of the Islamic state and the Muslims to leave no stone unturned for the release and safe return of
such a non-Muslim to his home. His ransome money may also be paid from the public exchequer if he is
not in a position to pay the dues37. Islam does not permit the rulers of the Islamic state to detain or
arrest a non-Muslim citizen unless he actually breaks the law of the land38.

Islam grants and protects the right to education and property and profession to its non-Muslim
minorities in accordance with their own belief system. Their services may also be utilized in educating
the Muslims39. They are allowed to cling to their ancient cultural patterns40, and preserve their native
language. Moreover, they may adopt any profession. In Islamic history, in such lucrative occupations as
banking, medical profession etc. Non-Muslims have been well represented and firmly established.

Like its Muslim citizens, the Islamic state guarantees to the nonMuslim citizens the right to family and its
secrecy. No one can enter their abodes without their permission. This right of dhimmis is based on
textual injunctions41 which are as much valid for the non-Muslims as for the Muslim citizens42.
Likewise, non-Muslims have been given a choice to get their civil cases decided either according to the
Islamic law or according to their own personal laws43. According to Fatawa ‘Alamgiri, the dhimmis are
not subject to the tashri’i law of Islam. Legal relations among themselves shall be governed by the law of
their own religion44. History is replete with instances when the non-Muslim brought their disputes for
settlement before the early rulers of the Islamic state which they decided according to the personal laws
of the non-Muslims. However, in punishing the crimes against humanity, such as adultery, murder, theft,
robbery, assault etc, the same law was applicable to all and sundry in the state.

Religious Rights and Liberty to Non-Muslims

Non-Muslims in an Islamic state can freely profess their own belief system. Actually when the Qur’an
inculcates the necessity for Jihad it mentions the protection of other religions before the protection of
Islam itself. The order in which the protection of the places of worship is mentioned in the Qur’an is
worth noticing and is very significant to appreciate the spirit of Islam and its philosophy of war. The
Qur’an says:

“Had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled
down cloisters and churches and synagogues and the mosques in which Allah’s name is much
remembered45.”

In the above verse, the worship place of Muslims (mosques) is mentioned last and not first. This shows
how much importance has been attached to the rights of freedom of worship and freedom of
conscience, the rights from which so many other civil rights and liberties flow.

Islam does not impose its own way of life or faith on others for, according to the teachings of Qur’an
“there is no compulsion in din”46. However, this does not mean that Muslims should not preach Islam.
Muslims may invite non-Muslims to the fold of Islam but in a decent, cultured and behaving manner47.
They are, however, forbidden to compel others to embrace Islam. It follows that non-Muslim minorities
of the Islamic state can freely and fearlessly perform their religious ceremonies in places of their
worship. It is explicitly forbidden in the tashri’i law of Islam to demolish or discrete the places of their
worship48. The presence of their churches and synagogues in cities of the early Islamic state implies the
Ijma’ of the Muslim umma to the effect that non-Muslims should have the places of their worship in the
Dar al-Islam and that they must be protected from encroachment by others49. They are permitted to
construct their churches and synagogues in cities other than those constructed by Muslims50. They are
also permitted to construct places of their worship in cities where they are in majority. In Muslim
majority towns, the point of constructing new churches and synagogues is controversial. Some hold that
they can construct51. While others contend that they cannot construct the places of their worship in
such towns52. There is however, consensus of opinion among the Muslim jurists to the effect that they
cannot construct their churches or synagogues in Hijaz or its vicinity53.

Likewise, non-Muslims are allowed to perform their rituals within the places of their worship. In towns
where they are in majority, they may also perform their religious functions outside their churches and
synagogues 54. They have also been given the liberty to beat their trumpets (for religious ends) any time
in the day or night. However, during prayer times of Muslims they are not permitted to do so55 and of
course they must not do so. In fact, in safeguarding the rights of non-Muslims, Islam has given them
such liberal concessions as to give them the liberty of maintaining even those practices which are
forbidden to Muslims. For example, the consumption of intoxicants is forbidden to Muslims but the non-
Muslims have the liberty not only of consumption but also of its manufacture, important sale subject to
certain conditions56.

Non-Muslims of the Islamic state enjoyed their religious rights and liberties not only in the formative
phase of the Islamic state but in later ages as well when liberal concessions seem to have been given to
them in this respect. It is important to note here that the Umayyid caliph, ‘Umar bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz who
himself wondered why so much religious liberties had been given to non-Muslims by his predecessors,
once inquired the learned scholar of the day, namely, Hassan al-Basri, about this. The answer of the
latter was that the status given to them in the state was in lieu of the jizyah exacted from them and
advised the caliph to keep firm to what his predecessors had done in that respect57.

Economic Rights and Liberties

Economic rights mean the freedom of earning decent and sufficient economic earnings and also
freedom from fear of unemployment or loss of economic income. It also means security and the
opportunity to find reasonable significance in the earning of one’s daily bread. Actually economic rights
and liberties are pre-conditions of other rights and liberties. None of them can really exist without them.
An individual cannot be really free if hunger, starvation and destitution stare at him in the face at every
step. People, especially minorities in a state cannot be expected to remain loyal to the state if they do
not have economic rights and liberties. Islam is not ignorant of this reality.

We have already mentioned the securities Islam provides for its non-Muslim minorities in this respect. It
may be added here that Islam provides equal opportunities to its non-Muslim citizens in the economic
field of their life. They are given the freedom to adopt any profession subject to the common law of the
country. However, they cannot practice Riba’(usuary) which is prohibited for all and sundry in the
Islamic state58.

The most important point to be noted here is that if any of the nonMuslims becomes destitute, crippled
or sick, he has as much claims on the state treasury as any other Muslim59. Muslim generals have not
only given such undertakings to the dhimmis at the time of granting them citizenship of the Islamic
state60 but the early rulers of the Islamic state are also reported to have sanctioned huge sums to the
deserving persons from among the nonMuslims from the public treasury (bayt al-mal) of the state.
 It must be mentioned here that there is no bar on the trade activities of the non-Muslims in an Islamic
state save subject to certain legal restrictions referred to in the preceding section of the present study.

Political Rights and Privileges of Non-Muslims

Political rights are those recognized claims of the citizens by dint of which they are enabled to take
active part in the affairs of government and render those services of which they are capable of along
with political participation of the citizens, Islam also ensures its citizens the freedom of speech so long as
it does not aim at undermining the basic tenets of the Islamic state. Islam does grant political rights to
its non-Muslim minorities but certainly not in the sense known to the West or the Westernized. A non
Muslim citizen of the Islamic state cannot offer his services for any political office for which he is not fit
just as a Muslim is in the same state61. Nor of course, a non-Muslim can be overburdened with such
responsibility because political services in the Shari’ah are not rights. They are obligations and burden
which are imposed only on those who are capable to shoulder such responsibilities of political nature
with skill and ease62. Had political services been rights the Prophet would never have refused
assignments to those who had asked for them.

Since Islamic state is basically an ideological one, hence only those persons are to be entrusted with its
key administrative posts who believe in its ideology and are conversant with its spirit and also have
dedicated themselves to the promotion of the objectives of the Islamic state63. Hence non-Muslims in
principle can neither be entrusted with the responsibility of the office of the head of the state nor can
they take part in his election or selection64. The reason is that rule, according to Muslim jurists, is
established to defend the faith and administer the day to day business of the state65. The religious
nature of head of the state alone and nothing else prevents non-Muslims either to hold it or take part in
its installation through election or selection. But this does not mean that Islam taboos the utilization of
non-Muslims in the service of the state. This only means that while availing of the services of the non-
Muslims, due care should be taken that the Islamic character of the state is not compromised and the
ideological demands are not sacrificed at the altar of the so-called tolerance. However, in modern times
when most of the Muslim states have become secular in nature, there should be no reason to debar a
non-Muslim from taking part in the election of the head of the state66. But in the classical state that
actually existed or the one depicted by the Muslim jurists no such concession can be given in the name
of mere tolerance.

Before considering other political rights of non-Muslims, we must pause here to consider the misgivings
of some modern writers through their assertion that the theory of Islamic state precludes the idea of
full-fledged citizenship of non-Muslim minorities. Indeed, it is true that in the largest interest of the
state, its highest executive post should belong to the majority community. There is nothing peculiar
about the head of the Islamic state if he is elected from amongst the members of the Muslim
community alone. There is no country in the world today that has set up the political precedent of
democratically electing the highest executive (with actual powers and not nominal) from among the
minority classes in the state. Even in the most civilized country of the world, the United States of
America, the Chief Executive must be a natural born citizen of U.S.A and by a political precedent he must
belong to the Protestant Faith of Christianity. In the United Kingdom, the head of the State must belong
to the Protestant Church. Hence in Islam, the meaning of equality of political rights can hardly be
identified with merely the holding of the highest post of the executive who being held as the defender
of Muslim faith, has essentially to be staunch Muslim. In light of the position of non-Muslims in Islam, it
is amazing to suggest that they are debarred from enjoying equal political rights in the Islamic state.
Even if the constitution of the Islamic state does not debar a non-Muslim from being elected to the
office of the head of the state, will it be practicable to have a non –Muslim to shoulder the responsibility
of the head of the state without the necessary fitness of faith? A secular state like India or former
U.S.S.R may only ambiguously say that there is no bar to Muslims who are a minority in these countries
to be elected to the highest executive authority (actual and not nominal, a distinction which is made
between the two terms in modern parliamentary form or government) only to mean within themselves
that a Muslim will never be able to hold that position in fact.

Coming to the sequence, it is to be observed that in the Islamic state a number of material pursuits
require no particular ideology other than common morality. Non-Muslims have a vast field of life in
which no distinction is made against them. Thus non-Muslims may be appointed as ministers,
secretaries etc. in the Islamic state. The well-known Muslim jurist and political thinker, Al-Mawardi holds
that a non-Muslim (ahl al-dhimma) may be appointed as wazir thanfidh (minister with delegated
authority) but he cannot be appointed as wazir tafwiz (minister independent in the discharge of his
official functions)67.It is amazing to note that even in modern times too such a distinction is made
between the ministers to which the designation of minister and minister of state is applied. The former
is independent in the discharge of his executive authority whereas the latter exercises only delegated
power.

Beside ministerial and secretarial duties, non-Muslims may also be given representation in the
legislative assemblies68. Trustworthy persons from among the non-Muslims may also be entrusted with
other important responsibilities that involve no matter of belief of the Muslim population69. In fact, the
most amazing feature of the Abbasid caliphate has been the prepondering number of non-Muslims in
the different departments of the state. Even the highest and most important executive posts, viz,
vizarate and chief secretary were being held by the non-Muslims. They were only debarred from
rendering those services which purely dealt with the religious affairs of Muslims.

What the Islamic state demands of the non-Muslims is loyalty to the state in the matter of its stability
and law and order. Their loyalty to the state is like that of the Muslim citizens. Hence their loyalty should
not be suspected until otherwise proved70. Islamic ideology is so broad, comprehensive and liberal that
in actual practice no non-Muslim should feel cramped or thwarted because of his creed. Bu if a non-
Muslim does not completely identify himself with the ideology of the Islamic state, it would not be just
on his part or right on the part of the state, to entrust him with the work of a nature that requires
complete identification of outlook.

Conclusion

It has always been felt by political scientists that those who exercise authority cannot legitimately exact
obedience save in proportion to the rights that they give and the services they render for the welfare of
the people. On the strength of evidence in the foregoing survey, one is apt to say that one of the
reasons for the stability of the early Islamic state and the rapid growth and spread of Islam itself was
that the early rulers of Islamic state not only served their Muslim citizens but non-Muslim minorities as
well. The latter enjoyed all the basic human rights under the Islamic state and none from among the
Muslims or others was permitted to obstruct the protected people in the enjoyment of those rights
which Islam had undertaken to give them. Modern Muslim states while considering the position of non-
Muslims should not forget this spirit of Islam and the early practices of the Muslim rulers including the
Prophet himself. They should not be insistent upon juristic exposition of the theory of rights of non-
Muslims in an ideal Islamic state.

A close study of the history of mankind would reveal that many social classes lost their power because
they ceased to render the services which were the very condition of their political authority. In Muslim
history, if non-Muslims remained loyal to the state or if they embraced Islam, it was mainly due to the
superiority of the moral conduct of Muslims and the sense of their responsibility towards the non-
Muslims which influenced them so much that they could not help joining the fold of Islam or at least
remaining faithfully attached to their new rulers who due to the teachings of Islam were far more
superior in every respect than their contemporaries71.

Modern political thinkers are one in holding the view that mere Declaration of Rights or constitutions of
states can not effectively safeguard the rights of citizens unless there are institutions capable of
enforcing and applying them and the citizens and government both determined to make those
institutions work properly72. To this a Muslim would add that equally important is the moral training
and sense of the citizens themselves so that they may properly appreciate not only the rights and
obligations of the majority community but of the minority as well. Islam, as we have seen above, does
not believe in mere declarations. What does it declare, it sees to it that it is practically implemented.
What Islam said about the position and rights of its non-Muslim minorities, it practically showed to the
world as to how minorities are to be protected and their rights guaranteed. If in Muslim history some
individual ruler or general has maltreated non-Muslims, the fault cannot be ascribed to Islam. The
failings of a person or persons, only superficially professing a religion, cannot be held at the door of that
religion itself.

In the present day circumstances and in view of the interdependence of modern states regardless of the
faith professed by their citizens, we have to give serious thought to the question as to what status and
rights the minorities would have in the Socio-Political set up of Muslim states because they are as loyal
and good citizens of their respective states as others are. They cannot be denied their legitimate
fundamental rights merely because they do not subscribe to the generally held view of the Muslims or
majority. Any mal-treatment towards them may result in serious repercussions in other countries where
the dominant section of their community dwell. The door of Ijtihad has not been closed and we have to
fearlessly exercise it in this respect keeping in view that Islam has always stood for tolerance, justice,
equality, equity and fair play.
We may pause here with the hope that enlightened readers would give serious thought to the issue of
minority rights in the Islamic as well as secular states in view of the scientific and technological
advancements.

Dignity of Men and Women

I wish to discuss the teachings of Islam regarding the place and status of human beings, and also of the
individual, in this world. There are many ideologies which regard the human being as merely a cog in a
machine, and his purpose is just to serve a particular system of society or type of state. The individual as
well as groups of people are simply subservient to that ideology and its institutions. Even in what is
claimed to be a free society, people feel as if they don't count as individuals, what they do or do not do
is of little consequence. Given the impression of Islam which prevails generally, most people would
believe that this religion too is one of these ideologies which has little regard for the human being and
reduces its followers to the position of just serving the interests of the system.

Mankind's position

On the contrary, Islam teaches that mankind, as well as the individual, holds a very high position indeed.
According to the Holy Quran, when God created man, He said:

"I am going to make in the earth a khalifa." (2:30.)

that is to say, a ruler or empowered authority from God. As khalifa, mankind can acquire power over
physical nature, and in the spiritual domain human beings can acquire a semblance of those great, good
and noble qualities which are the attributes of God. So the potential given to mankind, and the goal set
for it, is the highest imaginable. It is said in the Quran that God has breathed into every human being, at
the time of his creation, His own Divine spirit. (32:9.) This gives each person the capability of attaining
nearness to God.

Again, the Quran repeatedly says that everything in this world has been made subservient to man, for
his advantage and benefit: things on the earth, in the sea, in the sky, etc. For instance:

"Do you not see that Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in
the earth, and granted to you His favours complete, outwardly and inwardly?" (31:20.)

So God has dignified mankind by giving it the power to rule the physical world, i.e. outwardly, and his
own self, i.e. inwardly. Human beings have, especially in the last century or so, developed very greatly
their power over the physical world by means of acquiring physical knowledge, but they have neglected
to be able to rule over their own desires, emotions and passions. How dignified man looks when you see
his magnificent achievements and feats of the conquest of nature, and how disgraced and humiliated he
looks when you see his failure to control his own desires! But the Quran says that God has granted man
His favour inwardly as well, that is, the spiritual guidance with which to conquer himself.
Human beings given power of reason

Another way in which mankind has been dignified is the giving to human beings of their senses and
understanding. The Quran refers to this repeatedly:

"He gave you ears and eyes and hearts; little it is that you give thanks!" (32:9.)

"Thanking" here means to use your senses to acquire knowledge and to use your mind to draw
conclusions from it. The Quran emphasises that human beings must use their senses and reason to
understand things, including matters of religious belief. Blind belief and following are condemned in the
Quran. Those who don't use these faculties are referred to as cattle, and indeed as going astray even
more.

Belief is something which should enter into your heart on the basis of your observation and knowledge.
The Quran describes believers as those who:

"remember Allah while standing or sitting or lying, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the
earth: Our Lord, You have not created this in vain." (3:191.)

It is by reflecting on the creation of the universe that one is meant to discover that there is a purpose in
creation. The Quran repeatedly refers to signs in nature from which man can deduce the existence of
God, the need for revelation from Him, and the truth of His revelation in the Quran. It says that these
signs can be read only by people who reflect, who have knowledge, who hear, and who use their
reason.(30:21-24.)

The Quran asks man again and again: Don't you use your sense and reason? This expression occurs
about a dozen times throughout the Quran at places where the Quran presents an argument. At one
place, it quotes those who suffer punishment for their sins as saying that if they had listened or if they
had used their sense, they would not have found themselves in that predicament. Similarly, the Quran
again and again asks the reader to ponder and reflect, on different things, and in various ways. So Islam
does not expect a person to just obey a set of orders and rules that he is given, without understanding
or thinking. I am sure many people mistakenly believe that this is what Islam does require of its
followers. On the contrary, a person is not only encouraged but required to use his God-given faculty of
reason and reflection.

Freedom of belief

Man's dignity, according to Islam, is far above that he should be forced to accept some belief. The Quran
says:

"The truth is from your Lord; so let him who pleases believe and let him who pleases disbelieve." (18:29.)

Belief is something which must convince a human being's heart and enter it. When some Arab tribes
newly joined Islam, and used the expression "We believe," the Quran told them not to say "We believe,"
but rather that "We have become Muslims" or "We have submitted" because, says the Quran, "faith has
not yet entered into your hearts". Therefore Islam does not consider it sufficient to merely follow the
precepts of the religion in the outward, mechanical sense, but your hearts must become convinced of
the truth of the faith.

Individual responsibility

Another way in which Islam has dignified the individual is by making him or her responsible for his or her
own beliefs and actions. The Quran says:

"No bearer of a burden can bear the burden of another." (6:164; 17:15.)

Each individual bears his or her own responsibility and is treated by God as a person in his or her own
right. The individual is not treated as just one member of a group, with no identity of his own. Even if
you belong to a group or nation whose members are committing wrong, you are not held responsible
for their misdeeds if as an individual you do not commit those wrongful acts. Likewise, if you are a
wrong-doer you cannot escape responsibility for your actions by claiming to belong to a group of good
and righteous people, and no one, however good and holy, can volunteer to bear your responsibility
upon his shoulders. This principle means that each one of us matters as an individual.

Blind following

Blind following of leaders is also condemned in the Quran. It says that if a wrong-doer puts forward in
his defence the plea that he was only following and obeying orders, that is not an acceptable defence.
Although the leaders do bear responsibility for misleading their followers, nonetheless each individual is
expected to use his own sense and reason, to the extent of his capacity. Similarly, blind following of
one's ancestors and of inherited beliefs and values is condemned by the Quran. It teaches that you
should apply sense and reason to test whether your inherited beliefs are right or not. Again, these
teachings of the Quran dignify the position of the individual because he is told not to blindly follow his
leaders or forefathers.

Group following

Another principle the Quran teaches is that an individual must not join in acts of wrong-doing with his
community or his fellow-countrymen or brethren-in-faith. It says:

"Help one another in righteousness and goodness, and help not one another in sin and aggression." (5:2.)

It is not befitting a human being that he should just follow the crowd, even the crowd of his own people,
without thinking about the right or the wrong of the matter. Rather, the individual should stand up for
the right, even against his own people.

Principle of consultation

In making decisions in the nation or the community, the Holy Quran has taught the principle of
consultation. It says that the affairs of the Muslims must be decided by consul among themselves.
(42:38.) Even the Holy Prophet Muhammad was instructed to consult his followers, (3:159.) and he was
given this revelation when a decision about a battle which had been made on the basis of majority
opinion had proved to be wrong. The Holy Prophet and some of his followers had been in favour of one
course of action but the majority had been in favour of another course of action. The majority view was
followed but it nearly led to disaster. Nonetheless Allah revealed to the Holy Prophet to pardon his
followers, and still consult them in decision-making as before.

The process of consultation dignifies the individual because each person has his or her view taken into
account, while autocratic rule degrades the individual because one man's opinion is supreme. Muslims,
unfortunately, abandoned this principle both in their governments and in their spiritual and religious
movements. In this age, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad again revived this principle of rule by consultation.
Before his death, he set up a body of elders to govern the affairs of the movement, and gave written
instructions that the decisions of this body, arrived at by majority opinion, would be final and binding
over the movement. In previous spiritual orders in Islam, sometime after the death of the original saintly
Founder, absolute power would go into the hands of one man, and he would be obeyed blindly. This led
to the worst abuse of power by those religious leaders, and to those movements becoming corrupt. The
excesses and evils of some of those religious leaders who had absolute power over their followers, and
the unscrupulous way in which they used religion to justify their misdeeds, is just undescribable and
appalling to say the least. It all happened because of the neglect of the principle of consultation and by
the blind-following of the leaders by the ordinary people who had no sense of the dignity of the
individual.

Value of the least individual

I will mention now two incidents recorded in the Holy Quran which show the value attached to the most
ordinary individual. In the early days of his mission, the Holy Prophet Muhammad was once explaining
Islam to some chiefs of his tribe when a blind man came to him and interrupted him with a question.
The Holy Prophet frowned and turned away from him, as he was addressing important men. God then
sent revelation to the Holy Prophet, which is contained in chapter 80 of the Quran, expressing
disapproval and telling him that may be it would be the blind man who would have benefitted from his
teaching. The revelation told him that those chiefs whom the Prophet was addressing did not even
consider that they had any need to follow Islam, but the blind man had made the effort to come to him
and was God-fearing. The blind man, according to the revelation, was more deserving of the Holy
Prophet's attention than the assembly of the chiefs of the tribe of Quraish. This shows how much an
individual, even the most insignificant individual, is valued.

The other incident is of a woman who complained to the Holy Prophet that her husband, following an
Arab custom known as zihar, had broken off all relations with her but still she was not free to leave him.
According to that custom, a man would place his wife in a state where she lost her position as wife but
was not divorced from him either. The woman pleaded with the Holy Prophet to do something, but he
was reluctant to interfere without a revelation. God then revealed to the Holy Prophet, saying that He
had heard the plea of the woman, and that He condemned husbands who indulged in that custom and
prescribed a punishment of community service for any man maltreating his wife in that way (58:1-4).
The complaint of an ordinary woman was heard by God Himself and He sent revelation in her favour to
His Prophet.