Supremacy of the Parliament

[Written in response to criticisms of “Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative.”]

Both Islam and democracy require that the decisions of Parliament are practically accepted and complied with. This means—and every politically aware person will understand—that no obstruction should be created in the implementation of a decision, no rebellion should be incited against it, the business of government should be allowed to function according to it, supporters should not be organized to disrupt law and order through them, do not take up arms against it, and do not provoke people to revolt.

Even if the government takes any action against an individual as a result of that decision, it should be endured with patience. The one whom I believe to be God’s Prophet has guided me in this way. His instruction is:

“It is obligatory upon you to listen and obey, whether you are in difficulty or ease, whether willingly or unwillingly, and even if you are not given what you are rightfully due.” (Muslim, Hadith Number 4754)

The only exception is if I am ordered to disobey God. In that case, I can indeed reject that decision practically; indeed, it is my duty to reject it.

Every moment of my life testifies that I have always acted upon this and have always advised my friends and students to do the same. However, it is my misfortune that I never could understand that expressing disagreement with the Parliament’s decisions and attempting to change them through democratic means is also a crime, and practically accepting them also means to submit one’s knowledge and reasoning before the Parliament. And if Parliament, exceeding its right to legislate, makes any decision against a divine command, any acknowledged moral principle, or any natural law, one should not dare to disagree with it.

Interestingly, this meaning has been extracted from a sentence of my own writing, with utmost integrity and piety, overlooking the very sentence which was clearly negating these meanings. I had written:

“People have the right to criticize the Parliament’s decisions and strive to elucidate their mistakes, but nobody has the right to violate or rebel against them.”

I do not know whether to praise the knowledge and understanding of the person who accomplished this feat more or their truthfulness and integrity. At this moment, all I can say is: What a delightful irony.

Anyway, I am clarifying that every decision of Parliament is to be accepted, but it is my democratic right and religious duty to criticize it with arguments if there is any mistake, or it has overstepped its bounds, or it has infringed upon someone’s rights. Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong are among the fundamental principles of my religion and cultural tradition, and I am commanded to stand up for justice for the sake of Allah, even if the testimony is against my own self, my parents, or my relatives.

The principle, ‘Their affairs are conducted through consultation among themselves’, simply requires that, in matters of dispute, the majority opinion is practically accepted. It does not imply that this opinion is inherently correct or that efforts to highlight its flaws should be avoided. The right to amend constitutions and legal documents worldwide exists because none of these are divine scriptures. Scholars have a duty to continually review these documents and work to correct them if errors are found.

Regrettably, the necessary steps for implementing Islam and Islamic Shariah at the government level in Pakistan have not been taken, and what has been done is largely meaningless, unfounded, and contrary to the clear guidance of the Quran and Sunnah. I have been saying this for years and continue to do so today, out of my sincere counsel and well-wishing for all Muslims, together with the instruction of God, and His Messenger. This should not unsettle any Pakistani, just as an old benefactor and dear friend once remarked that my boldness had caused the entire nation to tremble.

[2015]