THE religious right in Pakistan, as also in other Muslim states, want that the polity, laws and culture of the country should be modelled on Islamic injunctions.

But, apart from the viability of the proposition in the global context of the present century, the first and foremost step should be to catalogue such injunctions in respect of polity laws and culture which enjoy the acceptance of different Muslim sects in the country.

The juristical conflict may not be the main stumbling block in the path of Islamisation; and a via media to satisfy the priestly classes of the two main sects can be found. But the main deterrent exists beyond the country’s geographical boundary.Any system based on the ideal of the remote past, say, the precedent of the Islamic state of Madinah founded by the holy Prophet himself, is likely to be dubbed as pure `theocracy’ not only by the non-Muslims (whose voice also matters for us) but also by a sizable section of ‘educated’ Muslims at home because theocracy has become a term of abuse in modern parlance.

Living in a world dominated by western thinkers and western powers, it will be difficult, if not outright impossible, to implement the penal laws without softening certain punishments. Protagonists of the idea that Pakistan should enforce the Shariah laws as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has done forget that the latter happens to be the spiritual centre of all the believers in the world and, at the same time, is sitting on one of the largest reserves of that precious liquid which turns the wheels of industry.

By theocracy what the western countries understand is the aggressive and intolerant role of the clergy they witnessed in the Middle Ages in their own backyard, or as seen in the post-Renaissance early 16th century Spain where that gruesome organisation called Inquisition run by the Church after the overthrow of Muslim rule, carried out the history’s most merciless genocide of Muslims and Jews on a scale yet to be matched.

In the words of Lane Poole; “Had the third Abdur Rahman (Arab ruler of Moorish Spain) been immortal, Spain would have been peaceful even to this day and we should never have heard of the persecution of the Jews and the Moors, the terrible work of the Inquisition.” (Moors in Spain).

To avoid that others do not call our Islamic system political, penal and fiscal -– a modern form of theocracy -— and be condemned on that count, it would be wiser to stop raising slogans that we must introduce the truly Islamic system, and instead reflect on what Islam really asks us to do, and then examine how it can be implemented, piecemeal and step by step, without causing a stir at home and abroad.

In this cool environment, we will realise that Islam does not concern itself so much with the form of government, because it has approved the benevolent rule of monarchs like Hazrat Daud and Hazrat Sulaiman (Biblical David and Solomon) and Malika Saba (Biblical Queen of Sheba). It is the function of the government on which the emphasis is laid; its prime duty being, in broadest terms, to quote the Quran, “to enforce the values recognised as `maroof’ or, in plain English, good; and forbid those which are `munkar’ or just abhorrent” (3:110).

No one would quarrel with this sensible and agreeable demand. Islam is not concerned whether laws are enacted to enforce maroof and forbid munkar by a popularly-elected parliament or in a super-imposed closed-door presidium. And if the laws are benign and not severe, binding only on those who register themselves as Muslims for obtaining identity cards or government jobs and leaving the other religious and minority groups free in the matter of personal, customary laws, then the Islamic theocracy cannot be equalled with that type of theocracy the West has known in its own historical experience.

It is unfortunate that the very mention of Shariah laws frightens people, as they consider them to be only applicable in a criminal case like theft, robbery and rape for which the offender might end up with the loss of a limb or loss of life at the hands of a stone-throwing mob (even though the last mentioned punishment is not prescribed in the Quran).

To do full justice with main theme of this piece, one would prefer reproducing the following excerpts from Marmaduke Pickthall’s `Madras Lectures’: “Ideas and axioms the most abhorrent to the mind of the Christendom when it was Christendom, when the Christian Church dictated the ideas and practice of the western people, but which were present in Islam from the beginning, and are embodied in the Sacred Law, have one by one and, gradually, been accepted by the West.

“The duty of free thought and free inquiry; the duty of religious tolerance: idea that conduct and not creed or class distinction must be the test of a man’s worth in law and social intercourse; women’s right to full equality with man before the Law, her right to property, the licence to divorce and remarry; the duty of personal cleanliness; the prohibition of strong drinks: all these well-known ingredients of the Sacred Law of Islam, which were all anathema to Christian Europe, and are still regarded by the Church as either irreligious or purely secular, that is, outside the purview of religion – have been incorporated in the ideology of western Civilisation.”

These ideas have been incorporated in the West in connection with newly-discovered concept of ‘human rights’ or emancipation of women, or to guarantee freedom of thought and action without acknowledging the debt to Islam.

It would be pertinent to point out that the Quran does give the outlines of such an Islamic government which can implement the sacred laws of Shariah. The first characteristic of such a government is that it should not be headed by a person, or authority, that is comparable to a `warder’ (Hafeez in Arabic text of the Quran 4:80) or a Jailor guarding prisoners in a jail. Secondly, the person or authority, heading the government, must “consult with them (i.e. pious, honest and sincere persons) upon the conduct of affairs” (3:159). Thirdly, the head of government should be “the noblest and best in conduct” (49:13). The translations of these Quranic verses are taken from Pickthall’s “The Glorious Quran.”

From the afore-said, it follows that three criteria set by the Quran are that head of the state, selected by `mutual consultation’ (“Shurah baina hum”), will not be a fellow imposed from above like a warder or jailor posted to keep prisoners in check and that the selected person will function not arbitrarily or whimsically but with due process of consultation with representatives of people and that he/she will be like “the noblest and best in conduct”, not ideally but with reference to the existing milieu in the national setting.

These concepts are there for the benefit of all who turn to the Quran for guidance and for whom the practical example of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), who founded and headed the first Islamic state in Madinah during his life-time is available.

Rousseau admits, as a political theorist, the practicability of the Islamic polity and records that “Muhammad held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and as long as the form of his government continued under the Caliphs who succeeded him, the government was indeed one and so far good” (Social Contract).