During a discussion with some English friends, the point that raised, and they asked, and they are all agnostics, and they say that they want to know that even if you come in power, which they doubt in Europe, how far you will change the basic structure of the European society. For example, they say that our system or structure is based upon freedom, and that freedom is only tempered with the consent of the majority. But nevertheless, the majority does allow the minorities full freedom to express their views or propagate.
And for the same reason, there is a freedom for the nudists, striptease clubs, and the alcohol clubs, the pubs, that is not a minority. But if you come in power, so far the example of the Islamic states, you do not give the same freedom to the minorities, why they are not allowed to drink, or to have the nudist club, or not to have the striptease club, even if you don’t like it, because the freedom should be for everybody. And this is what he said, he has his apprehension about it, and I wonder whether, why in an Islamic society… Just a minute, first let me decide this issue, please.
The fact is that in the name of freedom and liberty, so much is now being said and done, that the whole issue has gone to a melting pot and it has to be re-examined and analysed. What does freedom mean? To do anything, is that the definition of freedom? That being the definition of freedom, then why there are laws in the country, why rules and regulations are made? And why not freedom is given in that respect, in the secular sense, there are so many laws made by various governments and countries restricting individual to a certain course. What is the philosophy behind?
So when you answer these questions, then that question can be answered very easily in the light of this answer. Because first, we have to pose a counter-question to these people, to define freedom as it stands in the world today. They understand the secular freedom, alright, so when they form rules and regulations in the secular states, restricting freedoms, there has to be some answer to that.
One of the answers given by an English politician was this, that I am free, you are free to move your arm in any direction, but the moment it strikes my nose, the freedom of, your freedom stops there and my freedom begins at that point, or that is the region of my freedom, so you can’t interfere into the region of my freedom. So he said it beautifully, but I don’t remember exactly the words, I can tell you this, which meant that if your freedom is about to trespass, or actually transgresses another’s right or trespasses into another’s privacy, then his freedom also has a right to establish itself.
So whenever claims of two types of freedoms are made, which clash with each other, a dividing line has to be drawn somewhere in between, and that is what law means. So if that is drawn in ordinary state affairs, that law should also be drawn in the moral affairs, because we also have some moral rights, and they accept it in the secular society as well. If a house, I mean, next door to you, is turned into a ballroom by the residents, and, or a drinking spree is held there, and they disturb your peace after a certain time, although what they are doing is within their own four walls, they have every right to do what they please there in their own premises.
But if you report to the police, they would come and stop them. Why are they not permitted to do that? So if somehow the sensibilities of certain other people are affected by somebody else’s freedom, many a time you interfere with those freedoms. Why? Not because you don’t believe in freedom, but because you believe in freedom of others as well. So a society has also a right, and if that right is templed upon by individuals, or by a group of people, then the society as such has a right to do that, to stop that injustice to the rest of the society.
So when you conceive of this situation, a general situation, then the whole matter becomes very complicated. In the name of society, how far you can go? And in the name of individual, how far your freedom can be guarded? So this issue becomes a very deep philosophical moral issue, and it needs further study. And once you really analyse the whole issue, and make it threadbare, only then you can establish Islam’s claim that Islam stands for the freedom of human beings, and yet Islam proposes certain restrictions. And there’s no contradiction in that claim. So we will, whatever we do, we’ll do keeping the Islamic principles of freedom in view. Where Islam establishes absolute freedom, even there, there are restrictions imposed.
For instance, it says, laa ikraha fideen, there’s no compulsion in religion. But a hostile, I mean, a hostile mullah begins to use filthy language against the respected heads of some community, some religious community, and says it’s the liberty and freedom for me to do whatever I please, will you not restrict him? Will you not impose certain laws to stop him from insulting others? Now if you don’t, then you give him freedom, but put restrictions on the freedom of his opponents, that either they are left with no choice, but either to listen to that filth, or to counter in the same language. If that freedom is given to them as well, what would become of the society? The whole society would turn into a society of invectives and the foulest languages, which ultimately is not going to stop there, which ultimately is going to excite the whole society to such a frenzy, as to result in killings and stabbings and murders and looting of the property and so on and so forth.
All this under the name of freedom. So freedom has to be defined. Freedom, the concept of freedom is for the well-being of the society, not for the detriment of the society as such. So if freedom is misused to a degree that the whole society begins to suffer or is likely to suffer, then such freedom has to be qualified and some rules and regulations are to be applied. This is the general vague philosophy under which the present governments also make their rules and regulations. So all that is to be done by Islam will be done under these general principles. And the Holy Qur’an gives these principles in detail.
For instance, at one place it says, There is no compulsion in religion. And at another place, it says, This is exactly the illustration of what I am saying. Under the general headline, it says there is no compulsion in religion. But it is further defined. As far as the Muslims are concerned, they are not permitted to call their opponents or their false gods bad names. In religion, a restriction is imposed. But to begin with, on your own people. So that is a very beautiful principle laid down by Islam. Whatever restriction in the name of morality will be imposed on non-Muslims would be first imposed on the Muslims. And that will show that Islam is just in its attitude.
No restriction will be imposed on non-Muslims which Islam first initially does not impose on its own followers. And such restrictions belong not to the religious affairs, but to the social affairs. And only in the name of social affairs such restrictions will be imposed. Now this there again is a very clear dividing line. Islam has injunctions of two types. One entirely religious, which apply only to those who believe in Islam. And not at all to non-believers. And they are not imposed upon them. And there are also aspects of Islamic teachings which are generally to be applied to every human situation. I mean, religious does not come into picture there. Moral teachings in the name of states or in the name of society, whatever name you give, they are generally moral teachings and they are established facts of human experience.
Wherever you go, some moral restrictions are made to save society from the individual and individual from the society. Religion doesn’t come into picture. So those rules of Islam, which belong to this region, will only be applicable when a Muslim state comes into being. And when they are applied, they would be applied equally to both Muslims and non-Muslims. But again, there are certain exceptions made to this general rule as well. For instance, Hazrat Suleyman Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, in certain punishments to be meted out against crime, used to give choice to the Jews, either to accept Islamic teachings of punishment, Islamic code of punishment, and in that case their cases would be decided under Islamic penal code, or according to their own system.
They were not permitted to remain in between because those crimes concerned violations of human rights. So you can’t let anybody go scot-free. He has to declare that he is going to adhere to that system. So because everybody at that time had a sort of religion, so Hazrat Suleyman Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam gave that choice to them. Either you be punished or rewarded according to your own system and tell us that is what your choice is, or according to the Islamic system. Because Jewish system of punishment was much more severe, so more often than not, the Jews opted for Islamic code of punishment rather than the Jewish.
So that type of arrangement will have to be made in the future as well. Whenever a truly Islamic state comes into being, which follows the precepts of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, it has to give such licenses to the opponents as were given by Huzoor-e-Akram Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam himself. So the answer to such a question is not as easy as to be explained in one sitting. These are the general departments in which investigations should be made, and you can tell him that Islam is fair, that is fundamental.
Nothing unfair would ever come out of Islam if it is explained in the true light of the Holy Qur’an and the teachings of Huzoor-e-Akram Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. And because we stand for that, we are committed for that, so you have no fears in this regard. As far as the wine is concerned, you can remind them that even without religion you have imposed restrictions in this very country on the whole society, despite the fact that almost the entire society believed in drinking.
So why are you worried if a restriction is imposed on public drinking by Ahmadis if they come to power? You gave this right to your own people in the past, why can’t you give this right in future to Ahmadis? While they would only come to power when they are in majority, and they would also have some justifications.
There won’t be just one general rule imposed, but for every decision there would have to be some backing, either from the teachings of the Qur’an or from the social values, so nobody has any fear from us. America went dry once in history, during the Puritan age, England went dry, and they didn’t mind, despite the fact the majority wanted to drink, yet a very small minority imposed this, their own will, in the name of public welfare.
So the question of public welfare, when opposed to the liberties, becomes a very complex question. And you can’t deny the existence of such a value as public welfare. So when this comes into focus, then we don’t know what would be the demands and dictates of these situations, so how can we predict that?
