I - Shahabuddin's Letter to Asghar Ali Engineer,13 May, 1999

I have just read your paper "The Concept of Islamic State" in which you have equated it with or reduced it to a modern democratic pluralistic state.

In a democratic state all citizens, irrespective of religion enjoy equal rights and equally participate in the formation of the government. In a Islamic State, the head of the State and of the Government, apart from the holders of other key posts at policy-making and decision-making levels must be Muslims, In an Islamic State, non-Muslims and Muslims are thus not equal, though the non-Muslims are fully protected,

The object and purpose of an Islamic State is to promote Islam, to implement the moral code of conduct and to punish deviation from the moral code according to Islamic penal law. A modern democratic state wields no such moral authority, what to speak of taking upon itself the task of organising the practice of what you call 'rituals'.

Islam accepts religious plurality but encourages voluntary conversion of people of other faiths to Islam. An Islamic State must also encourage conversion to Islam. Logically it would punish conversion from Islam. A State which sees one religion as superior to others is not a secular state. A modern democratic state is a secular state.

I agree with you that the Quran says little about the form of government or the structure of governance. The Quran is not a textbook of politics or a Constitution (as some Islamic fundamentalists would like us to believe). You are also right in saying that the Quran sees 'Justice' (Adl), as the essence of governance, and denounces 'Zulm' and 'Udwan'. While political forms and constitutional systems go on changing, these principles are eternal.

To sum up, Islamic State is basically a religious state which a modern state is not. I think it is misleading to draw the equation you have drawn and to prove your thesis wrung the religious substance out of the body.

II - A.A. Engineer's Letter to Shahabuddin, 17 May, 1999

What you have pointed out is correct as per medieval theory of Islamic State. My purpose of writing this paper was precisely to rethink the medieval theory in keeping with the modern conditions. States like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh etc. have substantial non-Muslim minority ... As far as citizenship is concerned all should be equal - Muslims as well as non-Muslims with same political rights.

I do not agree with you that the Islamic state should convert non-Muslims to Islam ... Even the Da'wah is not the duty of Islamic state. It is voluntary function of Muslim individuals. It is not obligatory (fard) on Muslim individuals to convert people to Islam. It is voluntary.

Yes, the executive head would be a Muslim. Strictly speaking it goes against the theory of equal rights as citizens in a secular state ...

... The views expressed in the paper are mine. One may or may not agree with those views ..

IlI - Shahabuddin's Reply to A.A. Engineer, 24 May, 1999

Thank you for your letter of 17 May, 1999. Rethinking on the theory of Islamic State has to be within the four walls of the Quran and the Traditions, not on the basis of what a modern man thinks, it should be If you agree, I would be grateful if you would explain to me how you derive the concept of equality of citizenship (for Muslims and non-Muslims) from the original sources. It is not only the question of the religion of the head of the State/Government but of all persons holding policy-making and decision-making positions. This limitation infringes on the equality of rights in an Islamic State.

Secondly, I never said that the Islamic State should convert non-Muslims to Islam. Change of faith is indeed a personal act. However, the Islamic State by definition would try to encourage such conversion. Also can the Islamic State treat a Muslim becoming a non-Muslim with non-chalance?

I know what you write is your view but since your views are in the public domain, a reader may humbly ask for clarification. So do I.

IV - A.A. Engineer's Reply, 27 May, 1999

First of all let me tell you there is nothing in the Holy Quran whether citizens of an Islamic State could be equal or unequal or whether state should encourage its people to convert to Islam or not .. It was the 'Ulema and the jurist of the medieval period who gave their opinions and we want to hold on to these opinions as if these are divine ... My earnest desire is to develop the Islamic thought in the light of the Quranic values and contemporary developments.

The Quran has given full freedom to follow ones own religion ... It is certain not the task of state but of its citizens to preach and convert through da'wah provided it is in goodly manner and with wisdom and not through coercion. Similarly if anyone wants to renounce Islam it is for people to dissuade him through wisdom not to do so and state should not intervene. That the state should intervene and behead renouncer of Islam is the view held by jurists and not the injunction of the Quran.

V-Shahabuddin's Response, 1 June, 1999

The Holy Quran is not a treatise on political science in the same way as it is not a textbook of science and technology. In fact, the Holy Quran does not guide us on how to perform the Namaz. So, to seek guidance, we have to consult the Traditions (Sunna) of the Holy Prophet which include his acts and commands as the supreme authority in Madina, the proto-type of the Islamic State.

Your approach, based solely on the Holy Quran, amounts to denial of the Sunna - the words and deeds of the Holy Prophet (and of the Enlightened Caliphs who followed him).

But you have raised an important point. Is Islam personal piety or collective power? If it is piety, the very concept of Islamic state is irrelevant. It follows that what we call Muslim rule is correctly speaking Arab or Iranian or Turkish rule - by various peoples/rulers, who called themselves Muslims, at various points in history, as other peoples, whọ were non-Muslims, before and after.

But in that case, you do not need to equate the modern, democratic, secular, multi-ethnic state with Islam. There is no point in such a comparison between a religion and a political system.

VI - A.A. Engineer's Reply, 10 June,1999

... I do accept authentic hadith from all sources and there is no question of denying their great relevance in understanding many verses of the Holy Qur'an and other practices of the Shari'ah. One has to make distinction between what Maulana Abul Kalam Azad also said 'ibadat' and 'mu'amalaat'. The 'ibadaat' and their performance depend wholly on hadith be in namaz or roza or haj or zakat or similar, other practices and there is no question of any change in these practices. But as far as mu'amalaat are concerned we have to keep on re-thinking from time to time and ahadith in this respect will be more contextual than normative. Whenever I talk of re-thinking issues it is in respect of mu'amalaat and never 'ibadaat.