6) Legislature and Legislation

        a.) Legislature in its present sense is unknown to the Islamic system. The religio-political system which is called din-i-Islam is a complete system which contains in itself the mechanism for discovering and applying law to any situation that may arise. During the Islamic Republic there was no legislature in its modern sense; and for every situation or emergency that arose, law could be discovered and applied by the ulama. The law had been made and was not to be made, the only function of those entrusted with the administration of law being to discover the law for the purposes of the particular case, though.when enunciated and applied it formed a precedent for others to follow.

It is wholly incorrect, as has been suggested from certain quarters, that in a country like Pakistan, which consists of different communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, and where representation is allowed to non-Muslims with a right to vote on every subject that comes up, the legislature is a form of ijma' or ijtimad, the reason being that ijtimad is not collective but only individual, and though ijma' is collective, there is no place in it for those who are not experts in the knowledge of the law. This principle at once rules out the infidels (kuffar) whether they be people of Scriptures (ahl-i-kitab) or idolators (mushrikeen).

        b.) Since Islam is a perfect religion containing laws, express or derivable by ijma' or ijtihad, governing the whole field of human activity, there is in it no sanction for what. may, in the modern sense, be called legislation. Questioned on this point, Maulana Abul Hasanat, President, Jami'at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, says: -­

"Q.-- Is the institution of legislature as distinguished from the institution of a person or body of persons entrusted with the interpretation of law, an integral part of an Islamic State?
A.-- No. Our law is complete and merely requires interpretation by those who are experts in it. According to my belief no question can arise, the law relating to which cannot be discovered from the Qur'an or the hadith.
Q.-- Who were Sahib-ul-hall-i-wal-aqd?
A.-- They were the distinguished ulama of the time. These persons attained their status by reason of the knowledge of the law. They were not in any way analogous or similar to the legislature in modern democracy."

The same view was expressed by Amir-i-Shari'at Sayyid Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari in one of his speeches reported in the "Azad" of 22nd April, 1947, in the course of which he said that our din is complete and perfect, and that it amounts to kufr to make more laws.

Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, however, is of the opinion that legislation in the true sense is possible in an Islamic State on matters which are not covered by the Qur'an, the sunna, or previous ijma', and he has attempted to explain his point by reference to the institution of a body of persons whom the Holy Prophet, and after him the khulafa, consulted on all matters relating to affairs of State.

The question is one of some difficulty and great importance, because any institution of legislature will have to be reconciled with the claim put forward by Maulana Abu! Hasanat and some other religious divines that Islam is a perfect and exhaustive code wide enough to furnish an answer to any question that may arise relating to any human activity, and that it does not know of any "unoccupied field" to be filled by fresh legislation.

There is no doubt that Islam enjoins consultation, and that not only the Holy Prophet but also the first four caliphs and even their successors resorted to consultation with the leading men of the time who for their knowledge of the law and piety could well be relied upon. In the inquiry not much has been disclosed about the Majlis-i-Shura except what is contained in Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi's written statement which he supplied to the Court at its request. That there was a body of men who were consulted is true, but whether this was a standing body, and whether its advice had any legal or binding force, seems somewhat doubtful.

These men were certainly not elected in the modern way, though their representative character cannot be disputed. Their advice was certainly asked ad hoc, but that they were competent to make law as the modern legislatures make laws is certainly not correct. The decisions taken by them undoubtedly served as precedents and were in the nature of ijma', which is not legislation but the application of an existing law to a particular case. When consulted in affairs of State, their functions were truly in the nature of an advice given by a modern cabinet, but such advice is not law but only a decision.

        c.) Nor can the legislature in a modern State correspond to ijma' because, as we have already pointed out, the legislature legislates while the ulama of Majlls-i-Shura who were called upon to determine what should be the decision on a particular point which was not covered by the Qur'an and the sunna, merely sought to discover and apply the law, and not to promulgate the law, though the decision when taken had to be taken not only for the purposes of the particular case but for subsequent occasions as a binding precedent.

An intriguing situation might arise if the Constitution Act provided that any provision of it, if it was inconsistent with the Qur'an or the sunna, would be void, and the intra vires of a law made by the legislature were questioned before the Supreme Court on the ground that the institution of [the] legislature itself was contrary to the Qur'an and the sunna.
 

On to: *7) Position of non-Muslims*