📜 Objections on the Objectives Resolution and the Response of Mainstream Islamic Scholars
✍️ A Critical Analysis of Al-Mawrid’s Position vs. the Consensus of Scholars
❖ Background: The Controversy
In a post by Zahid Mughal, a prominent associate of Al-Mawrid objected to the Objectives Resolution — the constitutional foundation of Pakistan — which declares that no law shall be made repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
The objection raised a comparison:
“If the Indian Constitution declared that no law shall be made contrary to Vishnu’s commands, would Muslims accept it?”
This analogy questions the legitimacy of Islam as a source of constitutional law, claiming such inclusion could justify similar privileges for other religions in their own states.
❖ Understanding Al-Mawrid’s Stance
① Opposition to Islam as a Constitutional Framework
Al-Mawrid argues that if Muslims declare Shari‘ah as the supreme law in their country, then adherents of other religions must also be allowed to make their religious laws constitutional in their own countries.
This, they argue, leads to global injustice and religious inequality.
② Preference for a Secular State
They propose that the state should remain neutral in religious matters, favoring a secular framework over any specific religious identity, including Islam.
③ Muslim Politicians within Secular Systems
They suggest that Muslim politicians can personally work toward Shari‘ah-compliance even in a secular setup — though, in practice, this often leads to contradictions and compromise of core Islamic values.
❖ The View of Mainstream Islamic Scholars
In stark contrast, the consensus of mainstream Islamic scholars rejects Al-Mawrid’s reasoning:
❖ 1. Truth vs. Falsehood is Defined by the Shari‘ah
✔ Truth (Ḥaqq) is not based on majority rule or pluralistic tolerance, but solely on the Shari‘ah of Muhammad ﷺ.
✔ Any system — whether secular, Hindu, or other — that contradicts the Shari‘ah is considered bāṭil (falsehood).
❖ 2. Secular vs. Hindu State: A Comparative Evil, Not a Legitimate Ideal
✔ Scholars acknowledge that in certain dire situations, a secular system may be preferable to an openly anti-Islamic one (like a Hindu state).
✔ But this is a matter of choosing “the lesser of two evils (Awhan al-Sharrayn)”, not a validation of secularism.
✔ Al-Mawrid’s argument mistakenly equates this preference with the acceptance of secularism as truth, which is a fundamental misrepresentation.
❖ 3. Islamic Governance as a Shar‘i Obligation
✔ According to the consensus of Islamic scholarship, the implementation of Islamic law as the state constitution is a Shar‘i obligation, derived from:
- Qur’an
- Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ
- Legal principles of classical jurists (usul al-fiqh)
✔ Equating an Islamic state with a Hindu state is an illogical and invalid analogy, rooted in Western secular humanism, not Islamic thought.
❖ 4. Sound Reasoning Must Emerge from Revelation
✔ Islamic scholars assert that a legitimate argument must be anchored in Revelation, not in rationalism detached from divine guidance.
📌 An argument that equates the supremacy of Shari‘ah with religious bias is one that fails to recognize Islam’s claim to universal truth.
❖ Summary
🔸 Al-Mawrid’s Position:
- Argues against making Islam a constitutional authority, fearing other religions will claim the same in their contexts.
- Advocates for secularism as a more neutral and “fair” alternative.
🔸 Mainstream Scholars’ Response:
- Reject the comparison between Islamic law and any other religion’s system.
- Declare that only Islam is the truth, and secularism is tolerated only when necessary, not preferred.
- Hold that making Shari‘ah the foundation of the constitution is not only legitimate but a religious obligation.
