⭑ The Concept of State, Deen, and Khilafah: A Comparative Analysis of Ghamidi and Islahi Thought ⭑
Written by: Syed Mateen Ahmad
The Qur’anic thought of Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi and his student Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi places great emphasis on the concept of Khilafah. Both scholars consider Khilafah as a central principle of the Islamic state, derived directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Maulana Islahi elaborated this theme in depth in his tafsir Tadabbur-e-Qur’an.
However, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a disciple of Maulana Islahi, presents a “counter narrative” that diverges significantly from his teacher’s viewpoint on several key aspects.
In his counter narrative, Ghamidi rejects the idea that a state must have a religion or be constitutionally bound to the Qur’an and Sunnah. According to him:
➤ The state does not require religious affiliation.
➤ There is no need for constitutional declarations such as “Objectives Resolutions” to validate Islamic laws.
➤ The legislative process should be guided by public will, not bound to religious frameworks.
Ghamidi contends that within the modern nation-state system, laws should originate from the collective will of the people, not from religious mandates. He advocates for a secular role of the state, allowing for legislation that aligns with practical ground realities.
This position deviates from traditional Islamic political thought. For Maulana Farahi and Maulana Islahi:
➤ Khilafah is not merely a political term but an Islamic principle.
➤ Divine authority is the primary source of lawmaking.
➤ The Islamic state is established on the foundation of Allah’s sovereignty.
Maulana Islahi, in his works such as Islami Riyasat (The Islamic State) and Islami Qanoon ki Tadween, outlines the structure and principles of the Islamic state:
According to Islahi:
“Khilafah” is a specific term for an Islamic state, while “state” or “government” are general terms.
A Khilafah is founded on Divine Sovereignty, where law-making is restricted to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. (Islami Riyasat, p. 16)
He recognizes the role of public representation and consultation (Shura) in governance, affirming that there is no conflict between Islamic principles and democracy.
Islahi maintains that:
God’s sovereignty grants humans freedom to practice religion,
However, neglecting Divine Law in state matters is a rebellion against the commands of Allah. (Islami Riyasat, p. 24)
The absolute source of legislation must be the commands of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ.
The state is not authorized to enact laws that contradict Qur’an and Sunnah.
In Pakistan’s context, Ghamidi holds that religious constitutional binding is unnecessary. He argues that, since Pakistan operates as a nation-state, its laws should be shaped accordingly.
While legally adopting secular principles, Ghamidi simultaneously expects religious commitment from rulers, which reflects a theoretical contradiction.
His perspective falls into a Perfectionist Fallacy—demanding complete religious adherence from leaders, while supporting a non-religious legal structure in practice.
In contrast, Islahi insists that the Islamic state must remain bound to Divine directives. Ignoring this principle leads to:
➤ La-deeniyyat (irreligion)
➤ Dominance of secular Western laws
➤ Erosion of Islamic authority in collective affairs
Many modern thinkers associate Khilafah with “Political Islam”, attributing it to movements like Ikhwan al-Muslimun or Jamaat-e-Islami.
However:
➤ Farahi-Islahi thought is independent of these movements.
➤ It is based on Qur’anic principles and authentic Islamic tradition, not partisan political ideologies.
Maulana Islahi considers the Islamic state a religious obligation, essential for:
➤ Upholding Islam on both individual and collective levels
➤ Implementing Divine justice in social and political life
① Khilafah and Imarah are distinct, and Khilafah forms the foundation of the Islamic state (Islami Riyasat, p. 16)
② The structure of an Islamic state is principle-based, and it does not negate democratic mechanisms (Islami Riyasat, p. 30)
③ Law-making must derive from Allah and His Messenger ﷺ (Islami Riyasat, p. 24)
④ The Islamic state is not based on nation, race, or territory, but on Divine principles (Islami Riyasat, p. 19)
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's position supports the practical framework of the nation-state, advocating separation of religion from state matters.
In contrast, Maulana Islahi emphasizes Divine sovereignty and the necessity of aligning all state functions with Qur’anic directives.
This divergence reflects a significant intellectual debate on the nature of state, Deen, and Islamic law, with profound implications for contemporary Islamic governance.
Written by: Syed Mateen Ahmad
❖ Background: Intellectual Foundations of Maulana Farahi and Maulana Islahi
The Qur’anic thought of Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi and his student Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi places great emphasis on the concept of Khilafah. Both scholars consider Khilafah as a central principle of the Islamic state, derived directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Maulana Islahi elaborated this theme in depth in his tafsir Tadabbur-e-Qur’an.
However, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a disciple of Maulana Islahi, presents a “counter narrative” that diverges significantly from his teacher’s viewpoint on several key aspects.
✿ Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s “Counter Narrative”
In his counter narrative, Ghamidi rejects the idea that a state must have a religion or be constitutionally bound to the Qur’an and Sunnah. According to him:
➤ The state does not require religious affiliation.
➤ There is no need for constitutional declarations such as “Objectives Resolutions” to validate Islamic laws.
➤ The legislative process should be guided by public will, not bound to religious frameworks.
◈ Ghamidi's Argumentation
Ghamidi contends that within the modern nation-state system, laws should originate from the collective will of the people, not from religious mandates. He advocates for a secular role of the state, allowing for legislation that aligns with practical ground realities.
✔ Critical Analysis of Ghamidi’s Position
This position deviates from traditional Islamic political thought. For Maulana Farahi and Maulana Islahi:
➤ Khilafah is not merely a political term but an Islamic principle.
➤ Divine authority is the primary source of lawmaking.
➤ The Islamic state is established on the foundation of Allah’s sovereignty.
✦ Maulana Islahi’s Vision: Islamic State and Legislative Authority
Maulana Islahi, in his works such as Islami Riyasat (The Islamic State) and Islami Qanoon ki Tadween, outlines the structure and principles of the Islamic state:
① Distinction Between Khilafah and Government
According to Islahi:
“Khilafah” is a specific term for an Islamic state, while “state” or “government” are general terms.
A Khilafah is founded on Divine Sovereignty, where law-making is restricted to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. (Islami Riyasat, p. 16)
② Democratic Principles within Khilafah
He recognizes the role of public representation and consultation (Shura) in governance, affirming that there is no conflict between Islamic principles and democracy.
③ Sovereignty of Allah
Islahi maintains that:
God’s sovereignty grants humans freedom to practice religion,
However, neglecting Divine Law in state matters is a rebellion against the commands of Allah. (Islami Riyasat, p. 24)
④ Limits of Legislation
The absolute source of legislation must be the commands of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ.
The state is not authorized to enact laws that contradict Qur’an and Sunnah.
❖ Evaluation of Ghamidi’s Perspective in Context
In Pakistan’s context, Ghamidi holds that religious constitutional binding is unnecessary. He argues that, since Pakistan operates as a nation-state, its laws should be shaped accordingly.
⚠ Contradiction Between Theory and Practice
While legally adopting secular principles, Ghamidi simultaneously expects religious commitment from rulers, which reflects a theoretical contradiction.
⚠ Perfectionist Fallacy
His perspective falls into a Perfectionist Fallacy—demanding complete religious adherence from leaders, while supporting a non-religious legal structure in practice.
✿ Maulana Islahi’s Political Vision and Critique of Ghamidi
In contrast, Islahi insists that the Islamic state must remain bound to Divine directives. Ignoring this principle leads to:
➤ La-deeniyyat (irreligion)
➤ Dominance of secular Western laws
➤ Erosion of Islamic authority in collective affairs
✔ Misconceptions About Khilafah and Their Refutation
Many modern thinkers associate Khilafah with “Political Islam”, attributing it to movements like Ikhwan al-Muslimun or Jamaat-e-Islami.
However:
➤ Farahi-Islahi thought is independent of these movements.
➤ It is based on Qur’anic principles and authentic Islamic tradition, not partisan political ideologies.
❖ The Necessity of an Islamic State
Maulana Islahi considers the Islamic state a religious obligation, essential for:
➤ Upholding Islam on both individual and collective levels
➤ Implementing Divine justice in social and political life
✦ Core Points in Maulana Islahi’s Thought
① Khilafah and Imarah are distinct, and Khilafah forms the foundation of the Islamic state (Islami Riyasat, p. 16)
② The structure of an Islamic state is principle-based, and it does not negate democratic mechanisms (Islami Riyasat, p. 30)
③ Law-making must derive from Allah and His Messenger ﷺ (Islami Riyasat, p. 24)
④ The Islamic state is not based on nation, race, or territory, but on Divine principles (Islami Riyasat, p. 19)
❖ Conclusion: Summary of Ghamidi vs. Islahi Thought
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's position supports the practical framework of the nation-state, advocating separation of religion from state matters.
In contrast, Maulana Islahi emphasizes Divine sovereignty and the necessity of aligning all state functions with Qur’anic directives.
This divergence reflects a significant intellectual debate on the nature of state, Deen, and Islamic law, with profound implications for contemporary Islamic governance.
