Title: What is the Political Significance of Individual Interpretation? Question/Comments: I think the question I recently tried to pose failed to address what I was really interested in investigating -- namely, the political weight of interpretation. It goes without saying that Muslims ought to research, analyze, choose, reject, and so on the various interpretations of the sources of Islam. But this basic fact of common sense does not adequately account for the way in which the issue of interpretation bears on the human political order. 1) How much leeway can an Islamic State offer in the way of individual interpretation? 1a) In what spheres does the State insist on its own interpretation of the sources of Islam, even to the extent of administering penalties for deviating from its own understanding of Islam? For example, suppose the State subscribes to your opinion concerning the definition of Halaal meat and devises a punishment for trafficking and selling meat that is not Halaal according to the State's definition. Would this be Islamically legitimate and within the bounds of the Shari'ah? 1b) Similarly, in what spheres does the State respect and secure the disparate interpretations of individual scholars, without insisting on its own interpretation? For instance, would the State only allow for an opinion different from its own where the consequences are not practical, as in the case of a specific interpretation of some allegorical content in the Qur'an? Or can the State allow for the practical implementation of a different opinion and interpretation where the repercussions are, well, practical, as in the case of a specific interpretation of the laws surrounding divorce? It is the political significance of interpretation that is of real interest to me. Please let me know what you think. Answer: A little explanation is needed regarding demands of rulers before I will be able to answer your question well. The Holy Qur'an states a government can only ask for two things from the citizens in the name of religion. These are: the obligatory prayer and payment of Zakah . Excepting these two demands, they can ask nothing from its citizens in the name of religion. In other words, the public sphere of religious demands ends with the obligatory prayer and Zakah . As regards the other obligations imposed on us as Muslims, they will exhort us, teach us but they cannot force us to fast in the month of Ramadan or perform Hajj et cetera. The Holy Qur'an reads: If they establish Salah and pay Zakah, then they are your brethren in religion. (9:11) If they establish Salah and pay Zakah, leave their way free. (9:5) If they fulfill these two requirements, they will be considered citizens of the state. This follows that whosoever will deny compliance with these requirements will be treated as a non-Muslim. Hence, other than these two things, a state has no authority to demand from its people anything in the name of religion. However, it is fully authorized to enact whatever laws it deems necessary in order to prevent Munkirat (bad things) spread in the society. These are in fact crimes against any of the following three categories: Life Wealth Honor Munkirat may have been defined by the Shari'ah or by the collectivity of the residents of the Islamic state. In the later case, any law will be enacted by the majority vote of the members of parliament (42:38). Hence, it can safely be concluded that a government can positively ask for two things from its citizen i.e. Salah and Zakah and, on the other hand, it can punish whosoever is guilty of tampering with the life, honor or wealth of people. A close look at the punishments prescribed by Islam will reveal that they are also for crimes that are committed against these heads. This is what the legal structure of an Islamic state envisaged by the Holy Qur'an is. A Islamic state is not authorized to first enact that every Muslim is required to read Darud Sharif after the Friday prayer and then punish those who do comply with this even by passing by a majority vote. Because reciting Darud has not been prescribed by the religion as a positive obligation on Muslims nor non compliance with it is something taken as Munkar . Coming to your first part of the question, I would like to assert that a state has to give cent per cent leeway in the individual interpretation unless and until this interpretation is offered to exhort the readers to overrule the positive demands of the Islamic state or to tamper with the life, wealth and honor of people. You have asked: In what spheres does the State insist on its own interpretation of the sources of Islam, even to the extent of administering penalties for deviating from its own understanding of Islam? An Islamic state can positively ask for two things and administer punishment for non-compliance with them. In case of Munkirat , it can also enact whatever laws it deems fit to maintain an environment of security and peace in land. Therefore, every state defined prohibited item should be taken as prohibited and noncompliance will attract penalty or punishment. However, it must be appreciated that it is not the interpretation that is to be banned but those who actually commit the crimes suggested. In very rare cases, a situation may arise that some interpretation has exploited the emotions of people and, as a result, a situation of law and order has been created. Then, a government may put a ban on the book not because of what is presented in it but because people have failed to live up to the virtues of patience and staying power. As far as your second question is concerned, my response is again to respect and allow every kind of interpretation to exist in the society. We must know it is not the interpretation that is to be incriminated in any case. The state needs to allow full freedom of expression. It should allow the dissident citizens to intellectually convince the members of parliament regarding the fallacy of prevailing law and toward what is right. Of course, as long as any law is in force, non-compliance will be checked by some punishment but freedom of expression should never be banned. Jhangeer Hanif July 5, 2003