Religion in a state's constitution: valid or not?

Great Debates
1

The second ammendment to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan amends the Constitution to include Qadiani and Lahori Ahmadis as non-Muslims. (There’s a theological difference between Qadiani and Lahor Ahmadis, but the Constitution and, indeed, the Muslim world tend to treat them as one.) It also introduces the following as part of the definition of a Muslim: one who believes “in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the last of the prophets, and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (peace be upon him).”

It continues to say that: “‘non- Muslim’ means a person who is not a Muslim and includes a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Parsi community, a person of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name or a Bahai, and a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes.”

Question: are such issues within the justifiable jurisdiction or interest of a state’s constitution? Are there any other states that have such issues within it?

Pertinent links:
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
Part IV, Chapter 2, which contains Article 106 of the Constitution
Part XII, Chapter 5, which contains Article 260 of the Constitution

WRS

2

I would certainly say no, such issues are not within the justifiable jurisdiction of a state’s constitution. A state ought to concern itself with how its citizens behave with respect to laws regulating how humans relate with other humans and other secular matters. As Thomas Jefferson said “it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. Questions of the divine or the supernatural are the subject of too much disagreement among human beings, and too much uncertainty or unknowability for there to be much hope of everyone ever agreeing on them, to be the subject of legislation. Paradoxically, although perhaps because of that uncertainty, questions of religion seem to engender especially savage reactions when they are brought into the realm of civic affairs. Governments should stick to protecting everyone’s right to peacefully practice the religion (or lack thereof) dictated by their conscience.

3

Depends.

A lot of states have different communities within the population, and if those communities are sufficiently different from one another a legal and social system which ignores the existence of those communities, and the differences between them, may be unworkable.

Sometimes the recognition given to different communities may be minor (e.g., exempting Quakers from military service); sometimes it can be major (e.g. according a right of entry and a right of immediate citizenship to Jews, not according them to non-Jews in Israel) and sometimes it can be pretty well pervasive (parliamentary and other quotas for Christians and Muslims in Lebanon). All these examples deal with religiously-identified communities but, of course, the issue arises with non-religiously identified communities as well, e.g. the legal status of native Americans in the US and Canada. Who exactly counts as a member of the protected group?

If there is going to be any legal recognition of a community, then there has to be an authoritative way for membership of the community to be determined for legal purposes. It may be sufficient to appeal to existing social consensus as to who is and who is not a member of the community, or it may be possible to defer to the existing rules of the community concerned. But, at the very least, there needs to be a rule of civil law which says, e.g., a person is a Jew if he is regarded as Jewish by such-and-such a religious authority, or under the terms of such-and-such a religious law. And often there may be no sufficiently clear or accepted external standard to which civil law can appeal, so civil law may have to specify a standard.

Whether this is done as a constitutional matter, or at some lower level in the legal hierarchy, seems to me not to matter.

So, turning to the Pakistani example, the obvious questions to me seem to be

(a) Why is it necessary to identify these groups for legal purposes? How and why are they differently treated in law?

(b) Does this rule of recognition accord with social reality? Is it regarded as a fair rule of recognition by members of the group concerned? By non-members?

Without knowing the answers to these questions – and I don’t – it seems to me hard to say anything useful about the justification or otherwise of the constitutional rule.

4

I don’t see how in an Islamic country, one could avoid a religious aspect to its constitution. The best that can be done is to acknowledge it & then mitigate it.
Something like (and remember this is a rough try by a non-Muslim- me)-
"In submission to Allah the Most Merciful. we the people of Thus & So frame this constitution for the government of our nation, ever mindful of the teachings of the Holy Quran given from Allah by His prophet Muhammed, peace be unto him…

(and later regarding religion)- this is an Islamic nation, by the will of Allah,
however as His has taught us in the Holy Quran, it is by His will also that there
are different kinds of people, therefore there shall be no compulsion in religion…"

That later reference to two Quranic passages is probably about the best that can be done in creating an Islamic “First Amendment”.

5

I do know that Baha’is wouldn’t consider themselves to be Muslims anyway; I don’t know about the other groups mentioned.

6

A passage like that really makes one wonder how the state deals with people who are neither Muslims nor in one of the recognized “non-Muslim” groups.

7

Why the Pakistani constitution was amended to include Ahmadis amongst non-Muslims is a long story of politics and religious bigotry. The paragraph about Muhammad and no prophets or reformers after him seem too stringent. Certainly certain beliefs held by Ithna-Ashari Shias, Nizari Ismaili Shias, and Musta’li Ismaili Shias can be considered (and in fact are considered) non-Muslim by Sunnis. Why are they not included?

In any case, in my opinion, the only time religion may be mention in any Constitution is to specify the religion of the state. I don’t think I can come up with any other Constitution that goes into detail as to who may not be considered part of the state’s religion.

The Admadi amendment is a thorn in the side of Pakistani reformers because any time someone suggests removing it, religious parties and authorities begin raising a huge commotion about it. There aren’t even that many Ahmadis in Pakistan or even worldwide that they would need to be a community or movement to worry about.

In the paragraph about who is not a Muslim, ever community mentioned would agree they are non-Muslim except for the Ahmadis.

WRS

8

What’s the deal with the Ahmadis? What separates them from other Moslems?

Haj

9

According to this link, it seems they get treated pretty bad in Pakistan:

The ahmadis built the first mosque in Britain in 1924 and, just over a year ago, they built the biggest mosque in western Europe in London. However when the mosque was finished the Muslim Council of Britain said that it did not regard the building as a mosque or consider Ahmadis to be Muslims (according to this link). Although I think the Muslim Council of Britain are probably mostly Pakistanis (since most muslims in Britain are Pakistani or Bangladeshi). Therefore it’s not all that surprising that they would reflect the views of Pakistan.

10

Hmm my second link doesn’t seem to take you directly there. I just put “ahmadi mosque london” into google and it was the third hit down, if anyone cares enough to bother looking.

11

I’m writing up a detailed post on Ahmadis and will post it on MPSIMS. Because I have to go to work, it won’t be up for another two hours. I’ll post a link thereto on this thread once I’m done. If the post/thread should go in another forum, I would appreciate correction.

WRS

12

For more information on Ahmadis (more than anyone can possibly want), please click your way to this thread.

Thank you so very much.

WRS