Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s position regarding the state of Pakistan is that it is neither a religious state in the way Allah established through His Prophet (peace be upon him) in the Arabian Peninsula—where non-Muslims were not granted citizenship—nor is it a conquered state in which the religion of the ruler or monarch becomes the state’s official religion. Pakistan is, instead, a modern national state, formed based on international treaties. In such states, nationality is determined not by race, ethnicity, or religion, but by the country itself. For instance, Muslims living in India are referred to as Indians and enjoy equal citizenship rights as Hindus, while Hindus living in Pakistan are called Pakistanis and are considered first-class citizens, just like their Muslim counterparts. Being Indian does not affect one’s identity as a Muslim, just as being Pakistani does not affect one’s identity as a Hindu.
According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, this is the reality that the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e- Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, expressed in his address to the first Constituent Assembly:
“We should keep this as our guiding principle, and you will see that over time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is a personal matter of belief, but in the political sense, as citizens of the state.” (Quaid-e-Azam: Speeches and Statements, 4/359)
This clarification shows that, according to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Islamic identity and Pakistani identity are neither contradictory nor mutually dependent. Just as a Muslim can be Arab, American, Iranian, or Afghan while still being Muslim, they can also be Pakistani. However, being Pakistani does not mean that one must necessarily be a Muslim. Pakistani Muslims were Muslims both before and after the partition of India, but in national terms, they were Indian before and became Pakistani afterward. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume, based on Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s stance, that he rejects the “Two-Nation Theory” in the context of the Pakistan movement. He fully acknowledges the legitimacy of the demand for a separate nation based on religious identity. However, he views it as a purely political demand, having no direct connection to religion or Shariah. He argues that this is why neither the founder of Pakistan presented it as a religious requirement, nor did the Muslim scholars of the Congress deem it to be against the Shariah. He writes:
“… If Muslims, during the Pakistan Movement, insisted that they were a separate nation from the Hindus and, based on this, demanded a separate country in India, there was nothing wrong with this. Likewise, the day after Pakistan was formed, when they declared themselves as part of the Pakistani nation, there was no objection from a religious or Shariah perspective either. From a political standpoint, one might argue whether Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s stance was correct or Quaid-e-Azam’s, and we may agree or disagree with either. However, from a religious perspective, there is no criticism of either position. Hence, Quaid-e-Azam never objected to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s stance in this regard.” (Muqamat, p. 223)
This is Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s stance regarding the state of Pakistan and its national citizenship —that it should not possess a religious identity. However, as far as governance is concerned, if the government is elected by Muslims, it not only reflects an Islamic identity but is also obligated to adhere to all the commands that the Shariah has made obligatory for it. In other words, the system of governance must be based on the principle of “Amruhum Shura Baynahum” (their affairs are decided by mutual consultation). The government must demand prayer from its Muslim citizens, organize the Friday and Eid prayers, establish a system of Zakat, and be responsible for enjoining good and forbidding evil (amrbil ma’roof wanahianil munkar). It must also set up institutions to carry out this responsibility, implement the Islamic hudood (prescribed punishments) and ta’zirat (discretionary punishments) on its Muslim citizens, and use its resources to propagate Islam globally. If any power attempts to obstruct this propagation, the state must remove this obstruction to the extent of its capability, even if it requires jihad or combat.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has explicitly stated these points regarding religion and Shariah in his counter-narrative, and he has also emphasized the warning from Surah Al-Ma’idah regarding rulers who fail to implement these Shariah commands. He writes:
“These are the Shariah commands related to collective governance, and they have been given with the warning that those who believe in God’s book and do not rule by the law revealed by God will be declared as oppressors, sinners, and disbelievers on the Day of Judgment.” (Muqamat, p. 208)