Gentlemen!

In this discourse I shall explain to you the process by which an Islamic State comes into being as a natural consequence of a particular set of circumstances. Now-a-days the phrase."Islamic State" has become a child's plaything; the idea has caught the imagination of certain people, and some of them even profess to have adopted it as a positive ideal. But such strange methods are being suggested for its attainment as would make it as impossible to reach the desired goal as reaching America in a motor car. This loose thinking is due to the fact that owing to certain political and historical causes, a desire has sprung up for a certain ideal which may be called the "Islamic State" ; but no attempt has been made either to define in a scientific manner the nature of this state or to study the process of its evolution. In these circumstances it becomes doubly necessary to investigate this problem in a scientific manner.

In this gathering of educated people I need not spend much time in explaining that a state, whatever its nature, is not formed by artificial means; it is not an article of manufacture to be prepared at a particular place and then transplanted elsewhere entirely at the sweet will of men. It is rather a natural product of the interplay of certain moral, psychological, cultural and historical factors pre-existing in a place. Certain pre-requisites must be fulfilled, certain social forces created and some natural requirements satisfied before it can come into being by the pressure of events. Just as in Logic, deduction always follows the arrangement of premises; in Chemistry a chemical compound is formed by the combination, in a particular way, of certain ingredients possessing chemical affinity; likewise it is an undeniable fact that in Sociology a state is merely the natural consequence of the circumstances which pre-exist in a particular society. Again, the nature of state is wholly determined by the nature of the circumstances which underlie its birth and formation. Just as it is not possible that premises may be of one type and their arrangement may bring about a different conclusion ; chemical components may be of a particular nature and by mixing them up a compound of a totally different kind may be obtained ; a lemon seed may be sown and a tree bearing mangoes may grow out of it ; similarly it is not possible that conditions may exist favoring the growth of a particular type of state and the manner of their mutual interaction may also suit the development of the same type of state but, after passing through various evolutionary stages, an altogether different state may emerge out of the process ; and the operation of the very forces which favored one form of state may result in a state being established which belongs to a different category altogether.

Please do not imagine that I am bringing in the doctrine of Determinism here and denying the freedom of human will. There is no doubt that in determining the nature of a state the volition and actions of individuals and communities play a very great part. What I am driving at is that whatever the nature of the state system that is desired to be created, it is indispensable to adopt and choose such means as fit in with the nature and spirit of the desired system and then to hit upon the appropriate course of action leading towards it. It is essential that a particular type of movement should grow up permeated by the same spirit; the same sort of mass character should be molded; the same type of communal morality should be developed; the same kinds of workers should be trained, arid the same type of leadership should emerge; and such collective action taken as is inherent in the nature of the particular state system desired to be set up. It is only when all these means have been successfully employed and all the necessary forces and appropriate factors have continued to operate for a sufficient period of time and when, as a result of their operation over a considerable period, they have created a social pattern strong enough to withstand all influences foreign to its spirit, then there comes into being, as a natural sequence of this train of events, that particular type of state for which these powerful forces have prepared the ground. This is exactly as a tree springs out of a seed and continues to grow with its own force, so that on reaching a particular stage of development it begins to bear the self-same fruit for which its natural structure was particularly suited. If you consider this fact, you will recognize that when a particular type of movement, leadership, mass-character and communal morality have emerged into a shape appropriate to a definite form of state system and yet the hope is entertained that, as a consequence thereof, a state system of an altogether different nature will be created, it would be little more than wishful thinking.

We have now to consider what is the nature of the state which we call an Islamic state. In this connection I may point out that the distinguishing mark of the Islamic state is its complete freedom from all traces of nationalism and its influences, direct and indirect. It is a state built exclusively on principles. I should call it an ideological state. A state having its foundations in certain recognized moral principles and free from all idea of nationality or race is one which the world has known but once only and the advantages of which it does not appreciate even to this day. In ancient times men knew only of government by families or classes. Later on, they had experience of racial and national governments. But the idea of a state conducted on a definite set of principles and ruled by a group of persons compose of widely differing nationalities who have accepted those principles as the basis of their entire life, social, economic and political--such acceptance of principles being their sole title to have a voice in the affairs of the state, this has never struck root in the narrow mind of man. Christianity did embody a very dim perception of this truth but it could not develop a full system of ideas on the basis of which such a state could be formed. .In the French Revolution we discover a faint glimpse of the idea of a state founded on a set of principles, but it soon disappeared in the darkness of nationalism. Communism of course preached this gospel with deep fervor and did even attempt to form a state on this basis, so that the world began to take interest in the great Russian experiment. But the evil spirit of nationalism soon possessed the Communist state and injected its poison down to its roots. From the dawn of history down to modern days, Islam is the only system in the world which seeks to organize the state on the basis of an ideology free from all traces of nationalism and invites mankind to form a non-national state by accepting its ideological basis.

As this is something novel and the world around us is moving in a contrary direction not only the non-Muslims but even Muslims themselves are unable to realize its full implications. The idea completely eludes the grasp of those Muslims who, though born in Muslim families, have had their training and education on Western lines and whose views on life and history are borrowed from the European history and Western politics. The result has been that in, countries outside India, where Muslims preponderate and which are more or less independent, when people of this type assumed the reins of government, they could think of no other form of government or state system except a national government and national state. This was because they had no knowledge of Islam and its attitude towards the problems of life and no conception of a state formed on a definite set of moral and spiritual principles instead of the principle of race or nationality. In India too, people who have received the same kind of mental training are involved in the same fallacy. They talk of an Islamic state but, because of their peculiar mental training and their background of Western political history, they have before their mind no plan of life except. that derived from the life and history of a national state in Europe. Consciously or unconsciously, they fall a victim to nationalistic ideology; and whatever program they think of is fundamentally nationalistic. According to them, the nature of the problem that confronts us is no more than this: that Muslims are a separate national group like Hindus, Englishmen and Frenchmen and as such they have every right to a separate national existence under a state and government of their own. However much they may rack their brains, they cannot conceive of any other means of attaining this objective except that, as a nation, Muslims should follow the same methods and adopt the same strategy as have been followed and adopted by all other national groups in history. In other words, the elements of which this nationality is composed should first be welded together in a strong unified whole ; a powerful national spirit should then be infused among them ; a central authority should emerge and direct them ; they should organize their own national guards ; they should have a national militia ; wherever they are in a majority they should form a national state based on the well-known democratic principle of majority rule ; and wherever they may be in a minority, their "rights" should be safeguarded and their individuality protected, just as in other countries of the word national minorities seek and claim such protection : in the services, educational institutions and elected bodies, they should have proportionate representation, their representatives should be elected by their own votes ; and they should be given their due share in ministries as a distinct national entity. Such are the methods and ideas of these people. They are evidently borrowed from the conception of European state system and yet those who advocate the above means and strategy talk, in the same breath, of their resolve to form an Islamic state. These people also use Islamic terms, `Ummah' `Millat', `Ameer' and the duty of `obedience to the Ameer' the meaning of which in Islamic terminology is something quite different from what these persons have in mind when they use these words. To them, however, these Islamic terms are synonymous with the terminology of nationalism and, as good luck would have it, these terms were found ready-made in Islamic literature and are now being freely used to serve as a cloak for un-Islamic ideas and modes of action derived from the West.

If you understand the nature of a state based on spiritual and moral principles, you will find little difficulty in realizing that this attitude of thought and action and this program of work cannot serve even as a starting point for arriving at the desired goal of an ideological state, let alone the question of its utility in the concluding stages of the movement. Rather such ideas and actions are by their very nature fatal to the growth and evolution of a state to be founded on non-national principles. The very basis of an ideological state is that we dismiss all questions of tribes, classes, and `nationalities and look upon men as moral and spiritual beings. It is not with their nationality but with their humanity that we concern ourselves. We place before them certain principles of action and a set of beliefs wherefrom they have been derived, and put forward the claim that these principles provide the basis of a universal culture and a non-national state system which will lead mankind to real peace in this world and in the Hereafter. Anyone who accepts those principles is entitled to an equal share in the conduct of the state system built on them. How can a man whose numerous activities bear the stamp of nationalism come forward with such an ideal? How can he appeal to the wider humanity and the common moral sentiments of mankind when he has already falsified his position by associating himself with the good of a particular community or a particular nation? Would it not be ridiculous to appeal in the name of humanity and the common welfare of mankind to people blinded by national prejudices and fighting each other in the name of nationalism and national states, and in the same breath to demand national rights and national self-determination for our, own people ? Does it stand to reason that a movement for dissuading people from litigation should be launched by instituting a suit in a court of law?

Another distinguishing feature of the Islamic state is that the basic conception underlying all its outward manifestations is the idea of Divine sovereignty. Its fundamental theory is that the earth and all that it contains belongs to God Who alone is its Sovereign. No individual, family, class or nation, not even the whole of humanity can lay claim to sovereignty, either partially or wholly. God alone has the right to legislate and give commands. The state, according to Islam, is nothing more than a combination of men working together as servants of God to carry out His Will and Purposes. This can happen in two ways: either some person should receive the law of the state and its basic constitution directly from .God or he should follow the lead of another person who is the recipient of such law and constitution, In the working of the state all those will participate who believe in this law and are prepared to follow it. They will all work with a sense of individual and collective responsibility to God, not to the electorate, neither to the king nor the dictator. They will proceed on the belief that God knows everything overt and covert ; from His knowledge nothing is hidden ; and from His grip man can never hope to escape, not even after death: The responsibility for running the state has been vested in men not for the purpose of enforcing their own orders or imposing their own will on others, enslaving people of other nationalities, calling upon them to bow down their heads in submission, enabling them to construct spacious palaces by fleecing the weak and downtrodden ; in short, for the pursuit of their pleasure and self-glorification. On the other hand, men who are at the helm of the state should have a feeling that this is a burden laid on them that they may enforce the Divine law and administer social justice to the creatures of God. They should feel that if they make even a small mistake in following and enforcing the law or become guilty of even a grain of selfishness, prejudice, partiality and dishonesty, they shall be hauled up before the throne of God on the Day of Judgment, even if they escape punishment in this world.

The superstructure of social conduct and political action that is raised on the basis of this theory is entirely different from that of the secular state in all its details and ramifications. Between these two forms of social and political life there is nothing common either in the elements which make up their unity or in the spirit and attitude underlying them. A state system based on belief in the sovereignty of God and in a sense of responsibility to Him requires for its successful working a special type of individual mass character and a peculiar mental attitude. Its army, its police, its law-courts, its revenue system, its taxation, its administrative and foreign policy, its conduct of war and peace-everything differs widely from its counterpart in a secular state. The ordinary judges as well as the Chief Budges of the secular courts are not fit to work as clerks or even peons in its judicial system. The Inspector General of police in a secular state is not worthy of being an ordinary constable therein; and the Generals and Field-marshals not fit to be recruited as ordinary soldiers. The foreign ministers of the secular states, not to say of their fitness for any office under the Islamic state system, will not escape imprisonment under that system for their falsehood, fraud and dishonesty. In short, all persons who have been trained for running the affairs of secular state and whose moral and mental training has been undertaken in the spirit which permeates every activity of the secular state are totally unfit for an Islamic state, which requires human beings of a very different character for its citizens, voters, councilors, office-bearers, judges, magistrates, heads of departments, commanders of the army, ambassadors, and ministers-in brief, for all the different elements of its collective life and administrative machinery. It requires men who have the fear of God in their hearts ; who feel a sense of responsibility towards God ; who prefer the next fife to the present ; in whose eyes moral gain or less is much more important than worldly success or failure ; who follow implicitly, in every walk of life, the-code of conduct and line of action which has been permanently formulated for them ; whose struggle and efforts are directed to the attainment of Divine pleasure ; who, are influenced neither by personal nor national motives ; who are not slaves to avarice of their sensual passions ; who are free from narrow-mindedness and prejudice ; whom wealth and authority cannot corrupt ; who are neither. hungry for riches nor greedy of power ; who possess a strength of character that can resist all temptations even if the entire resources of the earth and all the treasures of the world are placed at their free disposal with nobody to check and -supervise -them ; who pass sleepless nights when the government of a city is entrusted to them so that, under their protection, people may be freed from all fear in respect of their life, property and honor ; who entering a country as conquerors, set at rest by their conduct any fear that may be entertained about them that they wilt indulge in loot and plunder, in tyranny, adultery or sexual incontinence. On the other hand, the conquered population find, .in every soldier of their army, a guardian of their life and property and the honor of their womenfolk; whose reputation in international politics is such that the whose world can depend upon them for their truthfulness, love of justice, adherence to moral principles, and fulfillment of promises and undertakings. An Islamic state can only be formed with this type of people and it is only men of such sterling character that can run it. People with materialistic and utilitarian mentality who always come forward with new principles under the stress of personal or national expediency ; who do not believe in God or in the life Hereafter ; whose policy revolves on the axis of worldly gain or loss, far from being fit to establish or govern such a state are a menace to its stability. Their very existence in such a state is a challenge to the principles on which it claims to rest.