Question and Answer

Question

In a letter published in the May 2004 issue of Tadhkeer you referred to a speech delivered at Delhi’s Constitution Club, in which you described the ‘Two-Nation Theory’ as an idea developed by Muhammad Iqbal and Mr. Jinnah. You argued that prophets addressed their communities as “O my people,” implying that all inhabitants of a region—regardless of religious belief—constitute a single nation.

With due respect, I would like to raise a point: The Qur’an consistently distinguishes between believers and disbelievers—addressing them separately, affirming that they are different, and stating that each follows a separate path (e.g., 32:18, 68:35–36, 109-1-6).

In light of these verses, how can it be maintained—as you seem to suggest—that believers and disbelievers form a single nation? (Muhammad Siddiq, Islamabad)

Answer

1. When the Quran establishes that earlier prophets addressed their non-Muslim audiences with the words “O my people,” (e.g., 7:61, 11:89, 36:20, 39:39, 40:29), this same approach becomes part of the model (uswah) of the Prophet Muhammad. This is because the Quran, in addressing the Prophet, states: “So follow their guidance” (6:90)— referring to the guidance of the earlier prophets.

This shows that they made no distinction based on a person’s social or ethnic identity; rather, the distinction you refer to pertains to religious belief, not to one’s human or ethnic affiliation. Reports from the traditions (riwayat) confirm that the Prophet Muhammad followed this example in practice as well. During the Battle of Uhud, when his opponents struck him with a stone that injured his face, blood began to flow. At that moment, he acted in accordance with the example of a previous prophet.

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, describing the event, said: “It is as if I am watching the Prophet describing a prophet from among the earlier prophets. His people struck him and wounded him. He was wiping blood from his face and saying: ‘O God, forgive my people, for they do not know.’” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1792)

What I have stated in this matter is based on clear textual evidence (nass). In contrast, what you have written relies entirely on analogy and inference (qiyas wa istinbat). It is a well-established principle that no analogy or inference can override a direct textual proof.

2. The real problem with people like you is that you have permanently split humanity into two groups: Muslims and those who deny the truth (kuffar). Because of this split, you believe that there is an eternal Muslim nation on one side and an eternal non-Muslim nation on the other. This kind of division is completely wrong.

A Muslim, in essence, is not the name of an ethnic group, nor is a denier (kafir) defined by ethnicity. The difference between the two depends solely on whether one has discovered the truth or not. Therefore, throughout human history—and into the future—it has been the case that some individuals born into Muslim families gradually drift away from Islam, while others, previously unfamiliar with it, come to explore its teachings and adopt them based on personal conviction.

For this reason, it is entirely reasonable that the foundation of nationhood should lie not in religion, but in a shared homeland. Religious identity can evolve over time, whereas the identity of a homeland generally remains stable.

Hence, it is both natural and reasonable that nationhood should not be based on religion, but rather on homeland. Religious affiliation can change over time, whereas the division of homelands generally remains stable.

To better understand the verses you mentioned in your question, you may refer to my Quran commentary Tazkir al-Quran and the chapter titled ‘The Issue of Kufr and Kafir’ in my book Hikmat-e-Islam.