State has been empowered to refer the bill back to the Legislature for reconsideration. The final decision will not only require a majority of the Legislature; it will also need the support of the majority of the Muslim members, because the decision in such case will involve an interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah.
The possibilities of a wrong decision on account of ignorance having thus been eliminated, the only doubt that may arise in the mind can be that the majority of the Muslim legislators themselves may be hostile to the teachings of Islam. Such a contingency, in my opinion, cannot arise, but, if God forbid, this country can return at any stage of its history a majority of Muslim members who, not out of ignorance but deliberately in open revolt against Islam, legislate un-Islamic laws, then no constitutional safeguards can save the country from deviation from the Islamic faith. Indeed Islam can thrive in this country only so long as the people are sincerely Muslim. If at any time the majority of Muslim legislators betray the interests of Islam, they should lose the confidence of their constituencies which in accordance with our recommendations will consist of Muslims alone. We were bound in this regard by the Objectives Resolution which emphasizes that “the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people". This resolution, as I have already said, received unanimous support not only of the country but also of eminent Ulema like the late Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, who was one of its authors. This principle of the authority of the people we had to safeguard by vesting their representatives in the Legislature with final authority.
In this way the recommendations provide for building up a truly Islamic democracy conscious of its great mission of interpreting the progressive nature of Islam to the modern world unhampered in its work by short-sighted narrow mindedness or reaction masquerading in the garb of religion. The interests of true religion have been properly safeguarded, and religion has itself been given the fullest scope for its beneficent activities.
Another important recommendation is that the Head of the State will be elected, and it has been laid down that he must be a Muslim. This is in keeping with Islamic usage. It is no less democratic. It may be said that in a country where the entire population is not Muslim, it is not proper to lay it down that the Head of the State must belong to a particular religion. Such criticism would be merely superficial. If we look at the law and the practice of some of the foremost democracies of the world, we find that the provision which the report recommends is by no means extraordinary. In a democracy like the United Kingdom the monarch must not only be a Christian but he should also belong to the Church of England. This is because the British monarch is also the Head of the British Church. In the United States of America I am not aware of anyone having been elected President who was not a Protestant. I do not know if anyone who does not profess the more popular faith can ever be elected President in that great democracy. I have mentioned only two of the leading democracies of the world. Outside the democratic world no one who does not belong to the Communist Party in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics possesses the franchise; the possibility of being elected to an Office is, of course, beyond imagination. Therefore, if we say that the Head of the State of Pakistan
