Criticism On Nation State Concept Of Ghamidi Sahab
Can you specify the objections? I watched his two videos but find his talk is quite confusing and irrelevant, his actual objection is not clear. if you specify what you need to have a response for, it would be easy. If it is about the information of the process of making of the nation states, it is not the problem. The point of Ghamidi saheb is what is actually there in the name of nation-states and we have to deal with them as such. Ghamidi saheb never said that the boundaries are static or unchangeable, it is not his concern, he calls these boundaries legitimate.
Religious laws deal only with Muslims and no scholar ever said that the religious law of shariah can be applied to the non-Muslims too. So even if Islam is adopted as a state religion, it will not be applied to non-Muslims. Public law has to be secular in nature, no other foundation can be adopted for it, except that a community demands to use its religious law in their public matters too and it may not affect the other party when involved. Secondly, nation-states are not created by Muslims. They were imposed by the world order. A nation can deny accepting it, but it has to declare it first and then face the consequences too. It is not fair to claim to be a nation-state and a religious state at the same time. Since the state is not acquired by the Muslims only, and it was created on the principle of the nation-state, therefore legally and ethically Muslims have no greater claim on its ownership than that of non-Musims. If some country is conquered by the Muslims only, as is the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is their right to impose their agenda.