The caliphate of Elizabeth Regina

Secular law exists in Pakistan, thats news for me. Queen is a ceremonial post, it has no bearing on the functioning of the state. The parliament is the ultimate auhtority.Recommend

a nod of appreciation for arshad. well doneRecommend

I am shocked at the conclusion drawn by Arshad Zaman that parlimentary democracy in England rests firmly on Christian faith and institutions.I do not see any Mullah Umars playing any role in their system.I really do not understand what is the message from M.ArshadRecommend

It is always a pleasure and an education to read the readers’ comments. Thank you!

Mr. C. M. Sarwar,

Sir, Please forgive me for offending your sensibilities; that was certainly not my intent. I offer the following comments by way of restitution.

You ask, what is the message of this article? I suppose there are two messages:

A manifest one: A close look at the facts does not support widely held claims about a host of clichés on law and governance — religion has no place in politics, church and state must be separate, etc. — that are said to derive from the English example–they may be true or they may be false, but the English experience does not bear them out; and
A latent one: We must not follow the herd and accept the many platitudes that have gained currency by sheer repetition–instead, we must learn to examine the facts, critically, and apply our own minds to arrive at independent judgments.

The article is organised accordingly. After two introductory sentences, there are five paragraphs of simple factual statements about Queen Elizabeth (most taken from The official website of The British Monarchy). I am gratified that none of the commentators have contested any of these facts. On the basis of these facts, in the final paragraph, I conclude inter alia that contrary to widely held beliefs, the political system in England does rest firmly on Christian faith and institutions. There is, of course, no compulsion on anyone else to come to the same judgment–but whatever the judgment, hopefully it would be on the basis of facts and logic, and not just because that is the conventional wisdom.

Finally, Sir, I must confess that I am at a disadvantage in trying to respond to your statement: “I do not see any Mullah Umars playing any role in their system”, without knowing what attributes of Mulla Umar you have in mind. In terms of spiritual and religious claims however Queen Elizabth beats Mulla Umar hands down: she claims to be chosen by God (if not ‘a visible god’ herself), anointed by priests, above Acts of Parliament and earthly laws, sworn as Head of the Church to maintain Anglican Christianity, and is a feudal monarch to whom oaths of personal fealty have been sworn by her priests, judges, law-makers, and soldiers. In law and in fact she is above the law, a characteristic of primitive government that was abolished 1400 years ago among Muslims, and other peoples as well. I am not sure this is what you had in mind, but as a spiritual and temporal head of her people, I suppose she could be said to play a far more prominent role than Mulla Umar.

In the light of this, let me respond to some of the other comments:

Faraz holds that even though the Queen is the de jure and de facto Head of State, this is merely “ceremonial” and “it has no bearing on the functioning of the state.” It isn’t immediately obvious to me how the Head of State has “no bearing” on the State? Without further evidence and reason, therefore, to offset the facts enumerated in the article, I am unable to revise my judgment on the basis of an obiter dictum alone.
Sarjeel Mowahid, by contrast, does agree that “In theory yes the Queen is all powerful” but goes on to observe: “but if you missed out on Oliver Cromwell [something missing here?] the glorious revolution then please go on this is amusing…” I am afraid the reference (or references) are a little too obscure for me: (1) I don’t see what bearing the short-lived Protectorate (1653-58) under Oliver Cromwell (d. 1658) during the 11-year interregnum between the execution of Charles I (1649) and the restoration of Charles II (1660) has on the points I am making; and (2) I do mention the Revolution of 1688-89–”Glorious” to one faction of English historians, “Whig” to another, among others–albeit summarily:

“Although the Whig Revolution (1688-1689) substantially diluted the rights of the monarch over her subjects, her divine selection and related spiritual claims were not altered.”

Without further elaboration by the learned commentator (on how Cromwell and the 1688-89 Revolution bear on the points made), I see no reason to revise this judgement.

Lastly, it is my pleasant task to thank Jay and Haris Masood Zuberi–with whom I am entirely in agreement–for their supportive remarks.

With kind regards.Recommend

Mr. C. M. Sarwar,

Sir, The relationship between the British monarch and the parliament is complex and it is hard to “establish” anything, as you demand, in a short newspaper column (and online comments). Nor can differences in opinion be settled by simple questions:

You ask: Can the Queen act without the advice of Prime Minister in any matter?
I might ask: Can the Parliament pass any Act without the Queen’s signature? Were the Queen to kill someone in broad daylight, can she be tried for murder in any court of law? Etc. (The answer to both questions is: No: that, to me, makes her way more than a “tourist attraction”.)

The article presents, in my view, sufficient evidence to support the following two claims:

religion has a place in British politics; and
church and state are not separate in England.

This is all that the article seeks to establish on the basis of the facts presented (as I clarified in my response to you about the manifest “message” of the article, about which you had inquired). Would you agree with one or both of these propositions? And if not, on the basis of what facts and reasons–apart from things being “well-established”?

Kind regards.Recommend