The Riots of 1953 — Page 26
26 continue to suffer unless they could be persuaded, in matters of common interests, to present a united front. 30. The revered Head of our Community addressed the All Muslim Parties Conference in the following words in 1925:- “At the very outside I should point out that the leaders of All Muslim Parties Conference can never succeed in achieving their object unless they understand and convert all Muslims to this poi n t of view that there are two definitions of Islam in this age. One is religious and the other political. The religious definition can only be according to the conscience of every individual. He may define Islam as is in accord with his own sense and understanding and hold a view accordingly. This can not form the basis of a legitimate grievance, for this is a right which one must concede to every individual. The other definition is political and no individual or sect professing Islam can lay down this definition for itself. It is don e and can be done by those who disavow Islam. Who, then, is a Muslim in the Political sense? The answer to this question cannot be given by Deoband, Qadian, Farangi Mahal, Golra or Alipur. It is only Hindus, Christians and Sikhs who can answer this question. It is indeed only they with whom Muslim have to deal politically that can give an answer to this question. If a Community or people are called and treated as Muslims by the followers of other faiths the Fatwas of even a lakh of Maulvis cannot eliminate them from the body politic of Islam. The Sunnies may call the Shias as Kafirs and the Shias may call the S unnies as Kafirs, but what has to be seen is as to how will the Hindus and Sikhs treat the Shias and Sunnies. Will the Hindus treat the Sikhs and Sunnis dif f erently because the one calls the other a Kafir? No. They will treat the one just as the other. For their political interests are identical. The word Islam covers all. If