Critiquing Islamism and Maududi

Article by Yogi Sikand follows my commentary;
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/05/critiquing-islamism-and-maududi.html

Yogi, Thanks for posting yet another piece that opens the windows to “exploring” the truth. Finding the truth is one’s own responsibility.

I am glad to see Muslims unhesitatingly critiquing the revered Muslims scholars of the past, we need to sort out the truth from the bunk and there is plenty of it, that is being unraveled now and Insha Allah, in the next decade we must be able to take out the additives by reverend Maududi, Qutub, Hilali and their likes who sought political gains through religion. Political Islam is a human endeavor to dominate, influence and control others, possibly out of fear of being run over or to cash in on the fear. It is the same story with Zionism, Hindutva and Neocons, agents of fear and war mongering.

Truthfully following the religion comes when we have the freedom to question what is given to us. When we lose that freedom, we fall into the trap of distancing ourselves from the truth. Prophet Muhammad did not assign any one to run the religion for Muslims; it was up to the individual to follow the guidelines enshrined in Qur’aan which is the only thing he left to the followers in his last speech. Respectfully the Shia version assigns an interpreter of religion and it was taken as a hereditary Imamat – it works for them and the other system works for the Sunni traditionalist. Prophet Muhammad completed the religion and no one needed to carry it forward, it was the finality of the message, there was no more delegation of religious authority.

Neither the Prophet assigned the governance of the state to any one that would have led to a monarchial form of governance. The consultative form was adopted for the political governance of the state and it was followed with the first four Leaders. Abdul Aziz Sachedina calls it the roots of democracy.

Religion is a private matter between an individual and God, as no one, not even the Prophet is responsible for one’s good and bad deeds, it is the individual responsibility, he or she alone faces the consequences on the day of Judgment, as such no state has the right to regulate one’s faith matters. As a civil society we honor the general guidelines and rules of the society, and can regulate those acts that affect others in terms of crime and punishment.

“Thus, he (Nadwi) accuses Maududi of wrongly equating the Islamic duty of 'establishing religion' with the setting up of an Islamic state with God as Sovereign and Law Maker. At Maududi's hands, he says, 'God', 'The Sustainer', 'Religion' and 'Worship' have all been reduced to political concepts.”

“Thus, he (Nadwi) argued, Maududi's insistence that to accept the commands of anyone other than God, including of an elected government, was tantamount to shirk, the crime of associating others with God, as this was allegedly akin to 'worship', was not in keeping with the teachings of Islam.”.

The above idea seem like etched in stone… it will take a lot of time and research to undo this set notions among a few Muslims, who are in-charge of running the affairs of Muslim communities, oddly the majority of Muslims will not subscribe to it in the privacy of their hearts and minds. Prophet lived in a pluralistic society, and he was sensitive to other humans that God wanted us to understand and live with, he took the initiative of Madinah pact and examples abound of his respect (not agree) for others. Where as some of the Islamic scholars did not live in such an environment and their views are certainly biased, although Maududi lived in such a society; India, perhaps he ignored Allah’s instructions given in Al-Hujurat, Surah 49:13.

“Further, Maulana Nadwi asserted that Maududi's argument that God had sent prophets to the world charged with the mission of establishing an 'Islamic state' was a misreading of the Islamic concept of prophethood.”

“In Maududi's understanding of Islam, he wrote, prayer and remembrance of God are seen as simply the means to an end, the establishment of an Islamic state, whereas, Maulana Nadwi argued, the converse is true.”.

If Maududi meant Islamic state to mean just governance, then it is fine, but if he meant suppression of those who differ and make them second class citizens, then it is dangerous and militaristic, and goes against the very grain of Islam – that is to create peaceful and just societies. We have to undo this thought.

“Maulana Nadwi's critique of radical Islamism points to the rich theological resources contained within traditional Islamic thought that can be used to fashion alternate understandings of the relationship between Islam and politics in a far more sensible way than most Islamists have articulated hitherto and which have caused untold havoc in the name of Islam.”

Yogi has concluded this very well with the above thought. Indeed that is the basis for Ijtihad. We should not settle for the opinions of scholars from yesteryears, and revisit them and re-affirm or re-evaluate in present context. Islam is for all times.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com
# # #

Maulana Nadwi has rightly criticized Maulana
Nadwi on Maududi: A Traditionalist Maulvi's Critique of Islamism

By Yoginder Sikand, TwoCircles.net

The late Sayyed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (or Ali Miyan as he was also known) was one of the leading Indian ulema of modern times. A noted writer, he headed the famous Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa in Lucknow from 1961 till his death in 1999. He was associated with several other Indian as well as international Islamic organisations, a mark of the high respect that he was accorded among Muslims all over the world.

Maulana Nadwi's wrote extensively on a vast range of subjects, including on Islam and politics. On this issue, his views underwent a gradual process of change and maturation, beginning with his early association with a leading Indian Islamist formation and later making a forceful critique of some crucial aspects of its understanding of Islam. His views in this regard point to the little-known yet rich internal debate among Indian Muslim scholars about the relationship between Islam and politics, particularly on the question of what Islamists describe as an 'Islamic state'.

In 1940, Maulana Nadwi came under the influence of Sayyid Maududi, the founder of the principal Indian Islamist outfit, the Jamaat-i Islami. Maududi, along with the Egyptian Syed Qutb, may be said to be among the pioneers of contemporary Islamism. Soon after joining the Jamaat, Maulana Nadwi was put in-charge of its activities in Lucknow. This relationship proved short-lived, however, and he left the Jamaat in 1943. He later wrote that he was disillusioned by the perception that many members of the Jamaat were going to what he called 'extremes' in adoring and glorifying Maududi as almost infallible, this bordering on personality worship'. At the same time, he felt that many Jamaat activists believed that they had nothing at all to learn from any other scholars of Islam. He was also concerned with what he saw as a lack of personal piety in Maududi and some leading Jamaat activists and with their criticism of other Muslim groups.

Maulana Nadwi's opposition to the Jamaat's understanding about Islam and politics, which it shared with most other Islamist formations, comes out clearly in his Urdu book Asr-i Hazir Mai Din Ki Tahfim-o-Tashrih ('Understanding and Explaining Religion in the Contemporary Age') which he penned in 1978, and which won him, so he says in his introduction to its second edition published in 1980, fierce condemnation from leading members of the Jamaat. Here, Maulana Nadwi takes Maududi to task for having allegedly misinterpreted central Islamic beliefs in order to suit his own
political agenda, presenting Islam, he says, as little more than a political programme. Thus, he accuses Maududi of wrongly equating the Islamic duty of 'establishing religion' with the setting up of an Islamic state with God as Sovereign and Law Maker. At Maududi's hands, he says, 'God', 'The Sustainer', 'Religion' and 'Worship' have all been reduced to political concepts. In this way, Maududi, Maulana Nadwi says, sought to incorrectly suggest that Islam is simply about
political power and that the relationship between God and human beings is only that between an All-Powerful King and His subjects. However, Maulana Nadwi says, this relationship is also one of 'love' and 'realisation of the Truth', which is far more comprehensive than what Maududi envisages.

Linked to Maulana Nadwi's critique of Maududi for having allegedly reduced Islam to a mere political project was his concern that not only was such an approach a distortion of the actual import of the Quran but also that it was impractical, if not dangerous, in the Indian context. Thus, he argued, Maududi's insistence that to accept the commands of anyone other than God, including of an elected government, was tantamount to shirk, the crime of associating others with God, as this was allegedly akin to 'worship', was not in keeping with the teachings of Islam. God, Maulana Nadwi wrote, had, in His
wisdom, left several areas of life free for people to decide how they could govern them, within the broad limits set by the
Islamic law or shariah, and guided by a concern for social welfare.

Further, Maulana Nadwi asserted that Maududi's argument that God had sent prophets to the world charged with the mission of establishing an 'Islamic state' was a misreading of the Islamic concept of prophethood. The principal work of the prophets, Maulana Nadwi argued, was to preach the worship of the one God and to exhort others to do good deeds. Not all prophets were rulers. In fact, only a few of them were granted that status. Maulana Nadwi faulted

Maududi for what he said was 'debasing' the 'lofty' Islamic understanding of worship to mean simply 'training' people as willing subjects of the Islamic state. In Maududi's understanding of Islam, he wrote, prayer and remembrance of God are seen as simply the means to an end, the establishment of an Islamic state, whereas, Maulana Nadwi argued, the converse is true. The goal of the Islamic state is to ensure worship of God, and not the other way round. If at all worship
can be said to be a means, he added, it is a means for securing the 'will of God' and 'closeness to Him'.

If the 'Islamic state' should then simply a means for the 'establishment of religion' and not the 'total religion' or the 'primary objective' of Islam, it opens up the possibility of pursuing the same goals through other means. Maulana Nadwi
refers to this when he says that the objective of the 'establishment of the faith' needs to be pursued along with 'wisdom of the faith', using constructive, as opposed to destructive, means. Eschewing 'total opposition', Muslims striving for the 'establishment of the faith' should, he wrote, unhesitatingly adopt peaceful means such as 'understanding and reform', 'consultation' and 'wisdom'. Critiquing the use of uncalled for violence by some groups calling themselves 'Islamic', Maulana Nadwi stressed the need for 'obedience', 'love' and 'faith' and struggle against the 'base self' (nafs). Muslims
should, he wrote, make use of all available legitimate spaces to pursue the cause of the 'establishment of religion', such as propagating their message through literature, public discussions, training volunteers, winning others over with the force of one's own personality and establishing contacts with governments.

Maulana Nadwi's critique of radical Islamism points to the rich theological resources contained within traditional Islamic thought that can be used to fashion alternate understandings of the relationship between Islam and politics in a far more sensible way than most Islamists have articulated hitherto and which have caused untold havoc in the name of Islam.

Book Info: Sayyed Abul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi, 'Asr-i Hazir Mai Din Ki
Tahfim-o-Tashrih, Dar-ul 'Arafat, Lucknow. 1980 edition.

--