Theocratic Nation of Maulana Maududi and His Jamaat-e-Islami's Vision - Part 1
By
Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam
24 August
2022
He Also
Raised the Divisive Argument That India Is a Separate Nation Consisting Of Hindus,
Muslims, Sikhs and The Underprivileged
----
Maulana Maududi
-----
In order to
understand and engage with Islamist terrorism which is devouring so many Muslim
and some non-Muslim lives, we must engage with several ideologues of the 20th
and 21st centuries, not to speak of the middle ages. One such ideologue is
Maulana Syed Abul A’la Maududi, a very influential scholar of Islam in the
South Asian sub-continent as well as the Arab world.
A group
operating in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka under the name
Jamaat-e-Islami was formed based on the ideas of Abul A'la Maududi. In all
other countries extreme positions are adopted and followers often engage in
terrorist activities too, but Jamaat takes peaceful positions in India, and
even projects itself as secular and democratic. But the Indian Jamaat too did
not accept India's democratic system in principle until early 1970s. The
organization's goal is to recognize them only as a means to accomplish its goal
and essentially establish a religious state, though, of course, now they
recognize it cannot be done in India. Indeed, they have even started a
political party now, though until early 1970s Jamaat members were not even
allowed to participate in the democratic process. SIMI (Students Islamic
Movement of India), which was the unofficial student organization of the group,
stuck to its basic ideas and professes fiercely the establishment of Khilafat
or a religious state like Jamaat-e-Islami in other countries do. But the Jamaat
believes that the time has not come for such a move in India. That is why SIMI
had to sever ties with Jamaat. The Jamaat formed a student organization called
SIO to work with their programmes.
Jamaat-e-Islami’s
ideas are not appreciated by any other Muslim organization in India or in the
world. Not only that, traditional Muslim sects strongly oppose it. In other
countries, Jamaat-e-Islami often works with terrorist organizations. According
to the judgment of the Ulema leadership, which leads the Muslims, the Jamaat is
a movement that has deviated from the right direction. Secular organizations
also oppose the Jamaat as it aims for religious statism. The Jamaat in India does not adopt violent
methods. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, Jamaat is actively involved in politics,
but has adopted a distinct policy in India. However, the Jamaat was banned
twice in India.
Abul
A'la Maududi
Maulana
Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, grew up in a rich environment. He was
born in 1903 in Aurangabad, Hyderabad. Maududi belonged to a Sayyid family that
served the Mughals and Nizams. His father Ahmad Hasan, who was a modernist at
first, later lived as a Sufi. Maududi studied language and religious rituals at
home. At the age of eleven, he joined the Oriental High School (Madrasah
Faukhaniya Mashriqiyyah). Later he studied western thought from Aligarh.
British Islamic writer Thomas Arnold was the main teacher here. Later, he
studied at Hyderabad Darul Uloom for a short time, but due to his father's
illness, formal education had to suffice. During his stay in Bhopal, he
befriended the famous rationalist Islamic scholar Niaz Fatehpuri for a while.
After
coming to Delhi he read Sir Syed's works. And also acquired a good knowledge of
English. Like Sir Syed, he believed that Western culture was superior. He
lamented why religious scholars in India do not go to England to understand the
secret of the West (Tajdeed wo Ihyauddin, Tarjumanil Qur'an, November-December,
1940, 345). In the article written about this, he also introduced philosophers
who should be studied by Muslims. Maududi later wrote that his views were
wrong: “In my days of ignorance I read old and new philosophy, science,
history, economics and politics. I read and digested a library itself. But when
I read the Qur'an with open eyes, I realized that God is the truth and that
what I read was nothing. Now I have a mine of wisdom. Kant, Hegel, Marx and
other thinkers seemed to me to be mere children'.
Maududi
also became close to Marxism after the Bolshevik Revolution. His guru at that
time was Abdul Sattar Khairy, a Communist leader in Delhi. Khairy was the
representative in India of the Bolshevik Propaganda Committee in Moscow.
Maududi's brother-in-law Shahid Zamdi was also a communist. Zamdi is also a
university teacher. He translated a work of Marx into English. In the late
1930s he became attracted to Islam, although his contacts with the
intelligentsia of Delhi made him a thorough reformer. At that time Islamic
religious scholars used to grow big beards. But the addition of a beard to the
name of Maududi, a modernist, drew criticism from scholars. He argued that
there is no such thing as beard as a necessity in Islam. After the formation of
Jamaat Islami in 1941, the beard problem came up again. Mansoor Nu'mani
resigned from the organization when Maududi refused to grow his beard. In the
1930s, he was among those who enjoyed everything from cinema to music. An
English role was adopted. But when he came to Islam, his position changed and
declared everything forbidden (Irfan Ahmad, Islamism and Democracy in India,
New Jersey, 1974, 54).
He married
Mahmuda Begum, a green gardener, at a time when he was fascinated by western
culture. The father-in-law was very rich at that time. Begum studied at Queen
Mary School. Mansoor Nu'mani says that they were forced to resign from the
Jamaat because they did not wear purdah. Her education at Queen Mary's was also
criticized at the time.
To
Congress
In the
1920s, Maududi became attracted to national politics and joined the Congress
Party. Maududi participated in Khilafat movement and satyagrahas. The pamphlet
he wrote about Gandhi was confiscated by the British authorities. In 1919,
Maududi wrote a biography of Madan Mohan Malviya, one of the founders of Hindu
communal politics in India and a Congressman. In the book, he described Malviya
as the captain of the ship India. He asked Muslims to emulate Malviya. He is
not only the leader of the Hindus; Muslims also follow Malviya (Maududi, Pandit
Madan Mohan Malviya, Hindi, Patna, 1919,13). He took charge as the editor of
Muslim, the mouthpiece of Jamiat Ulama Hind, which was active on the side of
the Congress.
It was
Congress' presumed excessive attachment to Hindu interests that pushed Maulana
Maududi to distance himself from the Congress. He aspired to become the leader
of the Congress. But the Congress did not consider the Muslim leaders much. He
said this openly himself (Tarjuman, 1938, March, 165). Maududi soon bid
farewell to the Jamiat-ul-Ulama Hind and the Congress. Maududi moved to
Hyderabad from Delhi in 1928. He spent a few years there and became fascinated
with Islamic literature. He presented a plan to the Nizam of Hyderabad to
revolutionize Islamic education. The Nizam showed no interest in it. In 1932 he
started a journal called Tarjuman-ul-Qur'an. The aim of the journal was to
present Islam rationally. It did not deal with politics much at first. In 1938,
he came to Punjab on the invitation of Iqbal and the Zamindar Ali. The aim was
to create an institution called Darul Islam there. Ali was not amused when
Maulana Maududi started getting involved in politics by then. Because of this
Maududi left Punjab within a year.
The
continuous perceived neglect of the Muslims by the Congress and the pandering
to the wishes of the Hindu Mahasabha led to the growth of the Muslim League.
The Congress embarked on a Muslim outreach program to establish itself as a
party representing both Hindus and Muslims. It doesn't matter. Maududi publicly
spoke out against the contact programme in his translation. He wrote a series
of articles titled 'Musalman Aur Maujuda Saiyasi Kashmakash'. It was
later published as a three-volume book. Writing that he is both a Hindustani
and a Muslim, Maududi wrote that as a Hindustani he stood for India's
independence and as a Muslim he was concerned about Muslims’ identity. He
criticized the Congress in general and Nehru in particular. He wrote that the
Congress is trying to wipe out the Muslim identity through the contact
programme. He argued, for example, that because Hindus were in the majority,
the identity of Muslims would be wiped out in a democratic regime. He observed
that if the Congress came to power, it would pave the way for political
cleansing and forced conversion of Muslims to Hinduism. Maududi also contested
the claim that the Congress represented both Hindus and Muslims. He wrote about
Hindu Mahasabha leaders of Congress and explained their role in anti-Muslim
riots. He also declared that the ultimate goal of the Congress and the Muslim
League was the establishment of a Hindu Rajya (Saiyasi Kashmakash, 1938, Vol.
2. 61). Maududi explained how Hindu culture is encouraged in schools in
Congress-ruled states. He alleged that the aim of Congress's Wardha education
scheme was to eliminate Islamic nationalism and establish Hindu nationalism. It
is argued that schools under this scheme are called Vidya Mandir, which refers
to a temple (mandir) (174). There, Muslims were accused of wearing dhoti like
Hindus and singing Vande Mataram with folded hands. Maududi criticized Zakir
Hussain, the progenitor of the Wardha project, as a worse person than Macaulay,
the British official who destroyed oriental education. Maududi points to the
imposition of Sanskritised Hindi on students and the worship of Urdu as steps
towards Hindu Raj (same book).
Maududi's
anger spilled over to Congress Muslim leader Maulana Asad Madani. Madani had
declared that collaborating with the Congress was not against Islam. Most of
the Muslims were cooperating with the Congress then. Maududi branded these
Muslim leaders as 'Muslim soldiers with Hindu leaders leading the cleansing
act' (73-77). Maududi accused Madani of misinterpreting the Qur'an. Maududi
said that India's nationalism is unbelief (Kufr) and ignorance (Jahiliyat).
Maududi
stated that the basis of nationalism is religion and Muslims are a separate
nation like Hindus (112). He also raised the divisive argument that India is a
separate nation consisting of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and the underprivileged.
He later upheld the idea that India should be made into a federal state to
solve the Muslim problem. In that, Muslims should be allowed cultural autonomy.
If so, they can protect their education and culture, he said. He also said that
Muslims and their Hindu neighbours should maintain good relations and work together
for Hindustan (207). But when the Congress demanded a federal system, Maududi
was not ready to accept it. He shared his concern that Muslims would still be
cleansed of their cultural identity. If so, they cannot protect their education
and culture, he said. He also said that Muslims and their Hindu neighbours
should maintain good relations and work together for Hindustan (207).
------
A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Mubashir
V.P is a PhD scholar in Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia and freelance
journalist.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/theocratic-nation-maududi-jamaat-islami/d/127788
New Age Islam, Islam
Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism