PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION
In contemporary times, books are generally believed to serve one of two purposes: either to provide entertainment for the readers or to increase their knowledge. However, this list overlooks one of the most important objectives: the study of truth. The book you now hold in your hands was written with precisely this purpose in mind.
What follows in the next pages is not merely an attempt to highlight an error in the interpretation of Islam; rather, it is an effort to present the correct understanding of Islam. There are two ways to do this: one is to present the correct interpretation in an abstract form, and the other is to clarify it in relation to prevailing interpretations. From a purely academic perspective, the first method may suffice. However, for practical and utilitarian purposes, the second approach is more effective. Therefore, I have adopted the second approach in this book.
If, through reading this book, anyone genuinely reaches a deeper understanding of the truth and attains a correct comprehension of Islam, it would be my greatest fortune, and I sincerely pray to Allah for this outcome.
The interpretation under discussion is not simply a prevailing view within a particular circle that we need to attempt to correct; it goes beyond that to represent a kind of challenge. In a certain sense, this book serves as a response to that challenge.
The literature produced under this interpretation explicitly, and some of its phrases—such as those in the preface to Quran Ki Chaar Buniyadi Istlahein (Four Key Concepts of the Quran) (Urdu) by Maulana Maududi—implicitly, suggest that our predecessors (the Companions of the Prophet e, the Followers, the Followers of the Followers, as well as those who nobly followed them) did not understand the religion in its proper form. According to this interpretation, in the fourteen-hundred-year history of Islam, there is not a single movement that accomplished the task of genuine revival and renewal of Islam. Although some intelligent individuals within this circle have attempted to present certain events from Islamic history as evidence of this ideology, these efforts amount to fabricating history rather than genuine historiography.
In this way, such an interpretation amounts, in its entirety, to expressing a kind of lack of confidence in the understanding of Islam held by our predecessors. It implies that they did not serve Islam in the manner it deserved. I am not hesitant to acknowledge that some of our scholars may have misunderstood certain verses or hadiths, or, in other words, may have erred in identifying the specific nature of certain aspects of the faith. Likewise, it is always possible to recognize the shortcomings and failings in their practical actions. However, it is entirely unacceptable to assert that they misunderstood the essence of Islam or that they failed to adopt the correct approach to serving the faith.
For me, nothing in the world is more gratifying than the feeling that this book serves as a defence against such criticisms directed at our predecessors. I have taken it upon myself to defend them to the best of my limited abilities.
This reminds me of an incident from March 7, 1963. During that time, I was intensely engaged in researching the arguments in Quran Ki Chaar Buniyadi Istlahein (The Four Basic Quranic Terms). I was in the central reading room of the Darul Musannefin, Shibli Academy, library in Azamgarh, surrounded by shelves filled with works on Quranic exegesis, Hadith, jurisprudence, history, theology, and language studies. It was one o’clock in the afternoon; the library’s main doors were closed, and everyone had left for the midday break. Alone in this quiet room, I stood between books. Due to continuous study, I felt utterly drained, as though every drop of blood had been drained from my body. I picked up a volume of Tafsir Ibn Jarir, intending to put it back on the shelf and fetch another book. But as I stood up, weakness made me dizzy, and I momentarily lost my sense of direction. Though I knew this room well, for a moment, I stood there unable to determine which way to go or which shelf to approach. After a brief pause, I regained my composure and remembered where the relevant shelf was.
After regaining my composure after this experience, it felt as though I had journeyed a great distance in discussing this ideology with the scholars of the past, and I was exhausted from this journey. Yet, despite my exhaustion, I felt satisfaction in knowing that I understood their viewpoint and was now in a position to refute this interpretation with complete confidence. It seemed as though these shelves and the books within them represented the spirits of our predecessors, standing behind me, as I set forth, with my trembling hands and faltering steps, to defend them.
This thought filled me with such joy that my exhaustion and hunger vanished, and I resumed my study, engrossed until sunset.
Before analyzing the interpretation under discussion, I must clarify a few points. Before my parting ways with the Jamaat (Jamaat-e-Islami India), some people advised me to avoid engaging in such controversial discussions and instead focus on positively presenting the Islamic understanding I had reached through studying the Quran and Hadith.
I appreciate the sincere intentions behind this advice. Had I followed it, my work would have taken a different form. In fact, to work in this way, I would not have needed to leave the Jamaat at all. I could have continued, like other speakers and writers within the Jamaat, to add my own voice. But two factors led me to make the decision that ultimately resulted in the book you now hold.
First, I believed that remaining within the Jamaat while promoting an interpretation of Islam that diverged from Maulana Maududi’s thinking—which serves as the Jamaat’s foundation—was a matter of dishonesty. Historical circumstances have led to the situation that now Maulana Maududi’s literature has been regarded by the Jamaat members as the authentic, definitive explanation of the organization’s Jamaat ideology. Under such circumstances, if one seeks to promote a different interpretation within the Jamaat, it would be dishonest. The Jamaat’s platform exists to propagate its own ideology, not those of others.
The only way I could work within the Jamaat was if it declared that Maulana Maududi’s literature was not the sole authoritative interpretation of its ideology. However, as the correspondence with the Jamaat’s leadership will show, I was unsuccessful in this effort. Afterwards, the only honest path for me was to step outside the Jamaat to express what I believed to be the truth, as remaining within the Jamaat while promoting a divergent view would have been unethical.
Secondly, my years of work through the magazine Zindagi in this intellectual circle led me to conclude that mere positive work alone was insufficient, given the particular influence introduced by Maulana Maududi’s literature. The flaw of this literature differs from other common errors. It does not mean that he has added to or subtracted from the body of beliefs and practices that constitute the religion. It accepts the entirety of Islam, but the very definitions of these elements have been altered in its explanation. Consequently, followers of this ideology may appear to accept everything, but they do not do so in the manner they truly should.
The Quran and Hadith indicate that the core issue is establishing a relationship with God and fearing the punishment of the Hereafter. This is what we must adopt ourselves and invite others towards. However, this ideology has reduced the matters of the Hereafter and the relationship with Allah to matters of “training.” In this framework, these realities are treated as if they are only meant to prepare and organize workers, rather than being the core matters for which we should strive. The primary objective has become to bring about a revolution in the world, while accountability in the Hereafter and similar aspects are treated merely as tools to instill dedication and character in those who rise for this worldly revolution, or in those who, after the revolution, assume charge of the world’s system.
This doesn’t mean that members of the Jamaat have made worldly success their true goal instead of success in the Hereafter. Their actual goal is undoubtedly success in the Hereafter, but their understanding of what actions are required in the world to achieve that goal has become flawed. For instance, if a person adopts the belief that mastering worldly material powers is a means to success in the Hereafter and, based on this, starts working toward it, it would be correct to say that while he still regards Allah’s approval in the Hereafter as his ultimate goal, his understanding of the means to attain that approval—that is, what we should strive for in this world to draw closer to Allah in the Hereafter—has changed.
As a result of this explanation, matters like closeness to Allah and the Hereafter, though included in the Jamaat’s “program,” have not found their rightful place in its members. Such issues remain confined to the subject of “training” and fail to gain their original significance in people’s minds. Those influenced by this interpretation resemble a vessel that has been turned in the wrong direction; if you pour water into it, it spills over instead of filling the vessel. And even if some does enter, it is very little.
Thus, I observed that when I speak about the fear of Allah and concern for the Hereafter, those influenced by this perspective do not reject it; they read it and listen to it with interest. However, due to the intellectual framework established by the literature, such matters do not penetrate their minds in the correct way. These discussions merely end up in the “training” category. Since Islam and human nature are in perfect harmony, any deviation in nature prevents Islam from being integrated properly. Therefore, despite listening and reading, the true effect of such a message does not settle in their minds as it should.
This was why I concluded that merely presenting my ideas positively would be unproductive. Instead, it was essential to directly critique the political interpretation under discussion, prove its flaws, and then present the correct interpretation as an alternative. Only then could the actual matter be clarified.
I have no illusions that, following such criticism, all Jamaat members will abandon the Jamaat’s ideas and adopt a new perspective. History has never witnessed such a thing, nor will it now. The Jamaat’s ideology has been around for a quarter of a century. Many have grown old with this ideology since accepting it in their youth, and they are now in old age. Once a person spends such a long time with an ideology, it becomes impossible to abandon it. They grow so accustomed to it that they cannot imagine any truth outside it. The Jamaat has now reached a stage where it functions more as a “tradition” than a “movement,” one that does not require evidence to uphold it. Often, even when a person is defeated in the field of logic, he continues along the path of tradition as if there were no greater truth. After years of sustained effort, it has secured a place in society and built a widespread network with which many people are associated in various ways. This also poses an obstacle, consciously or subconsciously, for many individuals when it comes to making a new decision.
Here, I would like to give the example of communism. It is an undeniable fact that communism has been completely refuted in the field of logic. The critique against it has been so strong that it no longer stands on any intellectual basis. When The New Class by former Yugoslav Communist Party president and vice president Milovan Djilas (1911–1995), a prominent figure in international communism, was published in London in 1956, it caused a global uproar. At the time, Reader’s Digest published an introductory article on the book titled:
“The Book That is Shaking the Communist World” (Reader’s Digest, p. 18)
Yet despite this, the ideology of communism remains alive and continues to grow. When human nature is such, there is no reason to expect that my efforts will lead to a different outcome.
Given this understanding, why did I decide to publish my book? There are several reasons:
1. After being associated with the Jamaat for fifteen years, I feel that the Jamaat has a right upon me—that I should share with it the best advice I have to offer. Realizing that I could not do this from within the organization, I felt compelled to step outside to fulfil this duty.
2. Any ideology, however, deeply rooted in people’s minds, does not affect everyone uniformly. There are always some open-hearted individuals who, when confronted with the truth, can genuinely consider it with an open mind and accept it freely. Such individuals are present in the Jamaat, just as they are in other intellectual circles, and it is these individuals who are the focus of my hopes. In truth, it is for these servants of God that I have undertaken the challenge of producing this difficult work.
3. There are many people surrounding the specific circle of the Jamaat who have studied its literature and are interested in it. They sympathize with and support the Jamaat, yet they still feel an unresolved issue, a knot in their hearts that has yet to be untied. Despite their interest, they do not feel entirely ready to embrace the Jamaat’s ideas fully. They carry within them a subtle inner conflict. For such people, my book, God willing, will serve as the answer to their questions, enabling them to make a more clear-hearted decision about their future stance.
4. Once, when asked about the Jamaat-e-Islami, the late Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943), a prominent Indian Sunni Muslim scholar, responded, “Although no objection can be raised against it from a religious perspective, my heart does not accept this movement.” (Seerat-e-Ashraf, p. 546)
Maulana Thanwi’s words represent the sentiments of almost all the scholars of Islam in India and Pakistan who have yet to accept this ideology. When these scholars read Maulana Maududi’s literature through the lens of the traditional understanding of Islam—an understanding inherited from their pious predecessors and reinforced through religious institutions and texts—their inherited framework resists this literature, leading them to oppose it. However, this opposition usually stems from a vague feeling; they sense a disconnect between their inherited understanding and this interpretation, which leads them to reject it. Yet, they have not been able to precisely identify the cause of this disconnect.
Some among these scholars have tried to pinpoint the reason for this difference, but they generally have not devoted sufficient time to the issue, which is why they have been unable to identify the root of the error. Historically, the distortions in Islam have usually involved additions or omissions within the religion itself. Our scholars, perhaps unconsciously, assumed that this ideology, which their religious sense resists accepting, was also a similar type of error. However, this deviation is entirely different from previous distortions; the mistake in this ideology does not lie in adding or removing anything from the faith but rather in failing to place the various components of Islam in their correct context. For example, certain obligations of Islam are required in relation to specific external circumstances, yet this ideology has mistakenly positioned them as core elements of the faith itself (see the example of love in Chapter 4). This is a very subtle and hidden deviation rather than an obvious one. However, our scholars did not recognize this distinction and began searching for the same kind of errors in the line of thought under discussion as had previously been found among deviant sects. Since this was not actually the case, their criticisms were weak and unfounded, making arguments that did not accurately apply to the ideology under discussion. Their situation became like that of a lawyer with a strong case but who failed to effectively advocate his case due to a lack of understanding of the details.
As a result, the writings published by these critics have caused harm on two fronts. On the one side, they have fostered a kind of ideological arrogance among the Jamaat’s members. Weak critiques have created the erroneous belief among them that they are certainly in the right and their opponents are necessarily wrong. On the other side, these inadequate critiques have weakened a valid opposition, rendering it ineffective. I feel that God willing, this book will provide new material for reflection for both parties.
5. Finally, even if the above considerations were not present, my sense that “the religion has been harmed” is reason enough for me to attempt to clarify this matter. Clarifying religion is inherently necessary.
A Word to My Companions
At the end of this chapter, I must apologize to my companions with whom I have been associated for the past fifteen years, those who know me and whom I know. Undoubtedly, the publication of this book will cause them distress, but believe me, this is more painful for me. This book is nothing more than an extremely unpleasant duty for me.
I have no personal grievances against any individual. This book is not about any person or group of people, but is solely related to the published literature of Maulana Maududi, which interprets and explains Islam. If other individuals are mentioned, it is only because they defend or represent this literature; they are closely associated with it. If they no longer claim this literature as their own, I would have no need to mention them, and I would withdraw my entire case against them.
In Maulana Maududi’s literature, the way Islam is interpreted gives me a strong sense that it misinterprets the true concept of Islam. While its fundamental components are the same as those originally belonging to God’s Religion, their rearrangement has so distorted its essence that it appears to be something entirely different. As a result, the true nature of Islam has been severely compromised.
It stands to reason that if someone feels this way about a body of literature, they are obligated to express this feeling to the best of their ability. Seeing Islam compromised and remaining silent is unacceptable for a person of faith. Many people have aligned themselves with this literature, moulded their minds according to it, and are exerting their best efforts to expand and propagate it. Naturally, they, too, fall within the scope of this critique. However, I am completely clear on this matter: my real criticism is not directed at the individuals of Jamaat-e-Islami or its organizational structure but a specific body of literature.
In this context, I am publishing certain correspondence, which may cause further resentment. However, doing so is necessary to clearly show readers that I did not arrive at a unilateral decision while sitting in isolation. Rather, after extensive consultation with those directly involved in the matter, I reached the conclusion that publishing this book was the only option left to me. If I did not publish this account, no one could truly understand whether the weight of the argument lies on my side or with those I addressed. This correspondence affirms that I am justified in my belief that ‘the religion has been compromised,’ and it reinforces my decision that publishing this work is the right course of action.
