In response, I sent the following letter to Maulana Abul Lais Sahib:
Rampur–August 19, 1962
Respected Sir, Peace be upon you,
I received your letter dated August 13, 1962. I had intended that, if you requested my thoughts on Maulana Sadruddin Sahib’s writings, I would respond by commenting clearly on each point. However, since you have asked me to summarize my views, I will present a few key points.
Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Sahib first mentioned that I based my critique of Jamaat-e-Islami’s aims and interpretation of Islam on its literature, while the correct approach would have been to quote the Jamaat’s constitutional clause on its objective and critique that directly.
1. I must clarify that my critique is not about “Jamaat-e-Islami as a legal structure” but rather on its particular interpretation of Islam, which led to the formation of this structure. These interpretative details are found in its literature rather than in its constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the adjustment in the constitution’s phrase regarding the objective does not mean that Jamaat’s core concept of Islam has changed. Rather, the revised phrasing, as indicated in the footnote of the amended the Constitution itself, is merely a new expression to encapsulate the previous concept of Islam. Thus, this debate is a mere extra, that whether the goal of Jamaat-e-Islami is establishment of Divine Rule or Iqamat-e-Deen (establishing religion). Because whatever terminology is used, the explanation and root of the terminology can be sought in the literature which was and still is the only intellectual asset of the Jamaat. (It is worth noting that this I have mentioned as a principle only. Otherwise, it is a fact that I have neither based my comments on the mere word Divine Rule, nor does the word “Iqamat e Deen” (establishing religion) prove the stance of Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Sahib).
2. The primary argument supporting the interpretation under discussion comes from the verse on shahadah (bearing witness). According to the explanation in the pamphlet Shahadat-e-Haqq, the purpose of shahadah for which the Prophets were sent was that, alongside verbal preaching, the entire system of Islam should be practically demonstrated in every aspect of life—individual, social, national, and international. Without doing so, the responsibility of shahadah and preaching cannot be fully fulfilled, nor can conclusive proof (itmam al-hujjah) be established against humankind. This indicates that the revolutionary goal adopted by Jamaat-e-Islami is precisely what has been made obligatory upon us according to the verse on shahadah.
I objected to this reasoning, arguing that this interpretation of shahadah and itmam al-hujjah isn’t supported by the lives of any Prophet. All the Prophets we know of, and those mentioned in the Quran, fulfilled their shahadah through verbal preaching alone. No Prophet ever completed itmam al-hujjah by giving a comprehensive, practical demonstration of the entire Islamic way of life. In the Quran, there are dozens—indeed, hundreds—of verses describing the Prophets’ efforts to invite others, yet nowhere is there mention of “practical shahadah” or demonstrating the Islamic way of life to complete al-hujjah. Instead, the terms used always relate to “saying” and “conveying.” In response to my argument, Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Sahib:
“They are misled by verses, without fully comprehending their background and the purpose of their revelation, that indicate that the prophets’ responsibility was only to deliver the message clearly (such as fahal-alar-rusulu illal-balaghul mubeen). However, such verses are not meant to determine the complete duty as God’s witness and the duty as a God’s messenger, but merely outline the initial stages of shahada (witness) and were intended only for those who adamantly refused the message.”
Although this explanation applies only to verses that—in his own words—employ a ‘style of exclusivity’ it does not address the numerous other verses. But this argument is unnecessary concerning the matter, so I leave it. instead, I would ask, how was the stubbornness of the rejectors determined—was it divinely revealed, or was it known only after an invitation was extended? After all, what were the acts of making them accept the Truth which established that they were not going to take that? And, that the role of the prophet has ended as far as his responsibility of conveying the message to them was concerned. And they cannot claim on the Day of Resurrection that why are they being punished for the crimes that were not explained to them. In other words, the responsibility that was on the addresser has gone on to the addressee now. So, what was that effort of conveying the message or establishing the truth which made the above situation possible?
It is clear that this was not a practical shahadah of any “system of life,” because no such system had yet been established. Instead, it was precisely what Maulana Sadruddin himself characterized elsewhere as ‘missionary efforts.” Now, if in his view this appears to be “merely an initial shahadah,” I have no objection—because, by his own words, this initial shahadah was regarded by God Almighty as the “ultimate shahadah.” Based on that, it was declared that the proof of shahadat al-haqq had been fulfilled against them, and the Court of the Hereafter was ready to deliver its final judgment.
It seems that the author might have misunderstood my critique of the “practical shahadah” idea. He writes:
If we, through open and private proclamation, convey the message of Islam to our audience and present them with arguments for its truth, will the proof against them then be complete? Perhaps this is something that no self-delusion or stubbornness would allow us to claim.
It seems that the author interprets “open and private proclamation” as either making an announcement over a loudspeaker to the entire city or whispering it once into a passerby’s ear, then considering the proof complete as soon as our voice reaches their ears. In reality, the term “open and private proclamation” is used in the Quran regarding the preaching of Prophet Noah (u) who called his people not for a few days, but for hundreds of years. A caller’s invitation isn’t just about making someone hear it once—it’s a deeply wise and patient process, carried out with utmost sincerity over an extended period. The Quran and Hadith clearly outline the conditions for such invitation-based speech. When all these are met, the resulting effort is what is called shahadah.
3. Regarding the argument based on the verse aqeem-ud-deen in support of this interpretation, I have stated that it is incorrect, because this verse commands only the establishment of the basic teachings of the religion, whereas you express your goal in terms of establishing a complete and all-encompassing system of life. On this point, Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Sahib writes:
One questions how the author failed to remember such an obvious point—that the command given in the verse contains no limitations or time restrictions. On the contrary, it is clearly a general, comprehensive, and fundamental command, namely, to establish ad-deen—the religion of God. The religion of God is not a vague or ambiguous term; it is a well-known reality. Everyone understands what ad-deen and what the religion of God means. Therefore, whatever is part of God’s religion—anything to which the term deen applies—will necessarily be included in this command to establish it.
I would say that in the two-word phrase aqeem-ud-deen, there is no limitation; however, when we look at the entire sentence, there is clearly a restriction. That is, according to the full verse, the command is to establish the religion that was revealed to all the Prophets. And since, according to the Quran, the religion revealed to the Prophets consisted of two parts—one common to all of them and another in which they differed—then, based on the context, the command to establish here only refers to the first part, while the second part (as far as this verse is concerned) will be considered excluded from it. This is why, based on this reasoning, commentators have unanimously stated this. For a detailed discussion of the commentators, see the chapter in Interpretation of the Islamic Mission.
The truth is that merely taking the two words ‘Aqimu ad-Deen’(establish the religion) and claiming they contain no restriction is like saying that any such qualification must reside within the words themselves. If we accept this reasoning, then almost anything could be ‘proven’ using the Quran. For example:
La taqrabu al-salah (4:43)—“Do not go near prayer.”
Laysat al-tawbah (4:18)—“There is no repentance.”
Ma min ilahin (3:62)—“There is no deity.”
One could find hundreds of such phrases that express a truth without any explicit qualification or exception. It is unfortunate that, in defending a mistaken idea, Maulana Sadruddin Islahi sahib has found himself in a position he would never consciously choose to take.
Another similar argument the author presents is that Imam Raghib Isfahani wrote that the meaning of iqamat ash-shay’ is tawfiyat haqqihi (giving it its full due) (Mufradat al-Quran, p. 692). It is clear that giving the religion its full due cannot be achieved without establishing the entire religion. Therefore, according to him, aqeem-ud-deen should mean “establish and implement the entire religion.”
However, the meaning he has derived from Imam Raghib’s explanation is not actually found within the explanation itself but has been formed in his own mind. The explanation simply indicates that whatever the word iqamah refers to, it means to give that thing its due. Imam Raghib’s explanation appears in the Mufradat under the root qaf-waw-mim, which shows that he is explaining the meaning of the word iqamah, not defining the scope of ud-deen. However, since the author personally interprets ad-deen as “the entire Shariah,” he has merged his understanding of ad-deen with Imam Raghib’s definition of iqamah and concluded that the verse means “give the whole religion its due.”
However, if he were to understand ad-deen as “the essential religion,” he would see that it means “giving the essential religion” or “the fundamental teachings of the religion” their due. It’s like the speaker simply said “four,” but the listener, because of his specific mindset, interpreted it as “four loaves of bread.”
Regarding the verse aqeem-ud-deen, I have also gathered the commentators’ statements, which indicate that all of them interpret ad-deen as the core religion and exclude the detailed Shariah from it. To clarify this point, some of the commentators of the Quran have used the following phrase:
And what is meant here are not the laws that serve the interests of nations according to their circumstances, since these differ and vary. (Al Kashaf by Al Zamakhshari, Vol. 4, p. 215; Tafsir Al Qurtubi, Vol. 16, p. 10).
Taking this phrase, Maulana Saadruddin Sahib says about me that I have, in fact, misunderstood it, and that the intention and meaning of the commentators are certainly not what I have taken it to be. Then, explaining my “misunderstanding,” he writes:
The truth of the matter is that when the respected commentators said that ‘what is meant here are not the laws,’ they did so to remove an apparent difficulty or objection. The difficulty or objection was that the religions of the noble Prophets, in their detailed forms, were not identical; rather, their laws had many differences. Still, in this verse commanding the establishment of religion, it is stated that this is the religion revealed to all the Prophets. So, how could this command be fulfilled? What would be the way to establish religion in a manner that fulfills the duty of establishing and following the divine guidance given to all the Prophets? That was the difficulty on the minds of the commentators, and to address it, they believed it was necessary to clarify that the laws are not being discussed here.
I do not see how these words disprove my point. The apparent meaning seems to be this: in the verse where the command aqeem-ud-deen appears, the wording suggests that if ad-deen were taken to mean the entire religion, then an objection would immediately arise. That’s why the commentators have said that the laws are not being discussed here. They believe that the “form of complying with this command” is to follow the religion. So, what in this differs from what I am saying? Is my claim that the commentators—without any reason—arbitrarily decided that this command only refers to establishing the core religion? The truth is, Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Sahib words simply offer an explanation of what the commentators believe; they do not refute my supposed “misunderstanding.”
In this context, the author has presented a second point—that the commentators used the phrase lam yurad ash-shara’i‘ (the laws are not meant here), whereas, if my understanding is correct, the wording should have been lam yurad ash-shariah or lam yurad ash-shariah al-Muhammadiyyah.
This point, it seems, was written hastily. Had he reflected, he would have realized that the plural form was used because it was necessary to indicate that the laws of all the Prophets (including the last Prophet) are not what is meant here. The word shara’i‘ automatically includes the Muhammadan Shariah; it is not excluded from it. However, if any lexicon stated that shara’i‘ means “laws other than the Muhammadan Shariah,” then certainly his argument would be correct.
Now I come to the most astonishing part of his writing. In the discussion on aqeem-ud-deen, when refuting my position regarding the references I cited from the scholars of Tafsir, he stated that not all commentators share this view. At this point, he quoted two commentators and asserted that, according to them, “this command to establish the religion also includes, fully and entirely, the detailed injunctions of the Shariah.”
But you might be surprised to learn that this “discovery” about the two commentators—specifically, that in their view this command aqeem-ud-deen includes all the rulings of the Shariah in full detail—is not actually present in their original statements. Instead, its source is something else: omitting parts of their text and thus presenting a distorted version of the commentators’ statement.
The two commentators in question are ‘Allamah al-Sawi and Shaykh Sulayman, both of whom wrote commentaries on Jalalayn. In Jalalayn, the explanation of an aqeem-ud-deen wa la tatafarraqoo feehi is given in the following words:
Hadha huwa al-mashroo‘ al-musa bihi wa al-muha ilayhi ila Muhammad e wa huwa at-tawhid. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, p. 640)
Both commentators agreed with this interpretation and clarified that, in this specific command “aqeem-ud-deen,” the intended meaning is sincere adherence to monotheism (tawhid) and living by it alone.
However, the phrase “alladhi awhayna ilayka” (that which We have revealed to you), which appears earlier, has a broader meaning and includes the entire body of revelation given to Muhammad.
The relevant passages from both are as follows:
Shaykh Sulayman explains that the prescribed matter shared by these eminent Messengers, as stated: ‘That you establish the religion and do not be divided therein,’ refers to affirming the oneness of God, believing in Him, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day. It also includes obeying God’s commands and prohibitions, along with everything that makes a person a Muslim. It does not include laws serving the interests of nations based on their circumstances, as these differ and vary. When he says ‘that you establish the religion,’ it means upholding its pillars, protecting it from deviation, and maintaining it. ‘And do not be divided therein’ signifies unity in the fundamentals of the religion, excluding the different branches that vary according to nations and times, as indicated by God’s saying, the Most High: ‘To every one of you We have ordained a law and a way.’ His statement ‘and it is tawheed’ refers to the shared core of the religion among these Messengers. Regarding the statement, “and that which We have revealed to you” (wa-alladhi awhayna ilayka) is broader than that, for what is meant by it is the entirety of the Muhammadan law—both its principles and its branches. (Al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyyah by Shaykh Sulayman al-‘Ujayli, Vol. 7, pp. 46–48.)
Al-‘Allamah al-Sawi: “His saying ‘He has ordained for you’—the address is to the community of Muhammad e, and the meaning is: He has clarified for you and made for you a strong and clear religion upon whose truth the Prophets and Messengers of old agreed. The goal of establishing the religion is to uphold its pillars, preserve it, and maintain it. His saying ‘(and it is tawheed)’ explains what is meant by the religion that these Messengers shared. As for His saying ‘and that which We have revealed to you,’ it is more general, referring to the entire Shariah, including both fundamentals and branches. The mention of tawheed alone is because it is the head and foundation of the religion.” (Hashiyat Al-Sawi ‘ala Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Vol. 6, pp. 150–151)
The above quotations clearly show that the author attributed something to them that they did not say themselves. Both commentators stated that in the phrase aqeem-ud-deen, the command is only to establish tawheed and its basic requirements, as mentioned in Jalalayn, not the detailed Shariah. However, the issue with the second phrase, alladhi awhayna ilayka, (which We have revealed to you), is different because its meaning encompasses the entire revelation given to Prophet Muhammad (e). But what the commentators of the Quran, al-‘Allamah al-Sawi and Shaykh Sulayman said about alladhi awhayna ilayka was linked to the phrase aqeem-ud-deen to argue that, according to both scholars, “this command to establish the religion also fully and completely includes the detailed injunctions of the Shariah.”
4. Regarding the verse of izhar-e-deen (manifesting the religion), my position is that most commentators interpret the subject (fa‘il) of li-yuzhirahu as referring to God. Furthermore, there are other Quranic verses that indicate this verse describes a plan or decision of God—one that He fulfilled through the Messenger. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to derive the mission of the Messenger, which, as a human being, he was obliged to carry out, and that later generations are required to follow after the finality of Prophethood. The author has refuted my view and provided some arguments for his position. However, what is surprising is that he later contradicts his own statement, saying:
Granted that in the verse of izhar-e-deen, the manifestation of the religion has not been explicitly declared to be the Messenger’s mission.
I wish that, after making this admission, the author had refrained from trying to prove from this verse that the Messenger’s official mission was izhar-e-deen. For an argument that has been conceded to be “not explicit” cannot be enough to establish an issue as important as that of a prophetic mission.
In the sentence above, Maulana Sadruddin Sahib admits that the verse li-yuzhirahu ‘ala ad-deen kullihi is not clear proof that izhar-e-deen was the Messenger’s main goal. However, he still maintains that izhar-e-deen is essentially the goal of Prophethood. He argues that there are other texts that are even more obvious on this point. I am including this entire section below to fully present his position.
The mention of the religion being made dominant is not limited to this one verse alone; it appears, with variations in wording and expression, in other verses—and in some hadith as well. For example, the verse wa qaatiloo hum hatta la takoon fitnah wa yakoon ad-deen kulluhu lillah (Quran, 8:39), meaning, fight them until there is no more fitna, and religion belongs wholly to God. And and the hadith umirtu an uqatil an-naas hatta yaqooloo la ilaha illallah (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 392). That is, I have been commanded to fight the people until they say: ‘There is no god but Allah. While the verse of izhar-e-deen does not explicitly state that the mission of the Messenger is to establish the religion, can the same be said about these texts? Clearly not, because these statements make it unmistakably clear that the Messenger was tasked with this mission, and that it is the duty of his followers to continue fighting until people recognize Islam, and the religion is entirely for God—in other words, until a purely Islamic state is established. It is easy to understand that fighting the disbelievers and polytheists until they declare la ilaha illallah, or until fitnah is eradicated and the religion is wholly for God, and striving for the Islamic system or state are simply two ways of expressing the same goal.
I would submit that the objections to regarding the verse of izhar-e-deen (manifesting the religion) as “the mission of the Messenger” are far fewer than the objections that arise if one tries to derive the Messenger’s mission from the verse and hadith cited by the author. The hadith states that people should be fought until they declare la ilaha illallah with their tongues and commit themselves to prayer and zakat. Was this really the mission of the Messenger? Was he sent merely to compel people at swordpoint to recite the declaration of faith? The author seems to have overlooked the fact that declaring this hadith to define the Messenger’s “mission” not only clashes with the Quranic principle la ikraha fi ad-deen (there is no compulsion in religion) but also makes the mission of the final Messenger fundamentally different from that of all previous prophets—since it cannot be shown for any other prophet that he was commanded to force people into Islam at swordpoint.
The same issue remains with the verse in question. This verse appears—with slight variations in wording—in two chapters of the Quran (2:193 and 8:39). In both cases, God commands: “Fight them until there is no more fitnah, and the religion is entirely for Allah, and they desist (yantahu).” Three words here merit close attention: fitnah, deen, and intiha’.
According to the nearly unanimous explanation by commentators such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Qatadah, al-Suddi, al-Hasan, Abu al-‘Aliyah, Mujahid, al-Rabi‘, Muqatil, Zayd ibn Aslam, and others, fitnah here refers to shirk (polytheism), deen means tawhid (monotheism), and intiha’ means stopping from shirk. In this interpretation, the verse means: “Fight them until they abandon their religion and give up shirk, embracing tawhid instead.”
Clearly, if this verse is interpreted as defining the Messenger’s mission, the same objection applies as with the hadith above: it would mean that God sent the Messenger to fight until people recited the declaration of faith.
Maulana Sadruddin Sahib has given this rather unusual explanation for the objection, stating: “To keep fighting until people say ‘La ilaha illallah’ is, in other words, equivalent to establishing a purely Islamic state.”
This justification is not supported by history or the wording of the command. Clearly, making people declare La ilaha illallah means converting them to Islam, whereas establishing an Islamic state does not mean all its subjects have embraced Islam. If people accept political authority and the laws of the land, no Islamic state has the right to require that they recite the creed or attend mosques for prayer. In short, I cannot understand this explanation at all—though perhaps the Institute of Islamic Culture or the Institute of Islamic Enlightenment might understand it, since they have a certain expertise in creating such interpretations.
One of my objections to interpreting the Prophet’s mission based on the Izhar-e-deen verse was that the Quran does not contain similar wording for any other prophet. Since we believe that every messenger was sent for the same fundamental purpose, this verse cannot be considered as defining the official mission of the final messenger.
In response, the author writes:
The mission of the final messenger was not different from that of the other prophets, but it was certainly broader in scope. Other prophets were sent only to their own people, who already followed a particular faith. The Prophet Muhammad’s message, however, was universal—addressed to every group, every nation, and every religion. Therefore, Quranic words such as ‘It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of Truth, so that He may make it prevail [ideologically] over every other religion’ (Quran, 9:33) could only be used for him, not for anyone else.
Reading these lines, one might think the author is only explaining the use of the word “all” (kull) in the verse. But that was never the real issue.
The actual question was this: if the core of every prophet’s mission was Izhar-e-deen (making the religion prevail), then the Quran should have used similar language for each of them. The difference in how broad or narrow a prophet’s audience is does not change the fundamental nature of the mission itself. That difference simply means that, for other prophets, it would be said they were sent to make the religion prevail over a specific nation, while the final messenger was sent to do so over all nations and peoples. The distinction the author makes between the last Prophet and the others is therefore only about scope—how wide or narrow the sphere of address was—whereas, to support his argument, he needed to demonstrate a difference in the very nature of their missions.
Regards,
Wahiduddin
