Second Phase: Informal Conversation
3. These discussions took place before my work Tabeer ki Ghalati (The Error of Political Islam) came into existence. Afterwards, I started putting my thoughts in writing and presented them to others, hoping this would elicit more meaningful feedback. However, I still did not achieve much success. When I first gave my written work to a senior member of Jamaat-e-Islami, he returned it, saying, “I have read it thoroughly, but I will provide my comments after reading it again.” When I insisted, he gave a brief response:
“Broad agreement with the objectives, but considerable disagreement with the discussions.”
“This was on October 21, 1961. Our next discussion took place a month and a half later, on December 12, and six months after that, he shared his views with me in more detail. However, in his later comments, he only provided details of his “disagreement;” he did not share any “agreement” with me.
Here, I must express my impression that among all the individuals in the Jamaat, I have interacted with, I hold this person in the highest regard in terms of his understanding of Islam. I am convinced that if he were an ordinary member of the Jamaat, his feedback might have been different. But it is natural that when an official expresses views on a matter, his formal position consciously or unconsciously influences his opinion, often leaving little room for alignment with the truth.
4. Another senior figure, a scholar and a member of the Majlis-e-Shura, read my writing and said, “Previously, from our brief conversations, I understood that your objection was that Maulana Maududi exaggerated in his interpretation of Islam, and I agreed with you on that. But after reading your writing, I realized that your objection is that he has fundamentally misinterpreted Islam. Now, I strongly disagree with you.” He added that a detailed discussion would follow. However, despite repeated reminders in subsequent meetings, a detailed discussion never took place, nor did he address any specific point to refute it. My last meeting with him on this matter was on October 17, 1962, in Azamgarh, where he again reviewed my writing in detail. After reading it, when I asked for his comments, he remained silent, only stating, “I disagree with your perspective.”
5. Another senior figure, actively engaged in Jamaat-e-Islami’s literary efforts, read my written memo and responded with a written opinion. His complete written response is as follows:
Respected Brother,
Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi
After reading your article, two prayers arose in my heart—one for myself and one for you. O Allah, my Lord, if I have not understood the religion, you have sent, correctly, grant me the true understanding of it, and do not raise me among those on the Day of Judgment who altered even a fraction of your religion or supported any such alteration. Raise me instead among those pious servants who lived and died upholding the religion as presented by your beloved Prophet, Muhammad (e).
O Allah, Lord of all worlds, if your servant Wahiduddin’s mind, after grasping the correct understanding of religion, is now veering toward a misinterpretation, then guide him back to the true understanding. Do not raise him among those on the Day of Judgment who misunderstood your religion and restricted it. And one who failed to understand the role of humanity as your representatives on Earth.
After this prayer, I revisited your article but, in totality, found that my limited knowledge and understanding stand opposed to it. What you presented is not something that can be addressed in a few words—it would require at least as many pages as you have written, and a response may ultimately be futile, as you might simply view any answer as the thoughts of others.
In conclusion, I am writing a few words with a spirit of advice and goodwill. Please reflect on them accordingly:
- You are deeply affected by a sense of mistrust toward Maulana Maududi and the entire Jamaat-e-Islami, and you have poured onto paper the suspicions that were locked in your mind. Do you believe you will not be held accountable for this? Many of your objections and suspicions are merely products of your assumptions, which have no basis in reality.
- The tone you have adopted in your writing is extremely aggressive, resembling the expressions of a staunch opponent of the Jamaat. In this, you have even left behind Maulana Amin Ahsan, to the extent that you have accused (Maulana Maududi) of distorting the religion.
- My advice is to change this aggressive tone; otherwise, your writing will meet the same fate as that of Maulana Amin Ahsan’s works.
A senior figure, a member of the Shura Council—the higher consultative body—reflected at length after reading this work. Part of what he said was: ‘I do not disagree with it much, but neither am I fully satisfied. The truth is, I have not given such matters much thought. Therefore, it is difficult for me to form any definite opinion about it.’”
However, he fully agreed with the chapter on “Consequences,” noting that if my analysis of the ideology is correct, then these outcomes are inevitable. Practically speaking, these outcomes have already appeared within the Jamaat, though others attribute them to different causes. This conversation took place on October 28, 1961, and three months later, on February 6, 1962, I met him again. By then, his views had significantly changed, and he said, “I am now firmly convinced that it is incorrect,” though he did not explain the reasons or logic for his saying, ‘firmly convinced’. Five months later, on July 5, we had a third conversation. He said, “I am not in a position to provide a researched critique, but after reading your work, I still believe that Maulana Maududi’s interpretation is absolutely correct. While there may be an individual paragraph I disagree with, I fundamentally consider his interpretation to be right and yours to be wrong.” He provided no reasoning and did not analyse any of my points to explain why he considered my views incorrect. When I repeatedly insisted on an explanation, he became frustrated and said, “Consider me ignorant, if you will.”
I encountered individuals who, after reading my work, emphatically asserted that Maulana Maududi’s interpretation of Islam is absolutely correct and that my writing is filled with misconceptions and weak arguments. Yet, despite repeated insistence, none of them made the effort to analyze my arguments or explain why they considered them misconceptions rather than valid points. They failed to refute even a single objection in a scholarly manner, nor did they provide any evidence to support their claims. Nevertheless, they continued to repeat their stance, as if their correctness and my incorrectness were so self-evident that no proof or justification was necessary. You may be surprised to learn that these were not ordinary members but individuals regarded as scholars within the Jamaat, holding responsible positions.
Some individuals, however, responded with a sense of restraint, saying that they could not comment on the matter and that those in the Jamaat with direct knowledge of religion should examine and respond to it. When I asked one elder if he considered my work to be in the same category as other writings criticizing the Jamaat, he replied, “I have regularly read everything written in opposition to the Jamaat, but there is no comparison between your writing and those.” To him, my work was worth considering, whereas he felt the others were not even worthy of attention.
Among all the members of the Jamaat I have met so far, without exception, I have found that none had answers to my points. However, none were willing to admit this openly. There was only one exception, and the account of his response, as recorded in my diary, is as follows: “I read your article several times with close attention, and I admit that I can only benefit from it and am not able to critique it. He said, ‘I agree with the conclusions and doubts chapters almost entirely but disagree with the theoretical causes you presented. I consider the current objectives of Jamaat-e-Islami to be correct, though I don’t have any arguments for it right now. While I could say the same things others have said in response to your writing, I consider them to be pointless and irrelevant—they do not address your objections. I do not think that such responses refute your work.’”
There were a few other individuals who agreed with my views and analysis completely or to a large extent.
One respected elder who is also a member of the Shura Council read my work on two occasions but provided no comment. I repeatedly requested feedback, but he neither affirmed nor denied my points. In our last meeting, at one point in the conversation, I remarked, “This is either a great truth or a great deception.” He replied, “It could also be a small truth or a great deception.”
Another elder stated, “You have invalidated our arguments in your writing, but even if an argument is invalid, it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.” I replied, “Indeed, you are correct, but if you still believe the original claim to be correct despite acknowledging the flaws in the existing arguments, then you would only be justified in doing so if you had some other evidence to support it. Otherwise, on what basis do you continue to consider it true?” However, he provided no further arguments and only promised to think about it further. He added that, unlike my systematic analysis, “we did not join the movement through such detailed thought. It was a simple Islamic enthusiasm; Maulana Maududi’s words stirred this passion, and we joined in.”
One elder remarked, “As far as criticism of the previous ideology and interpretation of verses is concerned, your points are convincing. What you consider to be the primary objective also appears to be correct, even if we have not been able to achieve it practically. However, when considering the entire positive aspect, I fear that the concepts of revolution and reform of the world might become muted.” He suggested that the scholars of the Jamaat should prepare a comprehensive response. Yet, the same elder, who was a member of the Shura Council that decided to assign a scholar to prepare a detailed response to my work over four months, changed his stance upon reading Maulana Maududi’s letter. It was 26th June of 1962 when after the Asr prayer I presented him Maulana Maudidi’s letter (dated June 15, 1962) to read. After reviewing it, he responded, “Maulana Maududi is absolutely right; everything has already been addressed, and there is no need for further discussion.” Hearing this, I was shaken. I thought to myself, “When conformity and personality-cult are at this level, how can anything be understood?”
Another respected figure, a senior official in charge of a Jamaat department and a member of the Shura Council commented, “I agree with the spirit, but I disagree with the tone.” I spoke with him for an hour, yet I could not determine whether he agreed or disagreed. He admits that there is a difference between my interpretation and that of Maulana Mawdudi, yet he regards both as correct.
Six months later, in a follow-up conversation, he remarked, “Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Maududi, and you are all affected by the same mistake—that after realising some contemporary evils you tried to bring reform in them. But, this attempt at reforming the present situation unconsciously turned into an attempt to reinterpret Islam. What was originally intended as a practical correction has mistakenly assumed the form of a theoretical interpretation, resulting in excesses and imbalances, jettisoning the balance”.
Another senior figure stated, “I completely agree with the chapter on ‘Consequences,’ but the ideological explanation lacks balance.” I asked him to provide examples to clarify this imbalance, but he was unable to offer any. He said, “This is not a piece to be brushed off lightly; it needs to be read repeatedly and thoroughly, after which a formal commentary can be made.” He mentioned that reading it had such an effect on him that he had been continuously thinking over that; he couldn’t sleep well for a long time that night.
Another senior figure, though not a religious scholar, holds a distinguished position within the Jamaat due to his other qualities and has been consistently elected to the Shura Council. He said, “Your writing is very thought-provoking; it contains many truths. However, regarding its scholarly and interpretive sections, I am not in a position to comment. Only scholars can address these areas.” He asked me whether the conclusions came to mind first, leading to the ideas, or whether the interpretations of the verses I presented came first. I replied that the conclusions came much later—the analysis began solely from a theoretical standpoint, and the conclusions followed naturally after the writing was completed.
Another senior figure remarked, “This work gathers many verses and hadiths, which might make it seem well-supported, but anyone knowledgeable in Arabic could gather similar references on any topic. Simply collecting some verses and hadiths does not prove the argument.” I asked, “Then what is the correct method to convincingly present an argument? Is it this method, or another?” He replied, “Yes, the correct method is to establish it through relevant texts.” I said, “When my writing is formatted in the same way as a genuinely reasoned argument, how can you claim it is only superficially similar and not genuinely so?” Instead of analysing a section of my work to show that a point may seem valid but is unfounded, he merely insisted without evidence that my argument was not proven.
In a conversation with another individual, I explained why I considered Jamaat-e-Islami’s interpretation of Islam incorrect. I analysed certain verses often cited to support this interpretation, showing that they do not convey the intended meanings. Rather than answering my objections, he shifted the discussion to, “How does one recognize the truth?” I replied, “When both one’s intellect and heart feel assured that something is the truth—in other words when external evidence confirms it and inner conviction accepts it.” He disagreed, saying, “Intellect is highly misleading; it misguides people in various ways. The true guide is the heart. If the heart is assured, that’s a sign one has found the truth.” I responded, “That is no principle at all. Both knowledge and the Shariah reject such an approach. Taken to its logical conclusion, if a perspective you favour contradicts clear evidence from the Quran and Hadith, for which you have no answer, you would still cling to your view, claiming that your heart is assured. Just as intellect can be deceiving, so too can the heart often lead people astray.” Yet, he persisted in his belief, insisting that the heart’s assurance is sufficient to confirm one is on the right path.
