UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE
Among the sciences developed to interpret and explain Islam is a field called Hikmat al-Deen (Wisdom of Religion) or Asrar al-Shari’ah (Secrets of the Shariah). This discipline focuses on understanding the wisdom of religious teachings and recognizing the underlying rationale behind them. For example, when someone explains the obligations and rites of Hajj and how Hajj should be performed, that is Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). But when someone describes the benefits of Hajj and says, “Hajj creates a global brotherhood of believers centered on the worship of God,” that is called Hikmat al-Deen.
Just as other sciences began in the early Islamic period and later developed technical details, Hikmat al-Deen has also been a topic of discussion among Muslims from the beginning. Ample information on this subject is scattered throughout the vast Islamic literature. However, dedicated books on this subject are rare. In other Islamic sciences, one can cite dozens or even hundreds of works on a single discipline, but only a few dedicated books have been written on Hikmat al-Deen. Among these, the most prominent and renowned is Hujjatullah al-Baligha by Shah Waliullah Dehlawi.
This describes one aspect of Hikmat al-Deen. When the matter is viewed from another angle, it becomes evident that systematic, focused scholarly work on this subject is even more limited. One understanding of Hikmat al-Deen is to explore the specific rationale of various parts of religion, such as the wisdom behind Salah (prayer), fasting, and Jihad. So far, most scholarly work on the wisdom of religion has focused on this aspect, examining different elements of religion under separate headings and explaining the particular wisdom behind each of them. Another aspect of Hikmat al-Deen, however, is to discern the collective wisdom of all religious elements, presenting a unified explanation that connects different facets of Islam and reveals the overarching wisdom through which Allah has integrated various elements of the faith.
In my view, the best description of Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’s work is that he attempted to address this second aspect of Hikmat al-Deen. He sought an interpretation in which Islam appears as an interrelated whole, and to his ability, he was able to discover an interpretation in which the deen appeared as an interrelated whole. Outwardly, Maulana Maududi’s work is a call to Islam, while academically, it is an insightful interpretation of religion. Indeed, it is this later characteristic of his work that has attracted many in the modern era, drawing them to embrace his ideas eagerly.
However, it is important to recognize that not every collection is necessarily authentic. The mere organization of disparate parts into a coherent whole may suggest they were part of a unified reality, yet there remains the possibility that the assembled structure may not reflect the truth. Each part may indeed be genuine, yet the form in which they are arranged could simply be a construct of someone’s imagination.
For instance, if fossilized bones of ancient animals are discovered in an area, it is quite possible for one to gather some bones from that heap and arrange them to resemble a specific creature. In this way, an apparent order emerges. Those who have studied the theory of evolution know that similar hypothetical arrangements have led many proponents of evolution to elevate this theory from a hypothesis to a fact. Yet, repeated experimentation has shown that such constructs are not necessarily factual. Often, a person uses his imagination to piece together unrelated fragments into a specific shape, though this shape has no connection to reality. For example, in the case of the Piltdown Man, scientists around the world were convinced for nearly half a century that this was the oldest prehistoric human skeleton known to us, but subsequent research revealed it to be a mere forgery, bearing no relation to the truth.
The fundamental error in the thought under discussion is that while it used all the components that, in some sense, are part of the religion, it arranged them into a structure under an overall concept that was incorrect. It is akin to dismantling a building and using its bricks and mortar to create a differently structured house. As a result, though its components are religious, its overall form does not align with the religion. Despite seeming to encompass the entirety of religion, its unique arrangement is at odds with the true essence of the faith.
The premise was that Islam is a comprehensive and detailed system of life, where all its elements interrelate accordingly. In the words of one proponent of this thought: Islam is a way of life that brings together all individual, social, and metaphysical dimensions of life into a single coherent framework and resolves them in harmony with reason and human nature.
There is nothing wrong in itself in describing religion as a system. But when the concept of a system is treated as the sole unifying factor that brings its different elements together into a whole, it becomes clearly mistaken—and this is the central error of this line of thought. This approach studies religion mainly as a “system” of life. In its view, the overall framework through which the entire religion can be understood is its being a system.
In reality, the essential nature of religion is that it defines the relationship between God and the human being. Religion is not merely a legal system like other systems; rather, it represents the inner bond between a human being and God. Once religion is put into practice, it does include all those elements which together may be described as a “system of life.” However, being a system is only one outcome of religion in practice. It is a secondary feature, not the essence of religion.
Studying religion under the theme of a “system” involves the same kind of error as that made by those who proposed, for the study of the human being, the theory that man is a social animal. It is true that, once practical details are taken into account, a human being does become, in one sense, a social or civil creature. However, the social or civil aspect is not the essential nature of the human being; it is only a manifestation of that essential nature. The true essence of the human being lies in being a living and willing being, and all other aspects—whether social, civil, or otherwise—emerge from this essence through different forms of relation.
To say that “the human being is a civil or social being” is, in other words, to say that the comprehensive idea through which we can understand the various aspects of the human being is his being civilized. As a natural result of this interpretation, all aspects of human existence would be derived from the social aspect and regarded as its components. This interpretation would imply that all other aspects of the human being are included only because his social nature requires them.
For example, being a social being would require that the human being exist in the form of body and soul; therefore, he possesses a body and a soul. It would require that human beings have politics; therefore, they develop a political structure. It would require that they explain their relationship with the universe; therefore, a philosophy comes into existence, and so on.
In this view, all of human life seems to be included, making it seem like a complete explanation of human being. However, upon reflection, it becomes clear that it contains several errors.
1. According to this interpretation, the social or civil aspect of the human being is treated as his essential nature, and all other aspects are given a place within him only through this supposed essence. In reality, however, the essential nature of the human being lies in his being a spiritual being, and all other aspects are manifestations of that spirit, or arise as its demands and consequences.
2. Once the frame of reference changes, the ultimate goal of human life also changes. Things that are desirable from the standpoint of civilization come to be regarded as the primary objectives, whereas in reality the primary objective should be what is desirable in relation to the human being’s spiritual existence.
3. Moreover, from a practical perspective, this interpretation misses all truly important aspects. The soul is the source of all human actions and expressions. Therefore, any meaningful result in human life can only come from its roots in the soul. A conception that takes an external aspect of the human being as his true reality and plants its seed in that understanding cannot be expected to produce any real or lasting results.
These same flaws appear in the interpretation of Islam mentioned above, where the concept of “system” is considered the overarching interpretive framework of religion. As a result, this “system” was placed at the center of Islam, with all other aspects understood through this perspective. Consequently, even though all components of religion are part of this unifying explanation, they are moved away from their true positions.
Now, every aspect of religion is valued solely as a part of the system. Beliefs and tenets of faith are included because they form the “intellectual foundation” of this way of life. Worship practices are seen as components because they serve as “training courses” to prepare the followers or adherents of this system. The teachings related to interpersonal conduct are regarded as the “moral code” for those involved with this system. Punishments and legal boundaries are considered the “social foundations” of this system. Leadership and governance, viewed as components, provide the means for this system to become a dominant institution, enforcing itself through power, and so on.
The natural outcome of this interpretation was a shift in the core objective. Religion, when viewed as a “system,” gained prominence, but its devotional aspect weakened. The inner essence of religion was pushed into the background, and its external, systemic aspect took precedence. Just as, in the earlier interpretation of “human being,” the transformation of social conditions is seen as the primary task, not the transformation of the mind and soul, this interpretation of religion also identified systemic revolution as the ultimate goal of religious struggle. Whereas, in this world, the ultimate goal of a believer and the final purpose of his actions is to cultivate a heartfelt and spiritual connection with their Lord, which the Quran describes with terms like remembrance and gratitude (ذکر وشکر), reverence and humility (خشیت وتضرع), submission and devotion (خشوع وخضوع), tranquillity and repentance (اخبات وانابت).
Because of the lack of harmony between the nature created by God within human beings and this ideology, the theory failed badly in its very first experiment. The so-called “complete vision” of religion resulted only in “incomplete” followers. By not planting the seed in its proper place, no part of the tree grew correctly. The relationship between God and the servant—a deeply exalted and subtle connection—was reduced in this view to a kind of political relationship.
This is why this theory neither aligns with the verses of the Quran nor does the lives of the righteous in the Ummah match its “standard.” The specific model of religion that this school of thought regards as the most accurate is not supported by a single explicit verse in the Quran. According to this view, religion is a comprehensive system of human life, and the struggle to implement this entire system is the mission entrusted to the faithful. However, there is not a single explicit statement in God’s Book from which this viewpoint can genuinely be derived. The verses typically presented as evidence will be analyzed in detail later.
This was the fundamental flaw of this argument. In practice, too, no person throughout the entire history of the Ummah launched a “comprehensive revolutionary movement” in this way. Muslims have spread across many regions worldwide and been engaged in spreading the call to Islam, which in many places later led to the establishment of Islamic governance. However, they never started their efforts with the goal of creating an “Islamic revolution” or establishing a “Divine government.” Attempts to cite historical examples to support this are simply fabrications, not accurate history. If someone claims that all these efforts were incomplete or that these individuals lacked full understanding of the religion, such explanations only admit to their own errors. It is better to acknowledge the limits of one person’s ideas than to consider the entire history of Islamic dawah incomplete.
The gap in this thought I mentioned earlier is so clear that any fair-minded person who engages directly with the Quran and Sunnah cannot help but see the disconnect between this idea and the explicit Islamic view. I can’t speak specifically about Maulana Maududi himself, but it is definitely true that those in India who inherited this ideology feel a certain dissatisfaction. Since the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind took control after the partition, their unease has shown itself in various ways: revision of literature, changes in the goal statement in the Constitution, focusing more on internal policy, and so on—these are signs that support my point.
But my impression is that the leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami in India, despite sensing the confusion in current thought, do not possess a clear and defined understanding of it. They have not yet fully analyzed it, which is why they haven’t devised a precise solution. Their perception can be summarized as follows: In the overall picture of this ideology, it has been observed that the spiritual aspect of Islam has been overshadowed, while its political aspect has emerged. But, they see this as a coincidence caused by external circumstances. In other words, when the proponents of this idea started presenting their views, the political environment was chaotic, with active political movements in the country, leading to a focus on politics in their writings. According to them, the solution lies in reviving the suppressed aspects in speeches and writings. A balanced understanding of religion should be presented so that the other facets of Islam, alongside politics and governance, also receive their due place.
This response was given by various members of the Jamaat at different levels in reaction to my critique. I suggested to them that the interpretation they attribute to Maulana Maududi’s literature does not match the essence of his work. However, if they insist, they could have Maulana Maududi write a statement confirming that his portrayal of religion was not meant as an absolute interpretation but was influenced by temporary circumstances that led him to highlight certain aspects. Yet, none of them were willing to get such a confirmation from Maulana Maududi to back their claim. The truth is that people often make statements just as a response to criticism, without truly believing in them.
The reality is that this is a very flawed assessment of the situation. They see an interpretation that, in fact, defines religion as just a temporary impression shaped by circumstances. As a result, they suggest temporary fixes to solve it. They aim to correct a general distortion with minor adjustments. This is like a child mistaking a jigsaw puzzle meant to show a horse for a camel and putting it together incorrectly. Then, if someone says that just shortening the neck will make it look like a horse, it’s clear that this isn’t a real solution. The structure of a jigsaw puzzle relies on an overall concept. If someone mistakenly thinks the puzzle pieces of a horse are actually for a camel and builds an image based on that, the mistake isn’t just about the length of the neck; the whole structure will be assembled wrongly. Therefore, merely bowing the neck will not make the picture align with reality. Rather, the entire structure must be broken down and reformed according to the actual event. Every single part of it must be placed back in its correct position.
The true conception of religion, under which its various elements can be better understood, and which seamlessly links the entirety of Islamic history, is that the essence of religion is to establish a relationship of fear, love, guardianship, and trust with God. The necessary manifestation of this relationship is what, in the terminology of Shariah, is called “worship.” When a person makes God his deity and ultimate desire, and becomes His worshipper, the natural consequence is that he starts considering God’s preference in all his matters and obeys His commands. He submits his will to God’s will. Moreover, being a true worshipper and obedient to God inevitably means dedicating his life to the best work that God wants to be done in this world. In this sense, spreading the truth and supporting God’s religion gradually become central to his life.
Religion is, at its core, a divine commandment. We are bound to follow its injunctions simply because the Almighty has made us responsible for them. However, religion possesses another dimension: its profound connection to human nature. It is not merely an external legal code imposed upon us; rather, it is the answer to the soul’s inner longing. It is the manifestation of human nature itself. Our study of religion can only be truly complete when we keep this second dimension in view.
Therefore, the core wisdom of religion lies in the relationship with God, with all other aspects arising from—or serving as expressions of—this inner reality. It is not, as the view under discussion claims, the concept of a “system,” which it regards as the unifying wisdom. In that interpretation, all intellectual and practical elements of religion are tied to the system.
Religious teachings, then, are not merely a uniform ‘list,’ as the concept of “system” suggests. Instead, there is an essential reality to religion, and the remaining aspects are expressions that emerge within it under various relationships. In other words, some elements of religion are fundamentally desired, while others are desired in relation to specific contexts. The essential requirement refers to the internal and personal experience of connecting with God and becoming His true worshipper. The supplementary requirements refer to the laws given for external life, which guide the behavior of believers in various situations and contexts. The fundamental requirement is always desired from every person in every situation and remains unaffected by time or circumstances. This is the core and most significant achievement for a person in this world, and attaining it is the highest form of success. In contrast, secondary requirements are desired based on circumstances, and the degree of responsibility for them varies with one’s sphere of influence. If the contextual relationship exists, then that requirement will also be necessarily sought, like the fundamental requirement. However, if the context does not exist, then believers bear no responsibility regarding that command. Therefore, the difference between the essential and supplementary aspects is simply a distinction in the type of command—i.e., when a particular command is needed. Once something becomes obligatory, there is no difference in terms of fulfilling the requirement.
The conceptual shift I’ve described above fundamentally alters how one perceives a religious ‘mission.’ The element that serves as the unifying principle of a whole holds the position that if it comes into existence, it is as though everything else has also come into existence. Conversely, if it does not come into being, nothing else can truly come into existence. Naturally, whatever a person identifies as this core catalyst, they will exert their utmost effort to bring it into being, believing that the existence of everything else depends entirely on it. In the school of thought under discussion, the overwhelming emphasis on establishing a system directly stems from this mindset.
In contrast, throughout Islamic history, we observe that the great leaders of the Ummah consistently focused their efforts on instilling the realities of God and the Hereafter in people’s minds. This was because, according to their understanding of religion, they believed that the manifestation of all other religious truths depended entirely on awakening this core consciousness.
