In a debate relating to JIH Kerala posted in the web portal <Kafila.org> Shahjahan Madampat raised objections and queries. John Civillo replied. Excerpts of the reply are reproduced here.
I am used to engage with Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JI and its workers. For decades I am accustomed to read their periodicals and publications and from time to time I do contribute by writing in their periodicals as well. I don’t hesitate to share with many others the great respect I do have towards JI and its off-shoots as a dynamic and evolving movement.
First let me analyze some of the apparent labeling you have made. I think you seems to be becoming more of judgmental than analytical when you say “Jamaate Islami (JMI) continues to believe in and promote the retrogressive ideology of Maulana Maududi.”. Here the word “retrogressive” is a kind of labeling and you seem to be giving a judgment on it rather than analyzing it and leaving it for readers to make decision on it. Moreover, as far as I know, JI never has mentioned what they propagate is an ideology of Maudoodi. What I do understand from their literatures is they are the people who are the proponents and exponents of Islam as an ideology. Here, may I bring into your notice that you seems to be concocting and fabricating something and imposing on others.
“There is no evidence to suggest that JMI has ever rejected the original thesis of Maududi, a thinker comparable in many ways to Golvalkar in terms of substance and rhetoric.”
I have gone though the constitution of JI as part of my study. I have not seen anywhere in the constitution the name of Maudoodi. As per their constitution, thesis comes from Koran and Prophets Tradition and not from Maudoodi. Secondly, I do feel, having gone though the books written by both, your comparison between Golvalkar and Maudoodi like that of cabbage and king. Golvalkar is a proponent of Nationalism while Maudoodi is harsh critique of it and espouses Humanitarianism. Secondly, Golvalkar does not have any ideology and does not postulate Hinduism as an Ideology while Maudoodi postulates Islam as an Ideology. Thirdly, Golvalkar espouses hatred towards others and you cannot see even a sentence espousing hatred in Maudoodi’s books. If there was such a sentence anywhere in any of hundreds of books Maudoodi has written, I am sure Hamid an Karasseri like people would have quoted it scores of time in their article. We may disagree with what Maudoodi says with intellectual honesty. However, it is not fair to blame a person, leave along a thinker, for what he has not done at all. Now let me shed some light on your queries one by one in the same order.
You wrote: “The core idea around which Maududism is built is the argument that the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth. Islam without political rule is, to quote Maududi, a house half-built.”
First of all, you labeled it as “Maudoodism”. A query has to be first of all intellectually objective. First I started studying of Islam from the books written by Orientalists. In the middle ages they tried to label Islam as “ Mohammadanism”. It is not fair or just to call a sect, whoever they may be, with a misrepresenting terminology that they never have agreed with it. You can call JI as JI and not Maudoodism.
As an Ideology, Islam has got a vision on everything. This actually is not from JI, rather it is from Islam. So it has got vision on politics and state. State is the highest form of social setup. Any person who pays perseverance for a goal will have and should have an end in his sight. In Islam, it is two dimensional. Mundane and Hereafter. You will achieve your Hereafter goal based on the perseverance you pay. That does not necessarily mean that you will be always able to achieve your mundane goals. That neither does mean that you should not strive for your mundane goals. Rather, you need to strive to achieve the goal through peaceful means until you realize and sustain it. The final goal can have within itself other supporting an corroborating sub-goals that will help them to reach the final goal. It is not a sin to have such a vision as long as it does not upset the apple cart of peaceful co-existence of pluralistic society. Until you achieve your final goal, you cannot say you achieved it. That does not mean you or anybody striving for it has failed. Rather, you will reap your reward in your hereafter life. What a Muslim is required compulsorily is to strive for establishment of anything of which absence is impeding you to do your basic obligations arising out of it. So, as I understand from JI’s literature and the interview with Arif Ali that Mathrubhoomi has published in its latest edition is that JI is committed to its goal as mentioned in its Constitution. For any revolutionary movement, Principles and Goals will remain constant and only policy and programmes will change.
You wrote: “In much of Jamaat literature, obedience to any political system other than that of Islam is termed polytheistic. Obedience in this context is the Jamaat translation of the Arabic word Ibadath, which all the other Muslims translate as Worship.”
I also wanted to study this subject more deeply and profoundly. The foundation of Sovereignty is obedience. Any political philosophy is defined on the ground to whom the sovereignty belongs. If it is to an individual, we call it dictatorship. If it belongs to a group, we call it oligarchy. If it belongs to a King, we call it monarchy. If it belongs to proletariat, we call it communism. If it belongs to people, we call it democracy. Koran unequivocally and explicitly says sovereignty is for Allah, the creator and Sustainer of the world including that of human beings who like other creatures live in His earth enjoying the provisions bestowed by him.
Since meaning of Ibaadat encompasses everything in JI’s vision, their realm of work encompasses every aspect of life. Even if other Muslim organizations follow JI in this realm in certain areas (as KN Shaji mentioned in his last article written in Mathrubhoomi last week when he said Islam is a comprehensive way of Iife and when he wrongly quoted Madina Charter of Prophet Mohammad to justify ML’s position) that also is not with a vision since they don’t have it. For your question on Ibaadat, let me explain it as below as I understood it recently:
Regarding the meaning of Ibadat, I do look into it from a holistic perspective. I take into consideration of cosmological aspect of Islam and underlying principle of obedience to Natural Laws set by Allah behind it. Please remember, Islam is presented and postulated by Koran from a cosmological perspective. Koran presents it as if Islam is human face of nature and/or as natural visage of human being. I do read it from the perspective of meaning of ‘Islam’ itself. Then I look into the meaning of Deen, Rabb and Ilaah from linquistic, literary and scriptural perspective. I do understand the test given to Iblis was on obedience. The first test given to Adam while he was in paradise also was on obedience. The test, much bigger than the above two, that Abraham had undergone when he was commanded to slaughter his only son Ishamel (really a capital crime from the time of Cain and Habel) also was on obedience. While Obedience encompasses everything including worship, the concept of worship does not encompass everything. Shirk is not the opposite of obedience. Violation/disobedience is the opposite of Obedience. Shirk is opposite of Thouheed. As per Logic, Shirk and Thouheed is Concrete Contradictions like death and life, light and darkness which cannot have a third state/condition between them and not absolute contradictions like first and last which might have other conditions/ states like second, third ect between them, or white and black which also can have other conditions/states like red, rose ect. This means any belief or creed or ideology that is not built on the ideological basis of Islam is theoretically shirk, regardless of it is material and/or spiritual. Violation/disobedience will not necessarily become shirk. Maudoodi’s book which I have completed reading also does not say so. Violation/disobedience will become shirk, if it is violated with a belief that Allah does not have right to command in the realm where a person violates/disobeys. Having said its principled stand unequivocally, JI treads into the realm of policy as to how to relate it in the contemporary Indian social life. Unfortunately, as far as I know, other Muslim organisations does not seems to have a crystal clear vision on this like JI. So, as far as I know, JI’s position in Ibaadat has not changed and it will not change. Moreover, it cannot change since it is solely related to Arabic language and Koranic Usage.
In the process of my reading of Books written both by JI activists and other brothers belonging to other Keralite Muslim organisations on Ibaadat, I came to see a proposal that was put forward by JI in terms of publishing the books written by other Keralite Muslim or and JI on Ibaadat in a single volume and propagating it both by JI and other Keralite Muslim organizations among their workers and other people. ( I feel it as a novel, respectful and healthy way of debate and discussion).
You wrote: ” Secularism and democracy are explicitly termed antithetical to Islam by Maududi. Has JMI ever distanced itself from this position?”
I have gone through the book written by Maudoodi on the subject. It is a wonderful book and it approaches the subject logically, scripturally and analytically. The book was written by Maudoodi before India’s independence. The locale and context is that of British and western concepts regarding Democracy and Secularism. It cannot be about Indian secularism which had evolved after independence. However, he makes out the message very clear from Islamic perspective. Have you pondered over the subject from Islamic perspective? After all, what is democracy. If it is government of the people, by the people and for the people, I think the term democracy is just a misnomer. Where in this world you can see such a government? I could not see even a ‘democratic’ government all over the world that represents even 51% of complete population when it was elected. Leave alone, how it was elected and the influence of media and money in the election process? This is all about election. Sometimes, a defeated candidate will have garnered more votes than the victorious as we see in the case of Gore Vs. Bush Junior. Sometimes, the party that has got more votes all over a country will be sitting in the opposition taking into consideration of nos. of seats. Sometimes, a party which has got roots all over the country will not have representation in the parliament while a regional party may become the largest opposition bloc in the parliament as we see 1984 election in India in which BJP has only 2 seats while the regional party TD as the major opposition party This is all about election. After the election, what role the voters have got in the decision making process. Government forgets the people and remembers only their party whenever required. 90% of the people in UK was against sending military to Iraq along with US. Sill Toney Blair, the democratically elected PM of UK took part actively in the Iraq war. Is democracy implemented in the HQ of democracy, i.e, UN? IF so, why there is Security Council? Why the Veto Power? Why presidents in all so called ‘democratic’countries including India and US are given the power to return the bill passed by democratically elected governments? Democracy has no belief in itself. Because it counts the heads and does not weigh what is inside it. In our day to day life we don’t consider each and every person’s opinion on a subject equally even though we may give everybody equal opportunity to express himself.
I think, if anything has to be blamed in this respect, it is Koran. Maudoodi was just an exponent of Koran in this respect. Koran says: “Say! Not equal are the evil and good and even though excess and abundance of evil may impress you” (5:90). If democracy is a process of finding out the right people to assign the right duty, Koran does not object to it. Rather Koran commands it. “ Indeed Allah commands you to assign the duties and responsibilities to the right people, and when you rule among the people, to rule with justice”. This verse clearly speaks about the need of very transparent process for finding out the right people to assign the duties and responsibilities in different levels and layers. Moreover, it commands the elected people to rule among the people with justice regardless of party, caste and religion. (Islamic concept of secularism). You can see democratic process of election in the election of Abu Bakr ( direct election) and Othman (Parliamentary election). You can see the glimpses of participatory democracy in the governance of Omar. However, Muslims failed to build from it since Khilafat deteriorated into kind of monarchy. If democracy is process of decision making involving people and process of prioritizing among options of good, Koran commands it also . “So, pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter” (3:159). “The affair needs to be determined by and through consultation with them” (42:38). Islam doesn’t give sovereignty to people which is only for Allah. It gives the state represented by people the rights and responsibilities of guardianship. I do consider it as beautiful as the relationship between of father and children. In all other political systems, there is an element of fascism since all other political system asserts a kind of supremacy on people in different names. Islam does not believe in any kind of “cracy” with sovereignty given to or taken by any creations. It believes in a kind of vicegerency with the power, rights and responsibilities of a guardian.
With regard to Secularism, Maudoodi was criticizing western secularism which postulates total detachment socio-political life from religion and limits religion into man’s personal relationship to God. JI still stick with it as explained by Arif Ali since any normal Muslim who has heck of Islam in him cannot agree with it. JI’s approach towards Indian Secularism as explained in our constitution is totally different since Indian secularism means non-discrimination among religions and equal treatment of different religions by the state. According to JI and as per the Koranic verse quoted above, it is an Islamic concept.
I think all your further queries except about JI’s stand towards America and Saudi Arabia has been addressed since those queries are from an assumption that JI changed its stand towards democracy and secularism.