In a debate relating to JIH Kerala posted in the web portal Kafila.org Shahjahan Madampat raised objections and queries. John Civillo replied. [This is the second part of the reply; the first part appeared in our Issue No. 28, 10-16 October 2010] .
Your initial first query was about JI’s (Jamaat-e-Islami’s) goal and establishment of Islamic rule in India. Now, you have repeated your question when you asked if Jamaat is committed to its goal. I understand its goal is and has been Iqamatudheen and it has not changed and it is committed to it. It has not changed even in its interpretation also. JI continues to re-iterate it including re-structuring of state also as an end in its vision. The Prophet also was having this final goal in his vision while he was in Makkah (His words to his followers who were tortured: A time will definitely come when a woman can travel from Sanaa to Hader Mouth with her sheep in the thickest of night without having to fear any except the wolf) and when he was migrating from Makkah to Medina (Prophet’s saying to Suraqa on his way to Medina when Suraqa embraced Islam and when the Prophet asked him “How will it be when you put on the black bangles of Kisra on your left wrist?). There are a lot of verses from the Qur’ān and the Prophet’s sayings to corroborate it. The final goal can have within itself other supporting and 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. In India each and every political organisation has got its own vision about how a state needs to be. JI also has got such a vision from Islamic perspective. I do understand JI uses only peaceful and the most intelligent ways to convey its message. I think JI has got a vision on India, India’s historical traits, demography, pluralistic nature of the society, the current political set-up, economic system etc. JI will achieve its end goal only when most of the people agree with JI’s vision of state. So, neither I, nor Shahjahan need to worry about it. I will stand for JI’s right to speak and propagate what they believe in a peaceful way which I believe they are doing. This does not necessarily mean I am in agreement with all their ideas.
Your second query was about Ibaadat and concept of obedience: I think I have given you my understanding of it from a holistic perspective involving cosmology, language, logic and with some major examples of Iblis, Adam and Abraham. I related it to the meaning of “Islam” itself. Then I related it to Deen, Rabb and Ilah also. You did not comment on it. Now, you have multiplied your questions in your second posting from 7 to 11. I think I need to elaborate a little bit on it with some examples and will try to combine all in one shot.
First of all, JI does not say Ibaadat has got only one meaning of obedience. It says obedience is one of its meaning from linguistic and Qur’ānic perspectives. I think you better try to know more details on this from the mouth of horse itself rather than simply relying on the version of different factions of Mujahids which is unfortunately most inconsistent also. The word Ibaadat originates from the word Abd which means Slave. How a slave relates to his master is through obedience which encompasses every act he performs. As part of my own independent study into this most important terminology of Islam, I had an opportunity to check the most primitive Arabic dictionary which is known as Qamus. Now, in the Arabic language Qamus itself means dictionary (just like we call diapers as “pampers”, washing powder as “surf”). I was really astonished to note that in its origin Ibaadat has got only one meaning of Obedience which corresponds to the salve’s relationship with his master. Then, it got multiple meanings in the passage of time deriving from its original meaning as we see in Lasanul Arab and Munjid. (Apart from the earlier given analysis, this is from philological and etymological perspectives.
Now, I have to deal with your query on if and when an obedience to any power other than Allah does constitute necessarily an act of Shirk or not. I had written in my previous posting the following:
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 Touheed. As per logic, Shirk and Touheed are 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 etc. between them, or white and black which also can have other conditions/states like red, rose etc. 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.
Now I will try to give you some examples on this to shed some more light on this as well as to define when obedience to any power other than Allah constitutes and does not constitute an act of shirk. I know, Shahjahan’s analytical skills, cognitive power, intellectual ability and comprehensive faculty as I am used to read your articles even while you were used to write in Kala Kaumudi in the beginning.
Example of when an act of Worship only to Allah becomes an act of Shirk because of disobedience and compare it with when even a Sajda to a creation becomes an act of Ibadat to Allah if it is in obedience to the commandment of Allah (example of Angels’ Sujood in front of Adam).
Think of a person who believes in the comprehensiveness of Islam and abstains from all evils and do all the charities, but says he does not follow Islamic way of worshipping, even though he prays only to Allah as commanded by Islam, since it is not helpful for the meditation he is craving, or for the Nirvana with God that he is aspiring, as he is unable to concentrate in the Islamic congregational prayers mixed with movements and meditations, among the masses sneezing and yawning. Moreover, according to him, Islamic prayer is a time-bound activity whereas the real prayer has to be instinctive and spontaneous. Furthermore, the time and arithmetic concept incorporated and embedded with Islamic prayer makes it a semi-material act. So he adopts his own way of meditation in loneliness with all his Islamic beliefs and says he is a Muslim since he prays only to Allah. In this regard, he considers him to be a Muslim Nirvanist! Is it Imaginable? What is this “Muslim” doing here? Shirk or Touheed even though he is praying only to Allah? (I think if he is replacing Allah’s right as to command how to relate slave with Him, it constitutes an act of Shirk even though he might be praying only to Allah).
Another Muslim says: He is also a Muslim and he prays only to Allah as commanded by Allah. However, as far as socio-political life is concerned, he says he is a socialist since he believes the justice, peace, law and order can be achieved only through socialism and most of the time he works for Socialism praying to Allah only. For him it is not a matter who is the Law giver as long as it serves the goals of the justice in his concept. Moreover, He believes Islam as a religion and Allah as its God has nothing to do with the mundane aspect of human life. So he is a Muslim socialist. Is it OK for us? If this is OK, why the first Muslim mentioned above is not OK? Aren’t both Muslims applying same concept in a different way? Logically and scripturally both Muslim socialists and Muslim Nirvanists are doing the same though we are accustomed to look at both these trends differently as if only the former trend of these two is shirk and the latter is pure Towheed tuned for pragmatism?
Dear and respected Shahjahan, you said: “Qur’ān never used the word sovereignty. It is a distortion to say the Qur’ān used this essentially modern political term. The Qur’ān used the word ‘Hukm’ (inil hukm illa lillah – hukm is only that of Allah) and it is wrongly translated as sovereignty. The verse I just quoted is not a prescriptive verse, but a factual statement that means Allah’s overarching control over the universe is absolute.”
With all due respect, I am sorry to say that I have to agree to disagree with you here. Apart from the difference of opinion I do have on limiting the meaning of Hukm on Allah’s control of universe, which also the Qur’ān brings forth to cement its postulation of Islam from cosmological perspective , this argument is logically inconsistent and does not correlate with the content and context . I want to keep aloof from judging the intention of proponents of this argument by saying they want to tailor the Qur’ān, Islam and its history to their convenience. Let me challenge here your cognitive power. For argument purpose, let me agree with you that there is no word ‘sovereignty’ in the Qur’ān. Can you say in the Qur’ān there is no civil law since there is no word “civil Law”? Can you say, there is no history in the Qur’ān since there is no word “tareekh” in the Qur’ān? Will you say there is no criminal law in the Qur’ān since there is no penal code in the Qur’ān? If so, you may even be able to say there is no “Touheed” in the Qur’ān since we don’t see any word in terms of Touheed in the Qur’ān? I don’t want to put forward an argument for argument purpose. The Qur’ān not only postulates the concept of sovereignty and obedience, it even defines what a state is and what a state has got over its citizenry. Refer to the verse 8:72, for example, in which it clearly says four structural factors of a State in terms of geographical boundary, people regardless of their creed and belief, government and how a state and citizenry is related through guardianship (wilayat) and not through sovereignty. Shahjahan, I can elaborate more on this. I think as a man of understanding, this itself is enough for you.
Regarding comparison between Maudoodi and Golwalkar, I want to keep aloof from such comparison which actually tarnishes the status and stature of a great thinker and scholar whom the Islamic world respects and reveres. I think it is pitiful to observe that most of Muslim organisations in Kerala except JI breed scorn and contempt of their own scholars and thinkers rather than teaching their followers how to respect them even while disagreeing. I am happy to note that these Muslim organisations have not compared Maudoodi with Hitler taking into consideration of Hitlers’s version of a state. Dear Shahjahan, any ideological movement will have their own vision of state. Based on the fact that two leaders have got their own vision of state, I won’t say both of them are alike. Communists also have got a vision on state and they also see people as classes in which there is “we” (Proletariat) and “they” (Bourgeoisie). Will you say Golwalkar and Marx are alike in content, substance and rhetoric? Moreover, the Qur’ān uses the word Qaum for nation. And, according to the Qur’ān, the term Qaum comprises people of different creeds and beliefs. That’s why we see almost on all pages of the Qur’ān prophets addressing even their adversaries as O My Nation. (“Ya Qaumi”), I don’t want even to compare Pre-partition Muslim League and RSS even though Muslim League and Jinnah had wrongly propounded two-nation theory (Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation in terms of two different Qaumiyyats) which was not in tandem with Qur’ānic usage of Qaum as mentioned above. Actually, Maudoodi and JI were against this Qaumiyyat. I don’t know what you mean by an Ideology. May be, it is a matter of difference of perception between us that you consider Hindutva as an ideology. For me, Hindutva is a kind of cultural nationalism. That’s what I was able to understand from the book We and our Nationhood Defined. Golwalkar and Hedgewar were not pious people as Jinnah and Liaqat were not. All of them are not known for leading their life based on the respective religions they belonged to even though all of them used their religions Hinduism and Islam for their vested and narrow political purposes. That’s why Lapierre and Collins had wondered when they said: Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol, but was able to organise millions of Muslims behind him. Maudoodi led a life based on Islam. I think you better look for some better (understanding); I read it eight years ago in the beginning of when I wanted to study Islam. At that time I did not feel it espousing any kind of hatred. I will re-look into it. I know, this book is published all over the world. It is the first time I have heard about this book espousing hatred.
In the end, let me summarise with a theme from one of Robert Frost’s poetry. People tend to think from their own background. For me, I have travelled a long way and I am now at this juncture. Considering my track history, I know I cannot be diehard and I will correct myself if I am proven wrong at its first instance. I do understand before I was a fragmented and disintegrated personality drawn, dragged and pulled apart by different conflicting forces. Now, as a Muslim, who understand Islam as a comprehensive and complete code of life, I feel the comfort of an integrated personality. I know I cannot become the follower, activist, proponent and spokesman of man-made ideologies in my mundane life as well and become fragmented again thereof. I am unable even to imagine me praying behind Prophet Muhammad and becoming the activist of Abu Jahl in my socio-political life wherever I am (be in Makkah or Medina or anywhere else). I may support Rome or Persia as part of prioritisation I do have. But it will be based on Islam and not denying its political content. I do understand I cannot have diametrically split leaderships contrary to one another from Islamic perspective. A spiritual leadership for religious purpose and a contradictory political leadership for political purpose which I don’t find any example from the history of prophets and their followers mentioned in the Qur’ān. I hope with this statement, I have addressed the major topics you have raised. I think for an intelligent person like you, this itself will be sufficient to think further and build upon.