Written and collected by Zia H Shah

Abul A’la Maududi

Abul A’la Maududi [Abū ‘l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī]^[1] (Urdu: ابو الاعلىٰ مودودی – alternative spellings of last name Maudoodi, Mawdudi, and Modudi) (September 25, 1903 – September 22, 1979) was a well known Sunni Muslim scholar and politician of Pakistan, who also gathered some notoriety for opposing the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.  He was a journalist, theologian, Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a controversial 20th century Islamist thinker.^[2] He was also a political figure in Pakistan and was the first recipient of King Faisal International Award for his services 1979. He was also the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamic revivalist party.^[3]

Maududi was born in Aurangabad, India, then part of the princely state enclave of Hyderabad, until it was annexed by India in 1948. He was born to Maulana Ahmad Hasan, a lawyer by profession. He was the youngest of his three brothers.^[4] His father was the descendant of the Chishti line of saints; in fact his last name was derived from the first member of the Chishti Silsilah i.e. Khawajah Syed Qutb ul-Din Maudood Chishti (d. 527 AH)^[5]

At an early age, Maududi was given home education, he “received religious nurture at the hands of his father and from a variety of teachers employed by him.”^[5] He soon moved on to formal education, however, and completed his secondary education from Madrasah Furqaniyah. For his undergraduate studies he joined Darul Uloom, Hyderabad (India). His undergraduate studies, however, were disrupted by the illness and death of his father, and he completed his studies outside of the regular educational institutions.^[4] His instruction included very little of the subject matter of a modern school, such as European languages, like English.^[5] He reportedly translated Qasim Amin‘s The New Woman into Urdu at the age of 14^[6] and about 3,500 pages from Asfar, a work of mystical Persian thinker Mulla Sadra.^[7]

In the beginning of the struggle for the state of Pakistan, Maududi and his party criticized other leaders of the Muslim League for wanting Pakistan to be a state for Muslims and not as an Islamic state. After realizing that India was going to be partitioned and Pakistan created, he began the struggle to make Pakistan an Islamic state. Maududi moved to Pakistan in 1947 and worked to turn it into an Islamic state, resulting in frequent arrests and long periods of incarceration. In 1953, he and the JI led a campaign against the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan resulting in the Lahore riots of 1953 and selective declaration of martial law.^[10] He was arrested by the military deployment headed by Lieutenant General Azam Khan, which also included Rahimuddin Khan, and sentenced to death on the charge of writing a propaganda pamphlet about the Ahmadiyya issue. He turned down the opportunity to file a petition for mercy, expressing a preference for death rather than seeking clemency. Strong public pressure ultimately convinced the government to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Eventually, his sentence was annulled.^[8]

His Genuine Pride in Origin of Human Rights in Islam

I have briefly examined the origin of human rights in Islam, in my previous article: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Islam!

Human Rights in Islam^[1] is a 1976 book written by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami.^[2]

In the book, Maududi argues that respect for human rights has always been enshrined in Sharia law (indeed that the roots of these rights are to be found in Islamic doctrine)^[3] and criticizes Western notions that there is an inherent contradiction between the two.^[4]

He starts the second chapter of his book with the following paragraphs, as he rightfully takes pride in the origin of human rights in Islam:

People in the West have the habit of attributing every beneficial development in the world to themselves.  For example, it is vociferously claimed that the world first derived the concept of basic human rights from the Magna Carta in Britain – which was drawn up six hundred years after the advent of Islam.  But the truth is that until the seventeenth century no one dreamt of arguing that the Magna Carta contained the principles of trial by jury, Habeas Corpus and control by the Parliament of the right of taxation.  If the people who drafted Magna Carta were living today they would be greatly surprised to be told that their document enshrined such ideals and principles.
To the best of my knowledge, the West had no concept of human and civic rights before the seventeenth century; and it was not until the end of eighteenth century that the concept took on practical meaning in the constitution of America and France.
After this, although there appeared references to basic human rights in the constitutions of many countries, more often than not these rights existed only on paper.  In the middle of the present century, the United Nations, which may now be more aptly described as the Divided Nations, made a Declaration of Universal Human Rights, and passed a resolution condemning genocide, regulations were framed to prevent it.  They are just expressions of pious hopes. … Despite all the high-sounding resolutions of the United Nations, human rights continue to be violated and trampled on.

In my opinion Maududi has good ideas about the origin of human rights and their history in the West.  This can be demonstrated by some of my posts about Umar Farooq, may Allah be pleased with him and the post about the only book of President Thomas Jefferson, published in his life time:

However, Western scholars have, reasonably rejected other aspects of Maududi’s analysis. Bielefeldt (2000)^[5] characterises Maududi’s argument as a “superficial and uncritical ‘Islamization‘ of human rights” that fails to address tensions between human rights and shariah law.^[6], as promulgated by Maududi.  In addition, he criticises Maududi for employing a narrow definition of equality that gives no consideration to what Bielefeldt considers “the two main issues over which traditional shariah and modern human rights collide”: gender and religion.^[6] Carle (2005) terms the book “influential”, but echoes Bielefeldt’s criticisms.^[7]

Maududi was rightly able to see the origin of human rights in Islam, but,  he seems to ignore the elephant in the room and declares his gigantic blind spot by promoting death sentence for apostasy.

His erroneous stance about Apostasy and preaching by non-Muslims

Let me describe Abul A’la Maududi’s teaching about Apostasy from a book by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the previous international leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, as he writes in his book, Murder in the name of Allah:

‘Surely, this is a reminder; so whoever wishes may take the way that leads to his Lord. ‘ (Quran, 76.30)

‘In our domain we neither allow any Muslim to change his religion nor allow any other religion to propagate its faith.’ Maulana Maududi

Maulana Maududi’s desire for political power knew no bounds. The law of apostasy which he evolved was an extension of his dictatorial and intolerant personality—it had nothing to do with Islam. Dr Israr Ahmad, who worked closely with Maududi, said that Maududi borrowed the principles of his movement from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and the Khairi brothers and the style of his presentation from Niyaz Fatehpuri. But he was so egocentric that he never acknowledged that his ideas came from anyone but himself.

Similarly, the Maulana’s ideas on apostasy, though originating from an interpretive error of early Muslim jurisprudence (fiqh) are, in fact, based on medieval Christianity. The Deoband school; which was on one hand collaborating with a predominantly Hindu political organization the Indian National Congress—and on the other fighting a rearguard action against the shuddi campaign, provided the gloss to Maududi’s thoughts on the subject. The influence of Marxist writings, which the Maulana seems to have read when a young and impressionable editor, is markedly noticeable in his thinking. The Tahrik-i-Jamaari Islami is a curious blend of medieval Christian practices, Deobandi/Wahabi intolerance and Marxist incitement to disruption.[1] Read further in Murder in the Name of Allah.

Abul A’la Maududi’ seems to ignore the elephant in the room by not allowing non-Muslims any freedom of speech, freedom of expression and preaching their religion and his teaching about apostasy takes away freedom of religion and choice from every Muslim.

The rights of non-Muslims are limited under Islamic state as laid out in Maududi’s writings. Although non-Muslim “faith, ideology, rituals of worship or social customs” would not be interfered with, non-Muslims would have to accept Muslim rule and would not be allowed to preach:

“Islamic ‘jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer state affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam.”^[27]

According to Maududi non-Muslims would also have to pay a special tax known as jizya. This tax is applicable to all able adult non-Muslims, except old and women, who do not render military service. Those who serve in the military are exempted. All adult Muslim men are subject to compulsory military service, whenever required by the Islamic state. Jizya is thus seen as a protection tax payable to the Islamic state for protection of those non-Muslim adult men who do not render military service.^[28]  Maududi believed that copying cultural practices of non-Muslims was forbidden in Islam, having very disastrous consequences upon a nation; it destroys its inner vitality, blurs its vision, befogs its critical faculties, breeds inferiority complexes, and gradually but assuredly saps all the springs of culture and sounds its death-knell. That is why the Holy Prophet has positively and forcefully forbidden the Muslims to assume the culture and mode of life of the non-Muslims.^[29]

Maududi also strongly opposed the Ahmadiyya sect and the idea that Ahmadiyya were Muslims. He preached against Ahmadiyya in his pamphlet The Qadiani Question and the book The Finality of Prophethood.^[30]

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s understanding has always been that there is no worldly punishment of apostasy in Islam.  It is a matter of basic human rights and religious freedoms.  Read two small books on this theme.