Preface

I am writing “Iqamat-e-Din” as the second series in the series of thought published in my booklet, first published in 1978 under the title “The Islamic Movement of Bangladesh” and, from its third edition in 1981, under the title “Islamic Unity, Islamic Movement.” In the first series, it was shown that, by the grace of Allah, the service of Islam is being adequately rendered in Bangladesh in various ways. Through a brief explanation of the great service being rendered to the religion of Islam through madrasas, mosques, khanqahs, sermons, tabligh, Islamic literature, and so forth, it was proved that every kind of service is extremely important; all these services together enhance the dignity of Islam, and it is the duty of every Muslim servant of the faith to regard these services as mutually complementary.

Those who consider only their own religious service valuable and do not appreciate the service of others may create division and hostility within the ummah. Everyone should realize that we are all serving the same great faith in different forms and ways. Everyone should also sincerely remember that each of the services mentioned above is valuable and necessary in its own sphere. If everyone acknowledges the value of everyone else’s service, unity and affection will arise among the Islamic forces of the country, and the dignity of the faith will increase further.

The service rendered by Furqania madrasas and maktabs cannot be rendered by large madrasas. The scholars being produced in Alia and Qawmi madrasas cannot be produced by the Tabligh Jamaat. Again, it is unrealistic to expect the countless people who receive whatever light of the faith they receive through tabligh to obtain it through madrasas. The educated community acquires knowledge of Islam through Islamic literature. But through preachers, uneducated people also acquire knowledge of Islam and religious fervor. The mosques are active because madrasas, preaching, and tabligh exist. If these aspects are considered, every kind of service will seem valuable.

The book “Islamic Unity, Islamic Movement” mainly discussed service to the faith and placed special emphasis on the unity of the servants of the faith. A practical proposal was also presented regarding what the form of Islamic unity could be. However, that booklet did not discuss Iqamat-e-Din in detail. It only gave some indication there of the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Din. The need for a detailed discussion of Iqamat-e-Din has therefore made it necessary to write another book. Thus, this book complements that one, and I hope its appeal will be clearer to those who have read that book.

This book discusses a subject whose study is rare even among the servants of the faith. Therefore, in order to present the subject simply, I have tried, by giving examples of various religious services, to prove that there is a difference between service to the faith and Iqamat-e-Din. I have tried my best to ensure that none of my words becomes a cause of displeasure to the servants of Allah’s faith. If any such words nevertheless remain, please inform me, and I will correct them in the next edition, God willing.

The Subject Discussed in This Book

Explanation of the Word “Din”

The First Meaning: Recompense or Retribution

The Second Meaning: Obedience

The Third Meaning: The Law or Method of Obedience

The Fourth Meaning: Law, State, and Social System

The Comprehensive Nature of Din

The Life of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) Is the Practical Model of the Religion of Islam

‘The Essence of Iqamat-e-Din’s’ Meaning

The State of the True Faith in Bangladesh

What Happens to Falsehood When the True Faith Is Established

The Responsibility of Iqamat-e-Din

Did the Messenger (peace be upon him) Do Anything Beyond His Responsibility?

The Timeless Method of the Islamic Movement

The Islamic Movement and the Cadre System

Why Is Conflict Between Truth and Falsehood Inevitable?

Why Does This Conflict Not Occur with Religious Service?

Why Are Not All the Honored Scholars Active in Iqamat-e-Din?

The Only Standard of Din Is the Messenger (peace be upon him)

Why Did the Great Scholars of the Subcontinent Not Launch the Movement for Iqamat-e-Din?

The Importance of Collective Effort

The Characteristics of the Jamaat Formed for the Purpose of Iqamat-e-Din

Does Such a Jamaat Exist in Bangladesh?

Jamaat-e-Islami and Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him)

The Fatwa Against the Jamaat

The Fatwa Against Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him)

For the Attention of the Honored Scholars and Shaykhs

Qur’anic Terminology Used in This Book

Brief definitions are given below of those terms whose meanings may be unknown to modern educated people, thereby creating a risk that the book’s message will remain unclear:

1. Din—obedience—the way of life sent through the Messenger for the purpose of obedience to Allah.

2. Iqamat—establishment, upholding, setting up.

3. Iqamat-e-Din—implementing or establishing the law sent by Allah.

4. Haqq—truth, rational, irrefutable.

5. Din-e-Haqq—the true Din—that is, the Din whose truth is irrefutable and rational.

6. Batil—false, untrue, refutable, irrational law, false way of life.

7. Din-e-Batil—a false Din or an irrational form of obedience.

8. Khidmat—service, assistance, work.

9. Khidmat-e-Din—service to the religion of Islam or work for the advancement of the faith.

10. Khadim-e-Din—a servant and helper of Islam.

11. Ilm—knowledge; the knowledge sent from Allah to the Prophet, contained in the Qur’an and Hadith.

12. Ulama—scholars, those learned in the Qur’an and Hadith; its singular is alim.

13. Fitnah—obstruction, trial, becoming trapped in doubt; all obstacles, trials, and doubts that arise when following Allah’s path are fitnah.

14. Wahy—indication, informing, disclosure, inspiration, and so forth; the means by which a message is sent from Allah to human beings.

15. Hidayah—guidance, leading along the right path.

16. Uswah—model, worthy of emulation, worthy of following.

17. Uswatun Hasana—the most beautiful model, the finest model.

18. Meyar—standard, criterion.

19. Jamaat—group, organization.

20. Fatwa—decision, declaration, expression of an opinion, promulgation of a comment.

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

‘Explanation of the’ Word “Din”

To discuss Iqamat-e-Din, it is first necessary to explain the word “Din” correctly in the light of the Holy Qur’an. The word Din has several meanings. In the Noble Qur’an, this word has been used with various meanings. When a word has several meanings, all its meanings are not applicable in every place, nor can the same meaning be accepted everywhere. The meaning in which a word has been used in a particular place can be understood from the complete sentence. There is no way to understand the meaning of that word correctly by separating it from the sentence in which it has been used.

Several meanings of the word Din are clear in the Holy Qur’an:

One: Recompense, requital, retribution, and so forth.

Two: Obedience, ta‘at, or following a command.

Three: The law of obedience (nizam-e-ta‘at) or the rules of obedience.

Four: The law or state system governed by a law; it also denotes the social system.

These various meanings of the word Din can be understood very clearly from several verses of the Holy Qur’an.

One: The First Meaning—Recompense or Retribution

 مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ (Surah al-Fatihah) Meaning: “Master of the Day of Recompense.”

كَلَّا بَلْ تُكَذِّبُونَ بِالدِّينِ “No indeed; rather, you deny the recompense.” —(Surah al-Infitar)

In verses of this kind, Din means recompense, requital, retribution, and so forth. It refers here to the recompense that people will be given in the Hereafter for their deeds.

Two: The Second Meaning—Obedience

أَفَغَيْرَ دِينِ اللَّهِ يَبْغُونَ وَلَهُ أَسْلَمَ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ طَوْعًا وَكَرْهًا وَإِلَيْهِ يُرْجَعُونَ Meaning: “Do they seek anything other than obedience to Allah? Yet everything in the heavens and the earth submits to Him, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned.” —(Surah Al Imran: 83)

Here the word “Din” has been used in the sense of submission or obedience. دانThe word “dan” has one meaning of اطاع“ata‘,” or obeyed. From this, دِينِ“din” means اطاعة“ita‘ah,” or obedience.

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ فَاعْبُدِ اللَّهَ مُخْلِصًا لَّهُ الدِّينَ

Meaning: “Worship Him, making your obedience to Allah exclusive to Him (sincere).” —(Surah az-Zumar: 2)

That is, worship Allah in such a way that He alone is your Master and the only One entitled to your obedience.

وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ ۖ

Meaning: “Fight them until there is no more fitnah and obedience remains exclusively for Allah.” —(Surah al-Baqarah: 193)

Here fitnah means the anti-Islamic force that creates obstacles in the path of obedience to Allah. By commanding jihad, it is stated here that the opposing force should be suppressed in such a way that no one can prevent people from obeying Allah.

These three verses have been given as examples. There are many verses of this kind in the Qur’an. From these three verses of three different types, it can be understood that obedience is the principal meaning of the word Din.

Three: The Third Meaning—The Law or Method of Obedience

  إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ

Meaning: “Surely, Islam alone is the law of obedience (the way of life) with Allah.” —(Surah Al Imran: 19)

وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ

Meaning: Whoever seeks a form of obedience other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him. —(Surah Al Imran: 85)

That is, with Allah, Islam alone is the law of obedience to Allah.

شَرَعَ لَكُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ ۖ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ

Meaning: “He has prescribed for you the law of obedience that He commanded Noah, and that We have revealed to you, and that He commanded Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: establish the Din and do not differ concerning it.” (Surah ash-Shura: 13)

That is, Allah Most High commanded every prophet to establish His law of obedience.

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ

Meaning: “He is the One who sent His Messenger with guidance and the only true law of obedience, so that he might make it prevail over every other form of the law of obedience.” (Surah as-Saff: 9)

  الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ

Meaning: “Today I have perfected your law (way of life) for you.” (Surah al-Ma’idah: 3)

In other words, I have perfected your way of life so that the law of obeying Allah alone may be followed in life and there may be no need to take anything from any other law in any sphere.

Four: The fourth meaning is law, state and social system

وَقَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ ذَرُونِي أَقْتُلْ مُوسَىٰ وَلْيَدْعُ رَبَّهُ ۖ إِنِّي أَخَافُ أَن يُبَدِّلَ دِينَكُمْ أَوْ أَن يُظْهِرَ فِي الْأَرْضِ الْفَسَادَ

Meaning: “Pharaoh said, ‘Leave me; I will kill Moses. Let him call upon his Lord and see. I fear that he will change your law and state system, or at least create disorder in the land.’” —(Surah Al-Mu’min: 26)

      ۖ مَا كَانَ لِيَأْخُذَ أَخَاهُ فِي دِينِ الْمَلِكِ

Meaning: “According to the king’s law, no one else may be apprehended. That is, the one who committed the theft must be apprehended. Under the law of the country, someone other than the guilty person cannot be apprehended.” —(Surah Yusuf: 76)

  وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ

Meaning: “If you are believers, then, when enforcing the punishment for adultery, do not let compassion for them arise in your hearts regarding Allah’s law.” —(Surah An-Nur: 2)

From the several meanings of the word deen found in these verses, it appears that primary importance is given to obedience. In one verse, the word deen has been used in a verbal sense, making the meaning of obedience even clearer:

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ

Meaning: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not regard as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not obey Allah’s deen.” —(Surah At-Tawbah: 29)

In discussing the meaning of the word deen, these few verses of the Holy Qur’an make it clear that the essence of the law and method Allah sent through the prophets for human beings to live correctly in this world is obedience to Allah.

The Scope of Deen

The deen of Islam, which was sent as the law of obedience to Allah, was designed for every aspect and sphere of human life. Allah Himself formulated the Islamic way of life so that people could obey Allah alone correctly in all matters concerning the individual, family, state, society and international relations. No one other than Allah could have the power to formulate a way of life suitable for every country, every age and every nation.

The Messenger (peace be upon him) was entrusted with presenting to humanity a true example of how this way of life formulated by Allah could be followed in practical life. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah Himself has declared:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

Meaning: “For those among you who hope for Allah’s pleasure and salvation on the Last Day, there is an excellent example in the Messenger (peace be upon him).” —(Surah Al-Ahzab: 21)

In other words, the finest example of life in this world as a human being is found in the life of the Messenger (peace be upon him).

The essence of the statement by which one enters Islam through accepting the Kalimah Tayyibah demands that obedience to Allah be all-encompassing.

لآ اِلَهَ اِلّا اللّهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُوُل اللّهِ“There is no deity except Allah, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah.” These words are not a mantra whose mere recitation makes one a Muslim in the sight of Allah. The claim of faith cannot be fulfilled without understanding the meaning of the Kalimah and believing in its essence.

The Kalimah Tayyibah actually proclaims the fundamental principle of human life. Whoever accepts this Kalimah in fact accepts two principles that are essential for living his entire life according to the law given by Allah.

“La ilaha illallah” proclaims that we will obey no one’s command except Allah’s—that is, we will obey no one in opposition to Allah’s command. This is the first principle or policy. This has been stated clearly in a Hadith:

لاطاعة لمخلؤق فى معصية الخالق“There can be no obedience to anyone among creation in disobedience to the Creator.” In other words, we will obey no one’s command in opposition to obedience to Allah—this is the first principle.

The second part of the Kalimah Tayyibah, “Muhammadur Rasulullah (peace be upon him),” proclaims the second principle. Its essence is: “We will obey Allah’s command only according to the way (method) demonstrated by the Messenger as the practical example of obedience to Allah. We will accept the method of obeying and serving Allah from no one except the Messenger of Allah.”

Thus, the Kalimah expresses the decision to live according to Allah’s commands and the way of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Fulfilling this decision in every matter of life is the demand of the Kalimah. Through the Kalimah, one declares the intention to follow this principle at all times and in all circumstances—in words and deeds, in thought and in practice. Those who accept the Kalimah with this understanding are Muslims in the true sense. If, as a result of the weakness of the nafs or Satan’s deception, a Muslim fails to obey Allah’s commands or the Messenger, he must nevertheless acknowledge sincerely that obeying Allah’s commands and the Messenger is the duty of a Muslim and the demand of the Kalimah—if he wishes to be regarded by Allah as a believer and Muslim. If someone who has accepted Islam in this manner commits an act contrary to Allah’s commands or the way of the Messenger (peace be upon him), he must repent, hope for forgiveness and resolve not to commit that wrong again.

The Life of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) Is the Practical Example of the Deen of Islam

The comprehensive nature of the deen of Islam can be clearly understood from the practical life of the Last Prophet (peace be upon him). He performed every task as the Messenger of Allah. He was the Messenger while leading prayers in the mosque, just as he was the Messenger while carrying out all the affairs of governing Madinah. He was also the Messenger on the battlefield. In other words, everything he did and said, he did and said as the Messenger. Just as he fulfilled his responsibility as the Messenger in religious matters, he did everything as the Messenger in matters such as business and commerce, politics, economics and military policy. Therefore, the entire life of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was an Islamic life and part of Allah’s deen, or obedience to Allah. In other words, just as broad as the life of the Messenger was, so broad is the deen of Islam. It is the duty of a Muslim to follow the Messenger completely in every situation. An Islamic life cannot be established merely by following the Messenger in religious matters.

Those who claim to be Muslims yet accept the Messenger as their ideal leader only in religious matters, while in politics, economics, business and commerce they accept as leaders people whose principles and character oppose those of the Messenger, act contrary to the Kalimah. Not only that, such people are unwilling to accept Allah as their Master in every sphere of life and are not prepared to accept the Messenger (peace be upon him) as their leader in all matters.

Some people speak against “bringing Islam into the political arena.” They regard Islam as merely a religion consisting of certain rituals and ceremonies, like other religions. They want to impose “Section 144” on Allah and the Messenger (peace be upon him), so that it will not be necessary to obey Allah and the Messenger outside the mosque. In reality, they are unwilling to accept Islam itself, although some of them may perform certain religious practices. Perhaps they have no understanding of the comprehensiveness of Islam. Such people are called “secular.”

It is truly astonishing that a class of people known in society as devoutly religious also speak like the secularists. They obey Islam through prayer, fasting, Hajj, zakat, tasbih and recitation. Yet they do not even consider it necessary to try to follow the Qur’an of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in matters such as law and courts, business and commerce, industry, governing the country and so forth. This is because they too are unaware of the comprehensiveness of the deen. In that respect, they too may be called secular, because they also favor confining Islam within the bounds of religion.

These religious people regard Islam as a religion free of politics. If the Messenger (peace be upon him) were truly their perfect model, they could never have made such a mistake. No one can remain outside the political arena. In an election, one must support one side or another; moreover, there is no alternative to adopting some position on various national issues. Those who, despite being religious, do not work for Islam in the political arena may well fall into the trap of irreligious political parties in elections and on national issues. This proves that one group believes in “secular politics,” while another believes in “a religion neutral toward politics.” In the view of the deen of Islam brought by the Messenger (peace be upon him), both groups are on the wrong path.

“The” Essence of “Establishing the Deen”

اقامةThe Arabic word has several synonyms:

نصب –تاسيس- انشاه-  رفع

رفعmeans to raise up, erect or hold up.

انشاهmeans to create, bring into existence or establish.

تاسيسmeans to establish or set up an institution.

نصبmeans to set up, such as a post.

The easily understood meanings of the word iqamah are to establish, put into operation, erect, bring into existence, establish and so on.

In the Holy Qur’an, اقيموا الصلوةthe expression has been used many times. It means, “Establish the prayer.” اقامة الصلوة(Iqamat as-Salat) means to put the prayer into practice.” Before the obligatory prayer, the mu’adhdhin gives the iqamah or recites the takbir. Toward its end, it is said, قد قد قامة الصلوة قدthe prayer has been erected or the prayer has begun.

Learning the rules of prayer, knowing about prayer or delivering sermons on prayer is not called establishing the prayer. In practice, putting the prayer into operation is what is meant by establishing the prayer. Establishing prayer in a person’s life means that he regularly performs the prayer correctly, on time and in congregation. Establishing prayer in a neighborhood means establishing it in the neighborhood mosque, commencing the five daily congregational prayers there, and having most of the people of the neighborhood participate in the congregation.

The establishment of Bangladesh means the actual establishment of a state called Bangladesh as an independent state. The establishment of a factory means putting the factory into operation. Similarly, establishing the deen of Islam in a country means that all the activities of the government and the people are conducted according to the Qur’an and Hadith.

“Establishing the Deen” is a term whose meaning can be expressed in Bengali in various ways. “Establishing Allah’s deen” or “establishing the deen of Islam” may be its simple translation. If the phrase “to establish” is added to any one of “Islamic state,” “Islamic government,” “Islamic society” or “Islamic system,” it conveys the meaning of the term “Establishing the Deen.”

A practical example is needed to understand the essence of establishing the deen correctly. The matter will become easy if we take the example of our beloved homeland, Bangladesh. Everyone is compelled to admit that the law of the Qur’an and the example of the Messenger have not been established in Bangladesh. This country is not an Islamic state. Its government is not Islamic either. None of the country’s business and commerce, banking and insurance, courts and criminal justice, education and culture, politics and economics, domestic and foreign policies, and so on is conducted according to Islamic law. Yet all these things are functioning. Naturally, the question arises: according to which ideal, principle or law are the state, government and everything else in the country functioning?

In Qur’anic terminology, Islamic law is called دين الحق. That is, obeying Allah is the “only truth.” No society can function if people do not obey one another. Islam’s demand is that أَلَا لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ “Know that creation and command belong exclusively to Allah.” —(Surah Al-A‘raf: 54) In other words, everyone’s duty is to obey Allah alone. Peace and order in human society depend solely on complete obedience to one Master.

No one except Allah can be completely selfless, and no one else is infallible. Only He can provide true and correct laws for the welfare of all. Therefore, the law formulated by Him—the deen of Islam—is the only truth (الحق). Everything opposed to the true deen is false, erroneous and harmful. Every form of obedience opposed to obedience to Allah is “the false deen,” or false obedience. The term opposite to truth is falsehood.

According to the explanation above, the social and state system operating in Bangladesh is the false deen. Wherever the true deen has not been established, whatever is operating there is necessarily false. Accordingly, the capitalist social system, the secular state and government, and the socialist and communist systems are all “the false deen.”

Allah says:

ادْخُلُوا فِي السِّلْمِ كَافَّةً وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ ۚ

Meaning: “Enter into Islam completely and do not follow the footsteps of Satan.” —(Surah Al-Baqarah: 208)

Allah intends to say that when you accept Islam, you must accept all of it. Your accepting Islam gives Me no benefit. If you accept one part of Islam according to your preference and abandon another part, you have not accepted Islam. If you are to obey Me, accept Me as your Master in every sphere. Wherever you abandon Islam, you will become followers of Satan.

For this reason, if a person accepts Islam in the religious sphere but is secular in the political arena and socialist or capitalist in economics, it will be understood that he has not accepted Islam completely. Despite the words “Bismillah” and trust in Allah being written in Bangladesh’s constitution, Bangladesh is not an Islamic state, because the true deen is not operating in this country. What is operating here is, by ordinary reasoning, the false deen; this false system has existed since the British period. The false deen has been victorious here for two hundred years.

The Condition of the True Deen in Bangladesh

What would naturally be the condition of the true deen where the false deen has been established or is dominant? There, the true deen remains under the false deen. In other words, in Bangladesh the true deen survives only to the extent permitted by the false deen. Only that portion of the true deen is in operation to which the false deen has no objection. That is, Islam has survived in this country only to the extent that the false system does not obstruct it.

A false social and state system can never tolerate complete Islam. The leaders of a false society tolerate only that portion of Islam which causes no harm to the false deen. If the false system had been alarmed by the Islamic services being performed in Bangladesh, it would not have tolerated them. Since there is no fear that the false society will be overthrown by mosques, madrasas, khanqahs, sermons and tabligh, these Islamic activities are not being obstructed. In other words, they survive because the false system has no objection to them. There is no clash or conflict between these activities and the false system.

The condition of the deen of Islam in Bangladesh will become clear from a brief discussion. Islam is the complete and only way of life. If Islam is compared to a huge building, then the Kalimah, prayer, fasting, Hajj and zakat are merely the foundation of that huge building. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said this: بنئ السلام على خمسThat is, the foundation of the Islamic way of life is merely laid through these five things, such as the Kalimah and prayer. This foundation alone is not the whole of Islam. Even among the community of scholars today, not everyone has a correct conception of Islam’s magnificent edifice. The entire building of Islam has no existence at all in Bangladesh. Let us discuss only the condition of the foundation and see how miserable the condition of the true deen is in Bangladesh:

Many Muslims known as religiously devout do not know that the Kalimah Tayyibah is the principle that determines thought and action throughout life, and that accepting the Kalimah means pledging to obey Allah and the Messenger throughout one’s entire life. This comprehensive meaning of the Kalimah is not taught anywhere in schools, colleges or universities. If the educated community does not know this essence of the Kalimah, whose fault is that? Are the government and the country’s education system not responsible for this?

The first correct lesson of the deen of Islam is the Kalimah Tayyibah. If there is no arrangement for teaching the very principle according to which one must live one’s entire life, how will people practice Islam in their lives?

The second foundation is prayer. Allah has made the five daily prayers obligatory for Muslims in congregation. Obligatory means an essential duty or indispensable responsibility. Allah has given prayer the status of an obligation. But what is the position of prayer in our society? Generally, prayer is treated as mubah in this country—that is, there is no harm in performing it and no blame in failing to perform it. In some cases, praying is regarded as makruh, or disliked. A peon goes to the congregation and prays, and a non-praying officer becomes annoyed. In some places, praying is haram, or forbidden. One may be forced to miss the prayer because of being on duty. Under the false deen, such treatment of Allah’s command concerning prayer is natural. If the true deen were established in this country, prayer would be honored as an obligation. Arrangements would be made everywhere so that everyone could perform prayer properly. The authorities themselves would perform prayer properly, and the lesson that prayer teaches—living according to the principle of the Kalimah—would be visible in the actual lives of those who pray.

What is the condition of fasting in society? This foundation of Islam is also treated like prayer as mubah, although Allah has made fasting in Ramadan obligatory. If the true deen were established, such an atmosphere would be created in society that no Muslim could engage in the hypocrisy of hanging a curtain over a hotel doorway and eating during the daytime.

The purpose of fasting is moral improvement, yet morality currently has no value in society. It seems that the real task of the country’s leaders and authorities is to provide every opportunity and facility for serving one’s desires. One of the greatest purposes of fasting is to suppress the desires and strengthen the conscience. Human beings have been created with the ability to distinguish good from evil. Therefore, fasting is necessary to develop people into conscientious beings. But for the false deen, material comfort and the worship of desires are paramount. Thus, some showy performance is carried out to “preserve the sanctity of Ramadan.”

Now let us consider the condition of Hajj. Allah’s instruction to those who ought to perform Hajj is that they must go to Makkah and perform it. But this command of Allah is subject to the false deen. If the false system does not permit it, one cannot go for Hajj. If the true deen were established in the country, the government would officially urge those able to perform Hajj to go for it.

The condition of zakat is even more lamentable. In reality, the zakat system in Islam is a provision for social security. It is the responsibility of an Islamic government to collect zakat funds from those eligible to pay zakat and deliver them to those eligible to receive it—those whose income is insufficient for their needs and who have become needy or indebted for one reason or another. Zakat is not like other taxes. Zakat funds may not be spent on just any government activity. The government has no right to spend zakat funds outside the eight categories of expenditure mentioned in the Qur’an. If the zakat system were properly implemented, begging and unemployment could not persist in society.

But because the true deen is not in operation, even this great institution of zakat has come to be regarded as a disgrace to Islam. Under the present false social system, the way zakat operates makes it seem like a charitable handout from the wealthy to the poor. In reality, in Islam zakat is a duty prescribed by Allah upon the wealthy and a right allotted by Allah to the poor. If an Islamic government collected zakat and arranged for its proper distribution, recipients could receive it with great dignity. At present, those who receive zakat receive it humiliatingly, as a favor from the donors.

From the condition of all five fundamental pillars of Islam here, one can understand what regard is accorded here to the entire Islamic way of life. However exalted the status of the true faith may be in the hearts of all who believe in the Islamic ideal, only those devoted to Islam can appreciate that in reality, in this country, merely the name of Islam survives under the domination of the false faith.

Whatever Islam survives is largely due to the special contribution of the religious madrasas. Had these madrasas not existed, there would have been no study of the Qur’an and Hadith at all. Without the support of the Muslim people, these madrasas could not have existed. Even this much survival under the domination of falsehood is a great blessing.

What happens to falsehood when the true faith is established??

Just as, where the false faith is established, the true faith is compelled to remain subordinate to falsehood, so when the true faith is established, falsehood itself must become subordinate to the truth. Allah the Exalted has not commanded that falsehood be exterminated. He has commanded that the truth be made victorious. When the truth prevails, falsehood will be granted only such right and opportunity to survive as is not harmful to the truth. Thus, at present, the true faith survives only to the extent that falsehood has no objection to it, or to the extent that its survival causes no harm to the false faith.

When the true faith is established, false religions will not be abolished. Those who wish to follow other religions may not be obstructed. Temples, churches, and the like must be protected, because the Qur’an forbids compulsion in matters of religion. Religion is a matter of the heart. If people are forced to accept Islam, rebellion will remain in their hearts. The heart cannot be compelled. Therefore, religious freedom must be maintained in an Islamic state.

But if Christians or Jews seek permission to conduct interest-based business in an Islamic state, or seek to introduce public obscenity and nudity in the name of culture, the Islamic state will not permit it. Since these would damage Islam’s economic system and moral environment, they could not be tolerated.

The elevated moral status that Allah the Exalted wishes to grant human beings is possible only under the true faith. Instead of controlling the animalistic tendencies within human beings, materialistic and bizarre philosophies have been created by the proponents of falsehood to encourage them further. As a result, human beings are displaying character lower and more despicable than that of animals.

When the true faith becomes victorious, it will be possible to apply in practice the commandments given by Allah the Exalted in order to elevate human beings to the dignity of true humanity. Through the true faith, the Prophet of the entire world was able to transform the most uncivilized and degraded human society of his time into the finest and most civilized society in history.

The Responsibility of Establishing the Faith

Who bears the responsibility of establishing the faith? Allah the Exalted sent the Messenger with this very responsibility. This was clearly declared in three surahs of the Qur’an:

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ

“He is the One who sent His Messenger with guidance and the true faith so that He may make it prevail over every other faith.” (Surah al-Tawbah: 33; Surah al-Fath: 28; Surah al-Saff: 9)

But was this responsibility exclusive to the Messenger? Did those who believed in the Messenger consider merely performing prayers, fasting, and some other religious duties sufficient for salvation? The Qur’an and Hadith testify that every believer had to participate fully, with life and wealth, in the Messenger of Allah’s “responsibility of establishing the faith.” The Messenger of Allah set out for the Battle of Uhud with one thousand men who had performed the congregational prayer in the mosque of Madinah under the leadership of the Messenger. After traveling some distance, three hundred men under the leadership of Abdullah ibn Ubayy turned back instead of joining the battle. Allah the Exalted declared them hypocrites. In the Battle of Tabuk, because three Companions did not set out at the proper time, despite intending to leave later, the Messenger ordered that they be declared separated from the Muslim community. Their wives and children were even instructed to stop speaking to them. After they repented for fifty long days in this condition, Allah the Exalted forgave them.

This proves beyond doubt that fully participating in fulfilling the Messenger’s responsibility is an essential demand of faith. It is therefore clear that the responsibility of establishing the faith rests upon every Muslim. If one does not participate in the Messenger’s great responsibility, what was the need to embrace faith? The Qur’an has stated through the Messenger’s own words:

 فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

Meaning: “Fear Me and obey me.” (Surah al-Shu‘ara: 150)

In other words, obedience to Allah is possible only through complete obedience to the Messenger.

All the commands Allah the Exalted has given can be implemented in human society only when the true faith is established. No obligatory duty receives the status of an obligatory duty under the domination of falsehood. No prohibition can be removed from society without establishing the faith. Thus, all the obligatory duties that the Messenger of Allah was able to establish became possible as a result of establishing the faith. Had he been unable to establish the faith, he could not have implemented any obligatory duty in society. Therefore, the responsibility of establishing the faith is the greatest of all obligatory duties. If this responsibility is ignored, it is impossible to properly establish in society any obligatory duty—prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, almsgiving, or otherwise. Likewise, evils and injustices cannot be removed from society without establishing the faith.

There is no way to avoid acknowledging that the responsibility of establishing the faith (the obligation of establishing the faith) is obligatory upon every Muslim. In other words, striving to establish or make the faith victorious is an individual obligation. Once the faith has become victorious, however, the responsibility of maintaining it rests upon the government administering the Islamic state. At that point it becomes a collective obligation for ordinary Muslims. But the responsibility of defeating the false faith and making the true faith victorious is unquestionably an individual obligation. If we regard the Messenger of Allah as the excellent model and the noble Companions as worthy of emulation, there is no way to avoid acknowledging thisاسوة حسنة(excellent model) and the noble Companions as worthy of emulation.

Once one understands the responsibility of establishing the faith as the greatest of all obligatory duties, no one can remain satisfied with rendering only some valuable services to Islam. Those who have no awareness of this responsibility are a separate matter. Allah, the Exalted, who alone grants salvation, knows their condition, and it is certain that He will not wrong anyone. But it is not natural for those whom Allah the Exalted has given the ability to understand the responsibility of establishing the faith to be negligent about it. They cannot be satisfied with whatever service to the faith is being rendered through madrasas, khanqahs, and tabligh.

No one can deny that great services to the faith are being rendered through madrasas, sermons, khanqahs, and tabligh. These services are indeed particularly helpful to the establishment of the faith. But the faith cannot establish itself through these services alone. The method and program of action for establishing the faith are not limited to service alone. The effort to establish the faith naturally takes the form of a revolutionary movement. This effort is therefore called the Islamic movement, or jihad in the path of Allah.

Did the Messenger Perform Work Beyond His Responsibility??

The Final Prophet and Prophet of the entire world endured extreme persecution himself during his prolonged struggle against falsehood, and made the noble Companions accept indescribable sacrifices of life and property. During the first thirteen years of the Islamic movement led by the Messenger of Allah, a group of capable colleagues was developed, after which the era of victory began in Madinah. It took another eight years for this victory to become stable. The entire Arab power, led by the Quraysh, repeatedly tried to destroy the Islamic state of Madinah. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, at the end of the sixth year after the Hijrah, brought an end to the Quraysh attacks, and the Islamic revolution became stable through the conquest of Makkah in Ramadan of the eighth year after the Hijrah.

Even after Islam became victorious throughout Arabia, the Messenger had to take many measures to protect the Islamic state from attacks by the Persian and Roman empires. He invited the rulers of all the surrounding states to accept Islam, and, if they did not accept the invitation, called upon them to acknowledge the authority of the Islamic state.

One might ask whether the Messenger performed any work beyond the responsibility Allah had placed upon him for the religion of Islam. He carried out countless political, economic, and social tasks: establishing an Islamic state; fighting to protect it; forming a government to administer it; replacing the country’s prevailing laws with Qur’anic law; establishing a just judicial system; and instituting an economic system so that no one would be deprived of the sustenance provided by Allah. Did he not perform these tasks as part of his Islamic responsibility?

The Messenger of Allah is the model of the religion of Islam. If he himself performed these tasks as part of his religious responsibility, will neglecting their importance not harm one’s religious commitment? It is astonishing that these responsibilities of the faith are rejected precisely by invoking religious commitment. If religious people themselves do not understand that the real task is the religious responsibility of defeating falsehood and making the true faith victorious, and that prayer, fasting, remembrance, and the like are needed to become qualified for that task, then who will fulfill the responsibility of making the religion of Islam victorious?

Those who impart the knowledge of the Qur’an and Hadith in madrasas, those who give instruction in the faith in khanqahs, those who spread the light of the faith among the people at preaching gatherings, and those who teach people concern for the Hereafter through tabligh—they are the true servants and standard-bearers of the faith. They therefore have the greatest capacity to understand the responsibility of establishing the faith. So how can those who render no service to the faith at all feel the difficult responsibility of the Messenger’s establishment of the faith?

For this reason, I make this earnest appeal to all sincere servants of the faith engaged in every kind of service: think about this responsibility of establishing the faith with an open mind. If I have understood it incorrectly, please help remove my mistaken understanding by presenting arguments from the Qur’an, Hadith, and the life of the Messenger. We must all appear before Allah. The important thing is that we should not be made ashamed there.

As an excuse for not fulfilling this responsibility, people commonly invoke the example of certain highly religious individuals and say: Did they not understand this responsibility? Will they not attain salvation in the Hereafter because they did not fulfill it? No one can convince those who seek excuses of this kind. If the Messenger of Allah is the model, then one must try to follow him alone. It is entirely wrong to present any other scholar, saint, or religious person as evidence against the Messenger.

Every one of us will have to account for our own deeds in the court of the Hereafter. The weak argument, “Since such-and-such great scholar did not fulfill the responsibility of establishing the faith, I did not consider it necessary to fulfill it either,” will be of no use there. The question asked there will be whether the Messenger was followed correctly. Salvation will depend on this. There will be no way to evade this question by invoking any scholar.

The Everlasting Method of Action of the Islamic Movement

It is true that the detailed program of the Islamic movement in each country is formulated according to that country’s internal circumstances. But the movement’s fundamental method of action is the same in every country and in every age. It is a permanent method that even Allah’s prophets and messengers had to follow. It is the only natural method for establishing any ideal in the world. Its brief outline is as follows:

First: However perfect an ideal may be, no ideal can establish itself in society. It is necessary to develop a group of leaders and workers capable of establishing that ideal in practice in the various departments of society and the state.

Second: A qualified group of leaders and workers of this kind does not descend from heaven. They must be organized and developed from within human society. The leaders of the movement for the ideal organize them and, through a special program, shape their minds, intellects, and character according to that ideal.

Third: Since every society has an established system, and its influential leaders—political, economic, religious, and social—maintain their interests by keeping that system in place, they resist any movement for a new ideal with all their strength. This conflict between the workers of the Islamic movement and entrenched interests has appeared in the life of every prophet. This conflict is entirely natural and necessary. It is the true test for the workers. Those who remain firm in the movement despite being deprived of opportunities and suffering the imprisonment, oppression, and persecution of entrenched interests prove themselves worthy of this ideal. There is no other way to select suitable people without this natural test.

Fourth: This enduring method of developing qualified leadership and a cadre of workers necessarily takes time. It cannot be accomplished suddenly in a short period. Thus, the Prophet of the entire world had to struggle against entrenched interests for thirteen long years during the stage of individual formation, until the Hijrah to Madinah. The Prophet’s cadre of workers had to undergo its final test through the Hijrah. Those who were compelled, for Islam’s sake, to abandon their homes, relatives, wealth, and homeland proved that victory for the religion of Islam was possible through them, because they could sacrifice everything in the world for the ideal alone. It is therefore natural that creating a group of self-sacrificing and selfless workers through the movement should take considerable time.

Fifth: The opportunity to build society can arise only after this stage of individual formation has been completed. The stage of individual formation may also be called the era of struggle. When power is entrusted somewhere to those developed during the era of struggle, the era of victory for the movement begins, and society can then be built. After the Hijrah, the Messenger received precisely this opportunity in Madinah.

The ideal cannot be established until leadership comes into the hands of people qualified to establish it. How can Islam be established by those who do not know Islam, or who, even if they know it, do not practice it in their own lives? Those who fail to establish Islam in their personal lives are not qualified to serve Islam in society.

Sixth: There is a clear distinction between serving Islam and the Islamic movement. Conflict between the Islamic movement and the existing ruling and entrenched interests is inevitable. But entrenched interests do not clash with those services to Islam about which they are not disturbed. Such services to Islam may indirectly and at various stages support the Islamic movement. Yet, unless they fear that these services may change the existing social order, entrenched interests do not obstruct them. If they believe that a particular call or program will build popular strength against the social and state system they control, they naturally will not tolerate that movement. A truly comprehensive Islamic movement is revolutionary by nature. The revolutionary method and program of building the individual, society, and state on the basis of servitude to Allah and the leadership of the Messenger is the principal Sunnah of the prophets. Changing a social system that is disobedient to Allah and the Messenger is the goal of the Islamic movement. In the language of the Qur’an, this movement is called jihad in the path of Allah.

Seventh: Even after the Islamic movement has passed through a long era of struggle with the correct method and program, and has succeeded in creating qualified leadership and a cadre of workers capable of establishing Islam, the era of victory may still not arrive in the end. The first condition for Islam’s victory is certainly fulfilled when a community of believing and righteous people has been developed. But if the majority of the population of the society in which efforts are being made to establish Islamic law actively opposes the ideal, victory is impossible. Why were the leadership and cadre developed by the Messenger of Allah able to establish Islam in Madinah but unable to do so in Makkah? Victory did not come in Makkah because its people actively opposed Islam. This proves that Islam cannot be established over a people opposed to Islam. Allah the Exalted does not impose the great blessing of His faith upon an unwilling people.

Many of Allah’s messengers were unable to make the religion of Islam victorious for this reason. This was not their failure. Who could be more qualified than them? Although the condition of developing people qualified to establish Islam was fulfilled in Makkah, the condition that the people not oppose it was not fulfilled there. Since this second condition was fulfilled in Madinah, Islam was able to achieve victory.

It is especially important to note that the task of the Islamic movement is to strive to fulfill the first condition—that is, to confront the forces of falsehood and develop a group of revolutionary mujahids from within society. If this condition is fulfilled and the second condition is also present, Allah the Exalted has retained in His own hands the responsibility of granting leadership to that group of mujahids. How, by what means, and when He grants power will depend on the circumstances. The responsibility of bringing them to power belongs to Allah. Trying to obtain leadership through abnormal and crooked means cannot be the correct method of action for the Islamic movement.

 وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ

Meaning: Allah has promised to grant worldly succession to those among you who believe and perform righteous deeds.” (Surah al-Nur: 55)

If the objective of establishing Islam could be achieved by obtaining power through some means without following the method described above, then when the leaders of Makkah invited the Messenger to abandon the call to Islam and accept kingship, he would certainly have considered taking power and establishing Islam through that method. To replace one social system with a new one, it is necessary to develop from that society a group of selfless people suited to establishing the new ideal. More remarkable still, such people can be found in an un-Islamic society only through the Islamic movement. It is unnatural to move against the prevailing social system out of attraction to any worldly interest. Those who advance despite the obstacles and oppression of entrenched interests are the ones suited to the new ideal. Such people can be selected only during the era of struggle. During the era of victory, opportunists may also be attracted to the ideal. It then becomes extremely difficult to select the selfless bearers of the ideal. That is why, after victory, an ideological movement gradually suffers harm at the hands of self-interested people.

The Islamic Movement and the Cadre System

To establish any ideal in practice, it is essential to develop leaders and a cadre of workers whose minds, intellects, and characters embody that ideal. If the leadership of the organization established for this purpose is controlled solely by political influence and financial ability, rather than by the qualities and competence demanded by the ideal, such an organization can never establish that ideal. Therefore, an ideal-based movement is compelled to adopt some form of cadre system in order to develop suitable leaders and workers.

Just as the purpose of education cannot be achieved by enrolling all students in a madrasa, school, or college in the same class and assigning them work of the same standard, the goal of developing minds, intellects, and character cannot be achieved by treating all kinds of people in an organization as being at the same level. Therefore, a natural progression is needed: first accepting the responsibility of a supporter, then that of a worker, and finally that of a member. This kind of system is called the cadre system.

Those who think that there was no cadre system in the organization of the Messenger of Allah are making a serious mistake. The extreme opposition faced from entrenched interests as a result of believing in the Messenger naturally gave rise to a cadre system. At that time it was easy to identify who, despite oppression and persecution, refused to abandon the Messenger, and who lacked the courage to prepare to face danger.

In Muslim society today, an artificial cadre system must be implemented until the Islamic movement faces a similarly difficult situation. But the genuine cadre system will develop when opposition from the forces of falsehood becomes pronounced. Before that situation arises, a graded classification, like that of colleges and universities, is necessary to determine the varying degrees of people’s activity in the Islamic movement and how much sacrifice of life and property each can make. Everyone in present-day Muslim society claims to be Muslim. Among them, even a highly pious person may be entirely unqualified for the Islamic movement. A good hadith scholar may not be willing to advance in the movement’s field. Even a qualified mosque imam may be unwilling to enter the field against falsehood. The work of establishing the faith cannot advance by recognizing such people as members of the Islamic movement’s organization. This is why the objective of developing people cannot succeed without a cadre system.

Even after this cadre system is implemented, during the time of the fiercest conflict between truth and falsehood, some prominent leaders may fall behind by showing weakness, while some less advanced people may come forward. It is then that the cadre system will reach its natural standard.

Why Is the Conflict between Haqq and Batil Inevitable?

All the prophets and messengers who came into the world carried out the responsibility of establishing the Din of Haqq. In a country where the Din of Haqq was not established, batil was certainly established. When an effort is made to establish Haqq, opposition from the forces of batil is only natural. For Haqq and batil cannot operate simultaneously. Light and darkness cannot coexist. Only Adam (peace be upon him) and Sulayman (peace be upon him) did not face opposition. In Adam’s time there were no human beings—who could oppose him? And Sulayman (peace be upon him) was the administrator of the Islamic state established by his father Dawud (peace be upon him), so there was no force of batil capable of opposing him.

The first declaration made through the Kalimah Tayyibah within the sphere of Haqq is the rejection of all batil by saying la ilaha before acknowledging Allah as Ilah. It is necessary first to reject batil because forces of batil claiming to be ilah, master, or lawgiver have been established in society. Accepting Haqq while mentally retaining batil is meaningless. Therefore, one first rejects all false ilahs by saying la ilaha, and then accepts Allah alone as Ilah by saying illallah.

 فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ

Meaning: “Whoever rejects Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest handhold.” —(Surah al-Baqarah: 256, Ayat al-Kursi)

Taghut means a rebellious force against Allah. A kafir merely denies Allah. But Taghut prevents people from serving Allah and compels them to obey it instead of Allah. Since Pharaoh was such a Taghut, Allah said when sending Musa (peace be upon him) to Pharaoh—

اذْهَبْ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّهُ طَغَىٰ

“Go to Pharaoh; surely he has rebelled.” —(Surah al-Nazi‘at: 17)

In a word, every force opposed to Islam is Taghut. A revolt is declared against the forces of batil in the Din, saying la ilaha—we recognize no lawgiver. Only after rejecting all other authorities can Allah be acknowledged as the sole Ilah by saying illallah. Thus, the very first message of Islam is revolt against batil. That is why every prophet who came with the call of the Kalimah was naturally regarded as an enemy by Taghut or batil.

All those whom Allah the Exalted selected as prophets and messengers were popular in their respective countries because of their honesty, faithfulness, truthfulness, and all their other human virtues. Until he called people to the Din of Haqq, even the final Prophet was praised as al-Amin and al-Sadiq. Butأَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ after he began calling people by saying, “Worship Allah and abandon Taghut.” —(Surah al-Nahl: 36), conflict between the Prophet and Taghut was inevitable.

As soon as they heard the Prophet’s call, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Abu Jahl understood that he wanted to replace the laws by which they ruled the country and the principles by which they governed society with a new system. Pharaoh said plainly: إِنِّي أَخَافُ أَن يُبَدِّلَ دِينَكُمْ “I fear that he will change your Din.” —(Surah al-Mu’min: 26)

Those who rule a country frame its laws in such a way that the interests of the ruling class remain secure. Laws and economic systems suited to exploiting the people and maintaining the dominance of the ruling group are kept in force. This is the characteristic of man-made laws; therefore, preserving the existing social and state system serves the rulers’ interests. That is why they are called vested interests. In other words, those whose interests remain secure when the existing system is maintained are the vested interests.

Whenever a prophet called people to serve Allah, these vested interests understood that it conflicted with their interests. For that reason, they considered it necessary to oppose him. Not only political and economic forces, but also social and religious interests could not tolerate the prophets. Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) father, Azar, was a religious leader. He held the rank of royal priest at Nimrod’s court and lived comfortably under Nimrod by conducting the business of religion. Ibrahim’s call struck at Azar’s religious vested interests. The final Prophet hoped that the Jewish and Christian scholars and spiritual leaders—called ahbar and ruhban in the Qur’an—would readily accept his call, since they were already familiar with Allah, the Hereafter, prophets, revelation, and so on. But when political, economic, and vested interests in Makkah came into conflict with the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the religious interests of those ahbar and ruhban also compelled them to cooperate with Abu Jahl and his like. Thus, the conflict between Haqq and batil is certainly inevitable, and all kinds of vested interests unite to oppose Haqq.

Someone may ask why this kind of opposition should arise between Islamic movements and Muslim rulers in Muslim-majority countries. Merely bearing a Muslim name does not make someone truly Islamic. Yazid was himself a Muslim ruler. Yet Yazid could not tolerate Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), the bearer of the Islamic ideal. In this country there are many leaders and parties bearing Muslim names who are atheists, secularists, communists, or socialists, and who are staunch enemies of the Islamic movement.

The real issue is that when those enjoying the benefits of vested interests realize that, if the Islamic movement succeeds, the laws and social system introduced will threaten their presently established interests, they become enemies of the movement.

The forces of batil that obstruct the establishment of the Din of Haqq are of two kinds. The principal force of batil is the ruling force in governmental power. Those who hold state power cannot tolerate the movement for Iqamat-e-Din under any circumstances. They know very well that an Islamic social system cannot be established under the leadership of the ruling person or party in a non-Islamic society. They oppose the Islamic movement to preserve their own existence in an Islamic state.

There is another kind of force in society opposed to the Islamic movement. Although it is directly counted among the forces of batil, it does not become active on the side of Haqq in the conflict between Haqq and batil. Directly or indirectly, it cooperates with batil. Those who are not active in the field against batil cannot ultimately remain neutral in that conflict. Even while serving the Din, they may be compelled to play this kind of role. Those who lack the courage to carry out the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Din eventually prove to be aids to batil.

Why Does This Conflict Not Arise with Service to the Din?

In a country where the Din of Haqq has not been established, vested interests will certainly obstruct work for Iqamat-e-Din or the Islamic movement. It is natural for the Islamic movement to be regarded as harmful and objectionable by the forces of batil. If vested interests do not consider an Islamic service dangerous, it must be understood that, however valuable that service may be, it is not the movement for Iqamat-e-Din.

The madrasas are undoubtedly rendering a great service to the Din. But vested interests do not think that the call and program of the madrasas will overthrow the batil government and social system. The world’s largest madrasa is located in Deoband, India. The Indian government does not consider it harmful. In March 1980, a large international conference was held to mark the madrasa’s centenary. India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi spoke at the conference. The Indira government did not consider the call and program of the Deoband madrasa harmful in any way to that country’s social and state system.

As a great service to the Din, the Muslim nation is grateful to all the large and small madrasas of our country, including the Deoband madrasa. No Muslim can deny the importance of this service. These madrasas are certainly supportive of the Islamic movement. Many scholars qualified for the movement have emerged from these madrasas. But the madrasas themselves are not directly conducting the movement for Iqamat-e-Din.

Likewise, the Tabligh Jamaat is rendering a great service to the Din. This Jamaat is turning vast numbers of people throughout the world toward Allah, the Messenger, and the Hereafter. The center of this Jamaat is in Delhi, India. The Amir of this worldwide Jamaat is an Indian citizen. Yet no government considers this Jamaat harmful to it. It was not prevented from going even to China and Russia. Through this great Jamaat, the message of the Kalimah and prayer, and the call toward Allah, the Messenger, and the Hereafter, can reach even communist countries—this is a very joyful matter. It is wrong to regard this as a minor service.

However great a service to the Din Tabligh may render, the call and program of this Jamaat contain no plan for Iqamat-e-Din. This Jamaat has to work in Muslim-minority countries—even in communist countries. Therefore, it is taking only as much opportunity as possible to serve the Din while avoiding conflict with batil.

I was fortunate to work wholeheartedly in this Jamaat for four and a half years. Immediately after taking my M.A. examination, while staying continuously with this Jamaat for three chillas (four months), I felt the zeal and inspiration to dedicate my life to Islam. Therefore, in my life, my love for the Tabligh Jamaat has naturally been deep and lasting.

I love from the heart all the leading members of the Bangladesh Tabligh Jamaat. Since I worked with them in one Jamaat for several years, I had the opportunity to gain a proper personal understanding of their sincerity and devotion. In my heart I respect some of them as teachers, such as Hazrat Maulana Abdul Aziz, former Amir of the Tabligh Jamaat, Bangladesh. Some are respected elders of the Din from whom I received inspiration to dedicate my life to Islam, such as Engineer Abdul Muqit Bhai. Among the leaders were several whom I had as close colleagues and beloved friends.

I earnestly appeal, with deep affection, to all those teachers, elders, and friends so that no one among the Muslims of this country may develop a mistaken understanding of this great Jamaat conducted under their leadership. Some people proclaim that the work of the Tabligh Jamaat is exactly the Islamic movement led by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The madrasas of the present time teach the Qur’an and Hadith. But even though the Tabligh Jamaat renders a great service to the Din through work of this kind, no one should be allowed to form the idea that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) fulfilled the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Din with precisely this limited program.

If the Tabligh Jamaat adopted exactly the program of the difficult and struggle-filled movement that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) led to make Islam victorious, and through which he actually established the Din, it would not have been able to work in all these countries without opposition or conflict with batil. For the preliminary duty of conveying the basic teachings of the Din throughout the world, the program adopted by this Jamaat is correct if conflict is to be avoided. But everyone must understand that this program is in no way sufficient to make Allah’s Din victorious and establish it in the world. If the call and program are regarded as the Messenger’s (peace and blessings be upon him) movement, there is a danger that this Jamaat will cause more harm to the Din than the amount of service it renders. The conduct of those who have developed this mistaken idea gives an indication of the nature and extent of that harm.

It is natural for several mistaken ideas to arise among those who regard the Tabligh Jamaat’s six-principle program and its method of work (tarīqah al-‘amal) as resembling the religious call of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) during his Makkan life, and who hope that the Din of Allah will be established on His earth through this much work:

First: They will regard Islam as confined to the religious sphere alone. They will see no need for the guidance Islam has provided for every sphere of life. Islam’s economics, law, and politics will seem unnecessary to them.

Second: They will regard the movement to establish an Islamic state and Islamic government as a worldly activity and assume that those who undertake it are power-hungry.

Third: The idea of establishing the Din while avoiding conflict with batil will create in them the attitude that they will be satisfied with only that portion of Islam to which batil does not object.

Fourth: As a result of this idea, they will regard all the other forms of service to the Din as insignificant. Only Tabligh will seem to be work for the Din, and they will lack the ability to appreciate the value of other services to the Din.

Fifth: During elections, such people will not object even to voting for someone opposed to Islam. Rather, they will dislike those who engage in politics demanding the implementation of Islamic law. Because they consider politics in the name of Islam objectionable, they will vote for those who do not speak of Islam at all.

Sixth: They may also come to believe that the Tabligh Jamaat is trying to establish the Din of Islam in such a fine manner that the enemies of Islam do not even realize it. They may think that the work is being carried out with such excellent wisdom that the opponents of Islam can find no way to obstruct it.

How dangerous such an idea would be! Was Allah the Exalted unable to teach the prophets such wisdom that they could work without opposition like Tabligh? Did the prophets then endure so much oppression and persecution for no reason?

Someone may say that the prophets faced opposition because they were calling people among the unbelievers, whereas Tabligh faces no opposition because it works only among Muslims. If one tries to make Muslims good Muslims individually,

why should opposition come from batil? But if one works with a call and program to change the country’s laws, governance, and social system, the ruling force bearing a Muslim name will oppose it just as non-Muslims do.

For these reasons, I have been compelled to present so much to those responsible for the Tabligh Jamaat. The Tabligh Jamaat is not a movement for Iqamat-e-Din. This Jamaat is a worldwide movement rendering an immensely valuable service to the Din. I believe this understanding of Tabligh is correct. To regard the call and program of Tabligh as complete in the same way as the Islamic movement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would be extremely harmful to the Islamic way of life. As a result, the Universal Prophet would be regarded merely as a religious leader. May Allah the Exalted protect the Muslim nation from such mistaken ideas.

Every year, the great Tabligh World Gathering held on the vast field at Tongi attracts, at different times, between 1.5 and 2.5 million people. This is truly encouraging. I also take part in it and feast my eyes on this display of love for Islam among the Muslims.

If even one-tenth of this number of people gathered with the call and program of overthrowing the Din of batil and establishing the Din of Haqq, the government and vested interests of this country would become alarmed. The secularist and socialist circles would launch a great commotion against them in the newspapers.

In February 1981, a conference and procession in Dhaka of only 15,000 to 20,000 workers of an Islamic student organization created an extraordinary tremor throughout all the anti-Islamic circles. Yet this organization is not a political party. The vested interests are so disturbed precisely because it speaks of Iqamat-e-Din and inspires students to establish an Islamic state.

All the forces of batil and anti-Islamic circles know very well that Tabligh is purely and exclusively a religious Jamaat and does not concern itself with politics, the state, or government. Therefore, there is no reason to think about it or become alarmed.

For the same reason, the forces of batil do not fear the gatherings of millions of Muslims at the urs and religious assemblies of the pirs. Certainly, Islam is being served at these assemblies through sermons, instruction, and dhikr. But since there is no program for Iqamat-e-Din there, the anti-Islamic circles are not concerned.

I mentioned madrasas, Tabligh, and khanqahs as examples precisely to clarify this point. The forces of batil do not conflict with service to the Din. This conflict arises only with the call and program of Iqamat-e-Din. The lives of all the prophets have demonstrated this truth.

From the accounts of the prophets and messengers discussed in the Qur’an, it is clear that the contemporary ruling forces and religious vested interests could tolerate none of them. Apart from Adam (peace be upon him) and Sulayman (peace be upon him), every prophet faced conflict with the forces of batil. If even the prophets had to conflict with batil because they worked with the program of Iqamat-e-Din, how can the Prophet’s followers possibly establish this Islam while avoiding that conflict?

Those who consider avoiding conflict with batil to be wisdom should reflect on why Allah the Exalted did not teach that wisdom to the prophets and messengers. Those who wish to work to make Allah’s Din victorious cannot even contemplate avoiding this conflict. They may certainly serve some aspect of the Din, and that service may support Iqamat-e-Din. But their particular work cannot itself be the direct work of Iqamat-e-Din. The Din will not be established through that limited service. A separate program is certainly necessary for establishing the Din.

Why Are Not All the Respected Ulama Active in “Iqamat-e-Din”??

It is true that there are several hundred thousand respected ulama in Bangladesh. They are engaged in various kinds of service to the Din. The question of why they are not becoming active in the Islamic movement in accordance with the demands of Iqamat-e-Din is not irrelevant. Having remained in close contact with the scholarly community for a long time, I have searched for the answer to this question. Allah alone knows the true reason. But this question is so relevant that, without answering it, the Muslim public cannot properly understand the importance of the Islamic movement. I wish to present here the results of my limited observations.

First: The madrasas in our country operate on public donations. Even those that receive government assistance receive very little. Poor madrasa teachers must also devote time and effort to solving the madrasas’ financial problems. Almost all those who come to study in madrasas are children of the poor. Since the poor cannot afford to send their children to schools and colleges free of charge or at little cost, madrasas are their only resource. The madrasas arrange the students’ books and texts. In most cases, they must even provide the students with food and lodging.

Under Muslim rule, the state bore the cost of education. Even today, the government bears the greater part of the cost of general education (schools, colleges, and universities). Madrasa education, however, is an exception. That the madrasas survive on public donations is itself a great mercy from Allah. In these circumstances, it is impossible even to adequately express gratitude for the amount of Qur’an and Hadith preservation being carried out by the madrasas. Therefore, it is not possible for the standard of education in the madrasas to become as advanced as it should be. Consequently, few high-caliber scholars are being produced.

Second: Since there is no hope of worldly advancement through madrasa education, wealthy people do not send their sons to madrasas at all. Even the poor send most of their talented sons to schools. As a result, relatively few good students come to the madrasas. Those who do come often turn toward college under the pressure of worldly life, either after passing out of the madrasa or before completing their studies.

Third: In the present environment, those who study in madrasas do so out of love for Islam. They know that they will have no opportunity to accomplish anything significant in the world. They assume that, apart from opportunities such as becoming a mosque imam, a madrasa teacher, at most a school’s Arabic or religious-studies teacher, or a nikah qadi, nothing substantial will fall to their lot.

With this mental state, those compelled to study in madrasas hope only for the Hereafter. As imams of mosques and madrasa teachers, they are compelled to regard the opportunity to serve the Din as sufficient. Moreover, the madrasa environment and the future prospects of its students’ lives do not create in them the resolve to accomplish anything significant for the country and nation.

After graduating from a madrasa, poor scholars face an acute livelihood problem. Very few scholars are able, while fulfilling the duties of their religious profession—imamat or teaching—to devote sufficient time to the Islamic movement and assume major organizational responsibilities.

Fourth: There is another major reason why the Islamic movement does not receive its proper importance from many ulama. Madrasa education does not provide for Islam to be taught as a revolutionary movement. Islam is taught merely as religious instruction. The madrasas have not yet introduced Islamic education from the perspective of how the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) transformed human society, how the Qur’an directed the Messenger’s (peace be upon him) movement for twenty-three years, and what needs to be done to establish Islam in the present age based on the Qur’an and the life of the Messenger (Hadith). As a result, they know Islam only as a religion. Madrasa education does not create an understanding of the Islamic movement. For that reason, it does not create a sense of responsibility for establishing the Din either.

How can students learn more Islam than the madrasa teachers are teaching them? Yet the education outside the madrasas is what enables the talented madrasa students to understand the Islamic movement in the country. Of course, when madrasa students acquire the movement’s perspective, they become oriented toward the movement much more quickly than modern students. If Islam had been taught in the madrasas as a complete system of society, the ulama would have been capable of providing Islamic leadership at every level in national affairs.

Fifth: Perhaps the greatest reason is the lack of a proper understanding of accepting the Messenger (peace be upon him) as the supreme ideal. Establishing the Din should in fact be regarded as the true program of life of the ulama. But why has this not happened? In my view, the main reason is the failure to accept the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as Uswatun Hasanah. There is a reason for this deficiency as well. A serious disease has appeared in Muslim society: whoever is respected in some way as having rendered great service to the Din is almost given the status of Uswatun Hasanah, or the supreme ideal. It is as though accepting someone as a spiritual elder means regarding him as the Messenger’s successor, or at least as someone close to him. Thus, when one begins to respect an alim or pir as an ideal of Islam, one begins to regard him as the Messenger’s successor.

This point can be understood easily by giving an example. During a difficult period in the subcontinent, Hazrat Maulana Qasim (may Allah have mercy on him) conducted a movement for Islamic education at Deoband; his service at that time was certainly very valuable. The entire Muslim nation is grateful to him. It is natural to hold him in deep respect. But if someone thinks that no greater religious service than the service he rendered is possible, and therefore regards establishing a madrasa in imitation of him as the purpose of his life, then it is clear that this person has given Hazrat Nanatwi (may Allah have mercy on him) the status of Uswatun Hasanah. Did the Messenger of Allah come into the world to establish a madrasa? Why is the work he carried out to make Allah’s complete Din victorious in society not regarded as the purpose of life? If the Messenger (peace be upon him) were regarded as the supreme ideal in every matter of life, the service of all other servants of the Din would be considered merely a part of the Messenger’s comprehensive service.

Why do we not regard everything the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did for the Din with the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) as our obligatory duty? Whatever Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him) did was not the entirety of the Messenger’s work. If he is taken as the standard of the ideal, then how can the Messenger remain the standard? The standard of the ideal that the Messenger (peace be upon him) demonstrated is the only standard. Everyone must be respected according to the extent to which he reaches that standard. But it must be clear to everyone that no one can attain the Messenger’s standard, and no one may be given a place of honor equal to the Messenger.

The Messenger Alone Is the Standard of the Din

Allah Most High has made only the Messenger (peace be upon him) Uswatun Hasanah, or the standard of the Din. The noble Companions followed the Messenger more than anyone else, and for that reason they are the supreme examples in obedience to the Messenger’s اطاعة رسول. But just as the Messenger himself is the ideal, the noble Companions are not equal to him in status. Indeed, all the Companions are not of the same rank, nor are all four Caliphs of the same rank. Therefore, the only standard of the Din is the Messenger معيار, and everyone must strive to follow the Messenger alone.

Why do we follow the noble Companions? We do not follow them for their own sake; rather, we follow them in order to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him). They established the model for following the Messenger (peace be upon him). Therefore, they must be followed for the sake of following the Messenger. For اتباع الرسول—that is, in terms of obedience to and following the Messenger—the noble Companions are the supreme example. But the status of the noble Companions cannot be equal to the Messenger (peace be upon him) in the sense in which the Messenger is the ideal, or Uswah. This is an extremely important point.

A simple example may be given to compare the Messenger and the noble Companions. A type of stone is rubbed against gold to determine whether it is pure or impure and, if impure, to what extent. That stone is called a touchstone. A touchstone is a standard or measure, called معيار in Arabic. Even if rubbing a piece of gold against a touchstone shows it to be completely pure gold, that piece cannot thereby be called a touchstone. Gold cannot be a touchstone. In exactly the same way, the Messenger of Allah alone is the touchstone. By testing the Companions against that touchstone, they can be known to be pure gold; but that does not make them touchstones themselves.

Although the community of the noble Companions was collectively pure, they were not all equal in rank as individuals. The Rightly Guided Caliphs have a higher rank than the other Companions. How was this difference in rank determined? Everyone must acknowledge that the only standard for this judgment is the Messenger (peace be upon him). The only criterion for acknowledging Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as superior to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is the Messenger. This judgment was reached by testing them against the Messenger’s touchstone.

Another comparison makes this distinction even clearer. Why is Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), despite being a Companion, not counted among the Rightly Guided Caliphs? How was Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him), although he was not a Companion, given a rank close to that of the Rightly Guided Caliphs by being called the second Umar? By what standard was this distinction made between the two? There can be no doubt that the Ummah reached this judgment by evaluating them according to the Messenger’s standard.

These arguments strongly prove that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is the only ideal standard and the only touchstone. It is by judging people against this touchstone that their degree of honor is determined. If, besides the Messenger, another person is regarded as a touchstone and considered a standard, that person will certainly be of a lower rank than the Messenger. Allah Most High has not told us to accept anyone of a lower rank than the Messenger as an Uswah or ideal.

It is unfortunate that, although no one in principle acknowledges the unique status Allah Most High has given the Messenger (peace be upon him) as Uswatun Hasanah, in practice religious figures of great stature are given a status that belongs exclusively to the Messenger.

Because the Messenger is guided by revelation, he is free from error; no other person can be free from error in this way. Just as the Messenger must be followed blindly, no one else may be followed in the same manner. Whether or not the reasoning is understood, obeying the Messenger’s command is a requirement of faith; no other person’s command can have that status. Just as the Messenger (peace be upon him) is above criticism, no one else is. Allah has commanded us to obey the Messenger without demanding proof, but He has given no such command regarding anyone else.

No matter how great a religious personality may be, if he is believed to be infallible, followed blindly, and regarded as above criticism, then in reality he has been given a status equal to that of the Messenger. Yet no one can equal the Messenger in rank.

The foundations of the Din of Islam are Tawhid and Risalah. No one is comparable to Allah in His Essence and Attributes. Likewise, because the Messenger is guided by revelation, no one else can be free from error as he is. That is why, just as the Messenger must be followed blindly, no one else may be followed in the same way. In other words, the Messenger is unique as Uswatun Hasanah. No one else can attain this position. Through the Kalimah Tayyibah, we acknowledge Tawhid and Risalah in this very sense.

If the Messenger had been regarded as the only ideal, and fully following the Messenger’s life had been considered the goal of Islamic life, then the struggle to establish the Din, or Jihad fi Sabilillah, would certainly have been regarded as an obligation. It would not have been difficult to understand that whoever does not strive to implement Islamic law or establish an Islamic state is not truly following the Messenger.

It is because people regard great scholars, pirs, or spiritual elders other than the Messenger (peace be upon him) as ideals that some consider serving the Din through a madrasa sufficient, some think that preaching alone fulfills the responsibility toward the Din, and some remain content with leading prayers. If they regarded the Messenger (peace be upon him) as the only ideal, then even after rendering this limited service they would be anxious to make the Din victorious. If the responsible elders of the Tabligh Jamaat regard the Messenger’s (peace be upon him) movement for establishing the Din as the true ideal, they will consider the program of the six principles written by this Jamaat’s founder, Hazrat Maulana Ilyas (may Allah have mercy on him), to be an initial service. Then no one will regard the present program of Tabligh as exactly the movement led by the Messenger. But if the Messenger (peace be upon him) is not kept before them as the supreme ideal, they may regard Hazrat Maulana Ilyas (may Allah have mercy on him) himself as the ideal and consider the program he wrote to be Islam’s final program.

Another example may be especially helpful for properly understanding the status of the Messenger (peace be upon him) as Uswatun Hasanah. The syllabus prepared for college, university, and madrasa students is the basis from which final examination questions are set. If students are not very attentive to the syllabus, if they do not ensure that the teachers cover all of it, and if the entire syllabus is not studied, there is no hope of passing the examination. No matter how much respect students show their teacher, they can never achieve good results if they have left part of the syllabus unstudied. If a teacher teaches only the easy portions of the syllabus and leaves out the difficult parts, good results cannot be expected in the examination, however good the student may be.

Allah Most High has given the entire life of the Messenger (peace be upon him) as the syllabus for success in the examination of the Hereafter. After death, questions will be asked in the grave according to this syllabus. No one will be asked whether he imitated or followed Hazrat Abu Bakr, Imam Abu Hanifa, or Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah have mercy on them).

If the Messenger is compared to the syllabus, then all religious personalities, beginning with the noble Companions, may be compared to teachers or ustads. We learn from the noble Companions about the Messenger’s life. We must regard the Companions as the finest teachers precisely in order to learn the Messenger’s syllabus. The jurist Imams must be followed because we need to follow the Messenger in every aspect of life. Just as all worldly subjects must be learned from a teacher, a teacher is also needed by anyone who wants to learn a religious life. Whatever such a teacher is called—one may be called the amir of a religious organization and another a shaykh or pir—in reality they are all teachers. We must try to learn from them the syllabus of the Messenger’s entire life. It may not be possible to learn the whole syllabus from one teacher. If we regard the Messenger as the syllabus, then even after learning as much of it as can be learned from one teacher, we must seek another teacher to learn the remainder. If we regard one particular teacher as the syllabus and consider whatever he teaches sufficient, we will face danger in the final examination of the Hereafter.

This is the real reason why, despite the presence of so many scholars, pirs, and servants of the Din in the country, proper importance is not given to establishing the Din. Instead of accepting the Messenger as the syllabus, following a teacher is being considered sufficient. If this great mistake is corrected, everyone will be able to recognize the responsibility of establishing the Din.

Why Did the Great Ulama of the Subcontinent Not Conduct the Movement to Establish the Din??

The answer to this question will become clear if we discuss a brief history of approximately two and a half centuries, from the time the English seized the rule of this subcontinent from the Muslims up to the present. Many people do not attach importance to this history. If the ulama, who are currently in a fragmented state, learn this history, they will be able to consider what they should do. Therefore, I am analyzing, very briefly, some necessary events from the pages of this long history.

After English rule began in the Pakistan-India-Bengal subcontinent, oppression and persecution of Muslims became widespread in every field. At that time, a great movement to establish an Islamic state anew gained popularity among the Muslims who had lost their kingdom. Following the revolutionary Islamic thought of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him), an independent state was established in the North-West Frontier Province through the Tehrik-e-Mujahideen (Mujahid Movement), under the leadership of Maulana Syed Ahmad Barelvi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Maulana Shah Ismail Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him). Many Mujahids from distant Bengal also joined that movement. In 1831, the two great Mujahid leaders were martyred in a bloody battle at a place called Balakot, between Punjab and the Frontier Province. Their Mujahid forces were defeated by the combined strength of the English and the Sikhs, and as a result that Islamic state could not survive.

Those two great Mujahid leaders, renowned as the Martyrs of Balakot, had instilled such a deep consciousness of the Islamic movement and establishing the Din among Muslims that even the Muslims serving in the English army felt the intense reaction to the defeat at Balakot. Rebellion against the English began to smolder among them and took the form of the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. Since Muslim soldiers played the principal role in this revolt, the imperial English became fiercely hostile toward the Muslims.

Those were extremely difficult times for the Muslims. English rule grew stronger with the help of the Hindus and Sikhs of the subcontinent. The English advanced non-Muslims in every field and bound the Muslims in chains of double servitude. English political domination combined with the economic subjugation of the Hindus to create a firmly established system for keeping the Muslim nation suppressed forever.

When the defeated, devastated, and oppressed Muslim nation was bewildered, Sir Syed Ahmad began the Aligarh educational movement with the noble aim of advancing Muslims alongside Hindus and Sikhs in education, employment, business, and other fields while remaining under English rule. With a conciliatory attitude toward the English, he embarked on this path out of a sympathetic desire that Muslims might learn English and stand on their own feet again. Although this defeated attitude was objectionable from the Islamic viewpoint, he took this step with complete sincerity. Indeed, as a result of this defeated attitude, he began offering interpretations of the Qur’an that disturbed the genuine ulama. The Deoband movement began as a result.

Under the leadership of Hazrat Maulana Qasim Nanatwi (may Allah have mercy on him), Darul Uloom Deoband was established, following the thought of Maulana Shah Waliullah Dehlawi and with the noble aim of protecting Islam through correct instruction in the Qur’an and Hadith. Today, countless madrasas throughout the subcontinent are the fruits of that movement.

The Aligarh movement fostered an attitude of cooperation rather than struggle with the English. The Deoband movement, on the other hand, tried to preserve the spirit of rebellion against English subjugation. But after the defeat at Balakot and the failure of the Sepoy Mutiny, it was no longer possible for the Muslims to stand alone against the English.

When, after the end of the First World War in 1918, the English began taking steps to abolish the Muslim Caliphate of Turkey, a movement to protect the Caliphate once again awakened among the Muslims of the subcontinent. This movement, known as the Khilafat Movement, began under Muslim leadership, and Deoband played a very strong role in it.

The Congress independence movement, led by Mr. Gandhi, cooperated with this anti-English Khilafat Movement and thereby became close to Deoband. But the Khilafat Movement also failed. As a result, the all-India ulama organization called Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, formed under Deoband’s leadership, became even more hostile toward the English. The Ulema of Hind sincerely believed that Muslims could make no progress and that establishing an Islamic Caliphate was impossible until the English were expelled from India. They believed that the country could not be liberated by the Muslims’ efforts alone. Therefore, the Ulema of Hind joined the independence movement led by Gandhi and Nehru and tried to expel the English.

On the other hand, the bitter experience of the modern-educated Muslims produced by the Aligarh movement naturally made them hostile toward the Hindus. They saw that the English-educated Hindu community had occupied government employment, trade, commerce, and every kind of profession so thoroughly that Muslims could find no employment anywhere, even when educated. The English had granted the Hindus a monopoly. When Muslims now sought a share in every field, the Hindus tried to corner them everywhere. Such conduct by the Hindus in employment, business, and various professions naturally made modern-educated Muslims hostile toward Hindus. But the ulama had no conflict with the Hindus in this matter. The modern educated class could understand from practical experience that if the country became independent under Hindu leadership, Hindu dominance would arise everywhere; this was not possible for the ulama to understand. The reason was that, in the fields where the ulama worked within Muslim society, there was no conflict of interests with the Hindus, and no occasion had arisen for competition between the ulama and the Hindus.

The educated Muslim community felt intensely that even if the country became independent under Congress leadership, Muslims would remain slaves of the Hindus. The Pakistan Movement arose from this feeling. Under the leadership of Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League demanded that Muslims should have a separate state in areas where they were a majority. This demand awakened the Muslim society, crushed under English and Hindu domination. Mr. Jinnah attained the status among Muslims of Quaid-e-Azam, meaning the Great Leader.

Disturbed by this separate movement of the Muslims, Congress claimed that people of all religions in India constituted one Indian nation. It was entirely wrong to divide this great nation on the basis of religion. In opposition to this secular doctrine of Congress, the Muslim League claimed that Islam was the ideal of the Muslims and that Islam was not merely a religion. Therefore, on the basis of the Islamic way of life, Muslims constituted a separate nation. Thus, there were two nations in India. The Muslim nation that believed in the Islamic ideal could not form one nation with those who did not believe in that ideal. This doctrine became famous as the Two-Nation Theory.

When Congress’s one-nation theory and the Muslim League’s two-nation theory came into conflict in this way, the Ulema of Hind supported Congress. In a famous speech delivered in 1938 at the Lahore Shahi Mosque on this issue, the leader of the Ulema of Hind, Hazrat Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani (may Allah have mercy on him), tried to prove that the one-nation theory was not opposed to Islam. His speech was published as a pamphlet under the title Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam (The One-Nation Theory and Islam). In 1939, Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) refuted all the arguments of this speech with strong arguments from the Qur’an, Hadith, and the history of the early period of Islam, proving that Congress’s one-nation theory was completely opposed to Islamic nationality. His book was published under the title Masala-e-Qaumiyat (The Nationality Problem); its Bengali translation was titled Islam o Jatiyatabad (Islam and Nationalism).

As a result of this controversy over nationality, the Congress movement for independence while keeping India undivided and the Muslim League movement for establishing a separate independent state for Muslims created extreme bitterness in the political field. The educated Muslim community became especially enraged against the Ulema of Hind who supported Congress. Its reaction was also seen among the ulama. Although most of the Deoband ulama joined Congress, many ulama, under the leadership of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (may Allah have mercy on him) and Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him), established a rival organization of ulama in 1943 called Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam in support of the Pakistan Movement and supported the Muslim League. Many ulama, including Maulana Zafar Ahmad Usmani (may Allah have mercy on him), Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri (may Allah have mercy on him), Maulana Mufti Din Muhammad Khan (may Allah have mercy on him), the Pir Sahib of Sarshina, and the Pir Sahib of Furfura, actively supported the Pakistan Movement. Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (may Allah have mercy on him) also supported the Muslim League.

Thus, the ulama became divided: one group supported Congress’s doctrine of an undivided India, while the other took the position of partitioning India and establishing Pakistan. The bitterness this created led the Muslim League to accuse the Ulema of Hind of opposing independence and being agents of the English, while the Ulema of Hind accused the Muslim League of the same.

Whatever attitude I held toward the Ulema of Hind at that time as a student activist in the Pakistan Movement, after later judging all the events from the perspective of an impartial historian, I reached the conclusion that the Ulema of Hind reasonably did not believe that the Muslim League leaders could establish an Islamic state. Therefore, they did not consider it wise to partition the country and divide the Muslim nation between two countries. But, for sound reasons, they did not understand that Congress’s doctrine of an undivided India would be disastrous for Muslims. Political decisions can be mistaken despite sincerity. I cannot believe that a person like Maulana Madani (may Allah have mercy on him) could work for any worldly interest while knowing that it would harm Islam and the Muslims. I do not have the courage to attack the intentions of people of this caliber. Mistake is one thing, and acting with evil intent is another.

At any rate, when the scholarly community of the subcontinent was divided, with one group active as supporters of the Congress and the other as supporters of the Muslim League, Maulana Maududi presented, through his monthly journal Tarjumanul Qur’an, a third perspective that satisfied both groups of the ulama. The Muslim League-oriented ulama used Maulana’s book on nationalism as a strong weapon against Maulana Madani’s (r) doctrine of the one-nation theory. However, the Muslim League circles became extremely angry at Maulana Maududi’s lecture at Aligarh University in 1940 entitled “How an Islamic Government Is Established” (the Bengali translation was entitled The Way to an Islamic Revolution). In that lecture, he argued and proved that although the movement to establish a separate independent state for Muslims on the basis of the two-nation theory was entirely correct and fully deserving of support, even if a Muslim country were established, they would in no way be able to establish an Islamic government or state. Analyzing the movement of the Noble Prophet (s), he saw that, because the Muslim League leadership had no program for producing leaders and workers who knew Islam and practiced it in their own lives, it would not merely be incapable of establishing an Islamic state; rather, if it tried to establish Islam, it would consider it necessary to have the leader of that movement hanged. Exactly fourteen years after this lecture, his prediction was indeed proven true. In 1953, during the Muslim League regime, he was sentenced to death on a pretext.

After Maulana Maududi’s book opposing Maulana Madani’s (r) one-nation theory was published, fatwas against Maulana Maududi began to be issued continuously from Deoband. The more forcefully Maulana Maududi continued to write that Muslims should in no way support the Congress, the more the number of fatwas increased. Thus, on the one hand, Maulana Maududi became the target of fatwas from the ulama supporting the Congress, while on the other hand he also became condemned in the eyes of the Muslim League circles. Of course, until Pakistan was established, Muslim League leaders said nothing against him because some of Maulana Maududi’s writings had been highly helpful to the Pakistan movement. But immediately after Pakistan was established, when he demanded the formulation of an Islamic constitution in 1948, he was arrested as an opponent of Pakistan and detained in prison without trial.

Although Maulana Maududi strengthened the Pakistan movement through his powerful and finest writings in support of the two-nation theory, he did not join the Muslim League. For a year after his aforementioned lecture at Aligarh in 1940, he continuously proposed through his monthly journal certain programs to the Muslim League leaders, without which Pakistan could not be made an Islamic state. But when the League leaders gave no response, in August 1941 he began organizing Jamaat-e-Islami with seventy-five people who had come to Lahore from various provinces of the subcontinent, on the basis of those programs. It was precisely because of carrying out those preparatory efforts to establish an Islamic state that, after Pakistan was established, the movement for an Islamic constitution became so strong despite the fierce opposition of the Muslim League government.

After the martyrdom of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (r) and Shah Ismail Shaheed (r) on the Balakot plain in 1831, the Islamic state they had established fell. I have tried here to give a brief idea of the condition that prevailed among Muslims during the subsequent long hundred years. From this it can be inferred why another movement for Iqamat-e-Deen could not begin even within a hundred years. When the independence movement against the British grew strong and Muslims awoke again and gained the strength to demand the establishment of an independent Muslim state, the environment for building a movement for Iqamat-e-Deen was created. The dream of establishing an Islamic state again stirred the hearts of Muslims. If, at that time, the leading ulama had been able to lead the movement to establish an Islamic state instead of following the Congress and Muslim League leaders, the history of the subcontinent might perhaps have been different. The noble objective of shaping Pakistan as an Islamic state might perhaps have been fulfilled. It was the misfortune of the Muslims of the subcontinent that, at that appropriate time, the ulama were unable to issue the call for “Iqamat-e-Deen.”

It was this call that Maulana Maududi gave in 1941. He was then only thirty-eight years old. But at that time almost all the leading ulama were divided between the Congress and the League. Yet neither of those two paths was being led by Islamic leadership. This suggests that, in the political environment of that time, the main objective of the ulama of India was to gain freedom from the British. For the League-oriented ulama, the real goal was to divide the country and establish an independent Muslim country. They did not have the position to provide their own leadership for achieving these two objectives. Therefore, they had to follow the Congress and League leaders.

To draw the proper lesson from that bitter experience of history, the ulama of Bangladesh must think deeply and calmly. The time has come to realize that it is the demand of the Deen to conduct a movement to transform this country into an Islamic state through the call and program of Iqamat-e-Deen. If there is delay, there is a risk of falling into perpetual servitude like Bukhara, or into calamity like Afghanistan. God forbid, if such a situation arises, it is doubtful whether even the limited opportunity the ulama now have to serve the Deen will remain.

The Importance of Group Effort

No one can possibly carry out the work of Iqamat-e-Deen alone. Indeed, despite possessing every qualification, no prophet was able to make the Deen victorious alone. Of course, the Prophet had to begin alone. A prophet whose call people did not answer, and who did not have the opportunity to work as a group, could not make the Deen victorious.

Changing a social system and rebuilding that society anew is so difficult and complex that this tremendous objective can never succeed without the united efforts of a group of people of the necessary number. Therefore, every prophet, along with inviting people to accept servitude to Allah, called upon them to obey him and become his companions in fulfilling the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen.

Meaning: “Fear Allah and obey me.” Every prophet gave this call. For without the obedience of a group of people, it is impossible to make the Deen victorious.

That is why the importance of the Jamaat is so great in Islam. By instructing people to perform the five daily prayers in congregation, arrangements have been made for them to deeply feel the importance of living as a group. Indeed, life in a Jamaat has been made obligatory for obedience to Islam. The hadith warns a person separated from the Jamaat that just as a wolf carries away a sheep separated from the flock, Satan takes a person separated from the Jamaat into his grasp.

The Messenger (s) even instructed that, when two people travel together, they should accept one of them as amir and proceed according to the discipline of the Jamaat. Islamic life is impossible without a Jamaat, and there can be no Jamaat without an amir. This proves that a Muslim must either be an amir (commander) or a mamur (one who obeys commands). Just as, when praying in congregation, one must either be the imam or a follower. If someone is neither imam nor follower, it must be understood that he has not joined the prayer congregation. Similarly, a person who has not joined any religious Jamaat has not even adopted the program of living a proper Islamic life. In this condition, he will not be able to remain safe from the deception of the nafs and Satan.

In the time of the Noble Prophet (s), only those were regarded as Muslims who joined the Prophet’s Jamaat and pledged allegiance to the Prophet or his representative. Those who remained outside that Jamaat were not regarded as Muslims at all. That Jamaat was the only Jamaat of the Deen, or Al-Jamaat. Today, no single Jamaat can attain the status of Al-Jamaat. All the Jamaats that may be formed on the basis of the Messenger’s model are collectively regarded as Al-Jamaat. But anyone who has not joined any religious Jamaat is by no means in a secure position regarding faith.

No scholar can deny this importance of the Jamaat in Islam. Even if only for serving Allah’s Deen, there is no alternative to acknowledging that joining a Jamaat is at least wajib according to the hadith. Therefore, every conscious Muslim must join one Jamaat or another. If none of the existing Jamaats is acceptable, such a person should try to form a new Jamaat. However, it is extremely important that everyone should try to learn about every religious Jamaat properly. Each Jamaat must be learned about by approaching it directly and by trying to learn from those responsible for it. It is utterly unreasonable to decide this matter by listening to hearsay or being misled by the propaganda of a Jamaat’s opponents. A judge who gives a verdict after hearing only the plaintiff’s complaint, without taking the defendant’s statement, is unfit to be a judge. Therefore, to reach a decision about any Jamaat, it is necessary to observe that Jamaat from close at hand.

The brothers of Tabligh Jamaat explain this point very beautifully. They say that if you truly want to know what Tabligh Jamaat is like, spend at least a few days with the Jamaat and remain with it. What the Tabligh brothers say is very reasonable. But this argument is true in the case of every Jamaat. If the Tablighi brothers also want to learn about another Jamaat, they too must give it some time and learn about it. How can one be qualified to compare with another Jamaat by doing only the work of Tabligh?

If I had not had the opportunity to work in Tabligh Jamaat, I could not have gained a proper understanding of it from a distance. In this way I also had the opportunity to learn about Tamaddun Majlis. It was through this Majlis that I first developed the idea that Islam is an ideological movement. I worked for three years simultaneously in Tabligh Jamaat and Tamaddun Majlis. In one, I had the opportunity to practice the religious aspect of Islam, and in the other I gained an indication of Islam’s social, political, and economic aspects. When I had the opportunity to learn about Jamaat-e-Islami, I found all aspects of Islam in the same Jamaat and joined it. Of course, I acknowledge from my heart the contributions of Tabligh and Tamaddun. Without the good fortune of making this comparison, I would not have been able to feel content even in the Jamaat where I work.

I do not say that the one I accepted last among the Jamaats I had the opportunity to learn about is the one everyone must accept. My point is that conscious Muslims should try to learn well about all the religious Jamaats. By making a comparative judgment, each person will find greater satisfaction working where he has a greater preference. And by comparing them, he will be able to acknowledge the religious service of every Jamaat. Preferring one Jamaat more does not mean that the other Jamaats must be considered bad. Even after acknowledging one as “better,” one should consider the others at least “good.” Preferring one more does not at all require considering all the others bad.

Characteristics of the Jamaat Formed for the Purpose of Iqamat-e-Deen

Every organization, Jamaat, or institution has a specific purpose. Naturally, it plans to develop people there for that very purpose. For example, a madrasa is established to produce scholars. A curriculum appropriate to the type of scholar intended is prepared. Those who establish colleges want to develop people for a purpose different from that of madrasas, so their curriculum is also different. The program for producing God-fearing people through a khanqah produces people of that level. On the basis of Tabligh Jamaat’s six principles and the chilla method, it is producing the kind of people that this program can produce. This Jamaat is trying to ensure that, instead of remaining absorbed in worldly life, people spend some time from time to time away from their homes and professions in the work of Tabligh, with the aim of building the everlasting life of the Hereafter. Turning people toward the Hereafter is undoubtedly a religious service.

But an organization that wants to replace a false social system and build society according to Allah’s law and the Messenger’s model must have a program suited to this tremendous objective. Such a Jamaat has several characteristics:

First: The call of this Jamaat cannot be directed toward only some part or aspect of Islam. Its call will be as comprehensive as Islam itself. Its call will extend to servitude to Allah alone and obedience to the Messenger in every sphere of life. This Jamaat will continue to call people to accept Allah as the sole commander and the Messenger (s) as the sole ideal leader in personal, social, and state life.

Second: This Jamaat will try to present the complete teachings of Islam to human society. It will make every possible effort to understand the whole Holy Qur’an. From iman, Islam, taqwa, and ihsan, and prayer, fasting, Hajj, zakat, dhikr, and tahajjud, through family, political, and economic life, as well as every other aspect of individual and social life, it will do its utmost to spread all the teachings of Islam widely throughout society.

Third: Naturally, in order to gather manpower to make the complete Deen of Islam victorious, this Jamaat will try to bring people into the organization. Whoever comes to such an organization will come regarding the Jamaat’s objective as the objective of his own life. They will try to bring the people into agreement with this noble objective and will continue to invite people individually and bring them into the Jamaat.

Fourth: This Jamaat will make special arrangements to develop among those who join it the qualifications, character, and qualities necessary to undertake the difficult responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen. Through every possible form of tarbiyah or training, it will develop a qualified corps of workers.

Fifth: As a result of recruiting people with the call to make Islam victorious, the established government and every kind of vested interest—political, economic, social, and religious—cannot fail to become alert against this organization. The false system, or false religion, will consider such a Jamaat dangerous to it.

Therefore, they will use all their strength to try by every possible means to stop the progress of this Jamaat. The government and other anti-Islamic groups will unite to conduct propaganda against the leaders and workers of such a Jamaat in order to mislead the people. If necessary, they will entangle the leaders and workers in false cases without trial and send them to prison so that the strength of this organization does not increase. In this way, all vested interests will rise up and throw themselves into opposing the establishment of Islam through every form of persecution.

Even if it is an Islamic Jamaat, if vested interests tolerate an organization and do nothing against it, it must be understood that, although this Jamaat may be performing some major service to Islam, it is not working with a program of Iqamat-e-Deen. If vested interests or the established government do not regard a Jamaat as their enemy, it must be understood that the Jamaat has no program to establish the true Deen.

Sixth: This opposition by false forces and vested interests is extremely beneficial to the Islamic movement. As a result of this opposition, timid, cowardly people do not dare to come to the movement. Those for whom worldly interests are most important also do not come this way. The kind of selfless, brave, striving, and jihad-minded people needed for this path are the ones who join this organization. Only those who fear no one but Allah remain here. This path is such that Allah tests everyone who sets foot upon it.

Meaning: “Do people think that merely saying, ‘We have believed,’ they will be left without being tested? Yet those before them were also tested.” (Surah Al-Ankabut: 2–3)

It was because there was a movement for Iqamat-e-Deen that the Companions had to undergo so many trials during the time of the Messenger (s). Even today, if a Jamaat carries out that work, its members too must undergo trials. Without these trials, it is impossible to obtain people capable of establishing Islam.

Seventh: Another characteristic of the movement for Iqamat-e-Deen is that no person in this organization is given a place as a leader by any criterion other than sincerity, taqwa, and sacrifice and devotion to the movement. In parties whose real objective is seizing power, leaders of other parties are accepted as leaders for political advantage. No one in the organization of Iqamat-e-Deen can be accepted as a “ready-made” leader, because making a leader of someone who desires leadership is contrary to Islamic principles.

That is why there can be no competition to become a leader in this organization. No conflict over leadership can arise here either. There is no avenue for anyone to enter such an organization with the aim of becoming a leader. But if a leading and capable person from another party joins this organization sincerely, his conduct and work policy quickly bring him to leadership. For the responsible people in such an organization become eager to assign responsibility to more capable people when they find them.

No one in such an organization tries to become a leader. Rather, capable people are requested to accept leadership. No person is made a leader solely on the basis of fame, money, or degrees. Leadership is selected according to the standards of ideals and character.

Eighth: A truly Islamic Jamaat does not use any particular individual as a means of attracting people to the movement. For a Jamaat formed for the purpose of Iqamat-e-Deen, the Islamic ideal itself is the real attraction. Its characteristic is to attract people toward this ideal. The central point and foundation of the Prophet’s organization was the Prophet’s personality. Apart from a prophet, no other personality should be the foundation of an organization. If an organization is built around a particular personality, it cannot survive that person’s death. But if the ideal itself is the organization’s main foundation, the death of its founder does not threaten the organization’s existence.

Is There Such a Jamaat in Bangladesh??

This question is extremely important to those who truly feel the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen. It must be deeply considered whether one will have to answer before Allah if one fails to work for Iqamat-e-Deen on the excuse that no Jamaat attractive and complete in every respect can be found. Just as it is wrong to pray alone instead of joining the congregation because one does not like the mosque’s imam, it is also a grave mistake to live without a Jamaat because one cannot find an ideal Jamaat.

If you are qualified to be an imam, then by regularly going to the mosque and praying in congregation, the worshippers may remove the unqualified imam and make you the imam. Then the mosque will become more active by having a qualified imam. Similarly, you can join the Jamaat whose purpose of Iqamat-e-Deen you comparatively prefer and try to improve it further. And if you yourself have the ability to form a Jamaat, then do so. But it must be acknowledged that no one can possibly fulfill the responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen without a Jamaat.

At one point this question also arose in my mind in a major way: With which Jamaat should I do this work? I have already said that I still love the two organizations in which I worked simultaneously. But when my conscience came to regard another Jamaat as more suitable for Iqamat-e-Deen, I began working in that Jamaat. This matter depends entirely on each person’s conscience. On the basis of knowledge of the Deen, a sense of responsibility for Iqamat, and Islam, each person must decide this matter for himself. Everyone may not agree with me on the decision I reached. But everyone has the responsibility to select the Jamaat of his choice by judging it according to the characteristics necessary for Iqamat-e-Deen.

The responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen is not such an ordinary matter that one may suddenly enter a Jamaat without properly comparing, judging, and considering the matter. One must choose with attention to whether the Jamaat one is joining has a call and program suited to Iqamat-e-Deen, how much provision it has for developing people qualified for Iqamat, and to what extent it possesses the characteristics necessary for Iqamat. With the knowledge, understanding, and conscience Allah has given me, I have found no Jamaat better than Jamaat-e-Islami for the purpose of Iqamat. I am trying as far as I can to improve this Jamaat and remove whatever shortcomings or defects it has. For, in my judgment, the ideal Jamaat is solely the Jamaat of the noble Companions. When I judge Jamaat-e-Islami by that Jamaat as the standard, I find many deficiencies and defects in it. I ask Allah’s help so that I do not develop the narrow-mindedness of taking pride in Jamaat-e-Islami’s superiority by comparing it with other Jamaats in the country. If this Jamaat wants to fulfill the great responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen, it must regard the Jamaat of the noble Companions as its ideal and try to reach that standard as far as possible. There is no scope for feeling self-satisfied by comparing it with any established party.

With sincere religious fervor, I declare that if I find an organization better than Jamaat-e-Islami for establishing Allah’s Deen in this country, I will consider it obligatory to leave this Jamaat and join that organization. For Iqamat-e-Deen is my goal. I believe that joining the Jamaat through which there is the greatest possibility and hope of achieving that noble objective is my duty.

Jamaat-e-Islami and Maulana Maududi (r)

Whether one should join Jamaat-e-Islami for the purpose of Iqamat-e-Deen is a matter for the prospective member to consider. The founder of this Jamaat was Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi (r). Although he is no longer in this world, since various things are commonly said about him, I am presenting some necessary points about his relationship with the present Jamaat-e-Islami:

First: Throughout his life, Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi (r) emphasized that no one besides Allah’s Messenger (s) should be followed blindly. Only the Messenger is infallible because he was guided by revelation. No one else is above error.

Therefore, I am not prepared to accept anything said by Maulana Abul Ala Maududi (رحঃ) without testing it against the standard of the Messenger. I accept from his opinions only as much as seems acceptable in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is the principle of Jamaat-e-Islami.

When he was elected Ameer of the Jamaat in 1941, he immediately made the following declaration:

“Finally, I wish to make one matter clear. I have my own method regarding fiqh and ilm al-kalam. I have arrived at it on the basis of my personal investigation and research. Those who have read Tarjumanul Qur’an over the past eight years know this very well. I have now been appointed Ameer of this Jamaat. Therefore, I must state clearly that whatever I have previously written or may write or say in the future concerning fiqh and kalam will not be regarded as the decision of the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami; rather, it will be my personal opinion. I do not wish to impose my personal judgment in these matters upon the other scholars and researchers of the Jamaat, nor do I want the Jamaat to impose such restrictions upon me that my freedom to conduct research and express opinions in the field of knowledge would be taken away. I instruct the members (arkan) of the Jamaat, by Allah, that none of you should present my statements concerning fiqh and kalam before others as proof. Likewise, no one should regard my personal actions—which I have deemed permissible after my own investigation and research—as proof, nor should anyone follow them without investigation merely because I have done them. Everyone has complete freedom in this matter. Those who possess knowledge should act according to their own research and investigation, while those who do not possess knowledge should act according to the research and investigation of those in whom they place their trust regarding knowledge. Moreover, everyone has the freedom to hold an opinion contrary to mine in this matter and to express his own view. We may all belong to the same Jamaat while holding different opinions on minor and subsidiary matters, presenting arguments and proofs against one another, and engaging in debate—as the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, did.”

Second: Jamaat-e-Islami includes followers of the Hanafi madhhab and Ahl al-Hadith. People belonging to any madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah may join this Jamaat. As a Jamaat, Jamaat-e-Islami does not compel anyone to follow the fiqh of a particular madhhab. Those who join the Jamaat continue to follow their own madhhab. Maulana Maududi followed the Hanafi madhhab. However, there are also Ahl al-Hadith members in the Jamaat.

Third: Everyone in the Jamaat has complete freedom to form opinions independently from the books of all past and present writers on Islam. While acquiring knowledge from classical and modern tafsir, Hadith, fiqh, and other sources, each person has the right to determine his own opinion independently. Since Maulana Maududi placed such importance on freedom of thought, there is no danger of following him blindly.

Fourth: Jamaat-e-Islami does not regard Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as an imam in fiqh or aqidah. Accepting his ijtihad is not a principle of the Jamaat either. In the view of Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) possesses special distinction for three reasons.

(a) In this age, Maulana Maududi’s writings have upheld the proper status of the religion of Islam by presenting Islam as the only complete way of life. Through the large number of books he wrote, people have learned that the mistaken notion that Islam is confined to the religious sphere is false. This comprehensive understanding of Islam was not previously so clear in this subcontinent. He alone clearly conveyed to the people of the subcontinent that serving Allah and obeying the Prophet in every sphere of personal and social life is a demand of Islam. He presented with great clarity that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the only correct and comprehensive guidance for the whole of human life.

(b) Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) presented with great force the fact that establishing the religion of Islam in human society in practice is the principal duty of Muslims. Not only that, in this century he was the first to launch an organized effort in this subcontinent against falsehood by calling people to Iqamat-e-Deen. Those who responded, and are responding, to this call to Iqamat-e-Deen consider it obligatory to organize themselves after realizing the importance of the movement.

Because he called for such a movement to make Islam victorious, Islam has now become a revolutionary movement throughout the subcontinent. Its call for Islamic awakening has even reached modern educated people and students.

(c) In this age, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) displayed unparalleled organizational talent in systematically organizing Muslims through a scientific method. To turn Muslims into a disciplined force capable of competing with the strong organizations of falsehood in the modern age, he provided an organizational structure and working strategy. As a result, there is no fear that the organization will become weak in any respect even after his departure from this world.

Jamaat-e-Islami does not regard Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as superhuman or as any kind of being capable of creating blind devotion. Throughout his life he worked to put an end to excessiveness in religious veneration. Therefore, despite his possessing many rare qualities, the Jamaat did not grant the Maulana any kind of excessive veneration.

Of course, thoughtful people throughout the world have unanimously recognized Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as the greatest Islamic thinker, writer, and mujahid of this age, and as the strongest personality resisting modern jahiliyyah or anti-Islamic ideologies. Even so, Jamaat-e-Islami did not consider it necessary for the Islamic movement to magnify the Maulana’s personality before the people. The Maulana was so alert concerning this matter that he did not permit the observance of his birthday. Even after his death, neither his birthday nor the anniversary of his death is being observed anywhere in the subcontinent. Yet Jamaat-e-Islami exists as an open organization in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. But nowhere is the personality of Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) being promoted.

By analyzing the problems of the modern age and various human-made solutions, clearly identifying the flaws in those solutions in the light of the Qur’an and Hadith, and presenting Islam’s solution with such competence, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) made it easy for modern educated people like us to understand Islam. For this reason, carrying out an Islamic movement in the modern age without the Islamic literature written by Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) is becoming impossible. Thus Jamaat-e-Islami is obliged to benefit from his books. If the aim had been to promote Maulana Maududi (رحঃ), his birthday and death anniversary would certainly have been observed.

The universal Prophet, whom Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) taught us to accept as the sole leader in every sphere of life, is the true leader of Jamaat-e-Islami. When Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) was Ameer of the Jamaat, excessive devotion was never shown toward him. Only Allah Almighty can grant him his true rank. The Jamaat has not accepted any responsibility for increasing his status in this world.

Fifth: For nearly seven years, I had the opportunity to meet leading Islamic thinkers and respected scholars from many countries of the world, including the Arab world. I found all of them to be great admirers of Maulana Maududi (رحঃ). Everyone recognized Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as the greatest Islamic thinker of this age. Outside Pakistan, India, and Bengal, no Islamic personality raised any objection to the Maulana’s writings. Yet the Maulana’s literature has been widely translated into Arabic and English.

After reading the same kind of exposition of Islam in the writings of the world’s leading Islamic thinkers, I formed the impression that the few scholars in our country who issued fatwas against Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) probably had not properly read his literature.

During the 1930s and 1940s of this century, Maulana Maududi’s forceful Islamic political thought, centered on the movement for an undivided India versus Pakistan, conflicted with the political ideologies of many prominent scholars. These fatwas were circulated by them. Thus, it seems that the fatwas were issued for political reasons. No solid religious foundation can be found for these fatwas.

Fatwas Against the Jamaat

Jamaat-e-Islami does not waste time quarrelling with those who issue and circulate fatwas against it. Such fatwas, issued by people who do not struggle against the forces of falsehood, have no conflict with modern jahiliyyah, have no program for Iqamat-e-Deen, and do nothing as an organized group to make Islam victorious, carry no importance in the eyes of conscious Muslims. Their purpose may be simply to keep those people away from the Jamaat who have a blind devotion to the fatwa-mongers.

The Jamaat acknowledges their religious services and bears no hostility toward them. It does not regard them as opponents in the Islamic movement. The Jamaat’s opponents are secularist, socialist, and narrow nationalist movements. In the conflict taking place in the country between the religion of truth and the religion of falsehood, those fatwas are certainly being used in support of falsehood. Even so, the Jamaat is not disturbed by the fatwas, because it neither wishes to do nor to say anything against those who issue them. The Jamaat does not regard them as an opposing force. It has no struggle with them.

From the wording of these fatwas, it appears that the issuers consider certain statements in Maulana Maududi’s books objectionable and, because he is the founder of this Jamaat, feel it necessary to issue the fatwa against the Jamaat as well. I have already said that it is unreasonable to treat every statement of Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as the statement of the Jamaat. If a fatwa must be issued, it should be issued against the author, not against the Jamaat.

It is not necessary for everyone to agree with everything in Maulana Maududi’s books. Therefore, if scholars who find mistakes in his writings criticize them academically on the basis of Qur’anic and Hadith arguments, the people of the Jamaat will also benefit from their knowledge. Everyone can make errors in ijtihad. If qualified scholars point out such errors, it will be a great service to the religion. Of course, this is difficult work. If, instead of doing this, issuing fatwas is considered easy, it does not increase the dignity of those issuing them. Wherever there is a struggle between truth and falsehood, such fatwas assist falsehood.

If the issuers of these fatwas establish a religious Jamaat superior to Jamaat-e-Islami with the aim of fulfilling the great responsibility of Iqamat-e-Deen, and workers like us feel that we would succeed more effectively in the purpose for which we joined the Jamaat—to establish Islam—by joining the Jamaat they establish, then we would not hesitate for a moment to leave this Jamaat and join theirs. But when those who have no program for Iqamat-e-Deen discharge their responsibility by issuing fatwas against the Jamaat, their standing is diminished even in the eyes of their conscious devotees, followers, and disciples.

Apart from praying that Allah Almighty grant them the ability to understand that issuing these fatwas is not a genuine service to Islam, but rather is causing their names to be included among the opponents of the Islamic movement, there is nothing more to say about such servants of the religion. It will finally be seen in the court of the Hereafter who worked for truth and who assisted falsehood.

I appeal to those who issue fatwas to consider properly the effort Jamaat-e-Islami is making for Iqamat-e-Deen. I request them to spend the ability Allah Almighty has granted them on positive work for Islam rather than on negative activities. If they point out any kind of error with the intention of reforming Jamaat-e-Islami, the Jamaat will thank them for this great service. Those who attempt such correction with sincere concern do not speak in the language of fatwas.

Fatwas Against Maulana Maududi (رحঃ)Fatwas Against Maulana Maududi (رحঃ)Fatwas Against Maulana Maududi (رحঃ)

Maulana Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi (رحঃ) wrote more than a hundred books, large and small, on Islam, including a tafsir of the Holy Qur’an and a biography of the Messenger of Allah (সঃ). His countless readers, both men and women, are spread throughout the country and abroad. It is not unusual for the writings of someone who has written so much to contain some errors and shortcomings. If those engaged in the pursuit of knowledge criticize his writings on the basis of arguments and evidence, it will certainly benefit and serve the religion. I myself have benefited greatly from reading the writings of several people in the subcontinent on this subject.

But some people have quoted passages from his various writings and given them such distorted interpretations that any reader who reads both the original books and the critics’ writings will be compelled to admit that the criticism has no connection with the author’s actual position. The language of some critics itself reveals their hostility.

Those who are blindly opposed and hostile use the weapon of fatwas instead of language suitable for correction—even the statements of some descend to the level of vile abuse. Those who seek the truth can judge only if they try to read the original books. If those who have not read the original books reach a decision merely by reading a critic’s work, it will certainly be an injustice to him. A judge who delivers a verdict after hearing only the plaintiff’s complaint, without hearing the defendant’s testimony, can never be called a just judge.

I do not accept something as correct merely because Maulana Maududi wrote it. I accept what he has presented with evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah only after verifying it through my own reason and understanding. Therefore, I do not hesitate to accept the words of those who criticize him on the basis of evidence and reason. I do not consider Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) infallible. But those who speak in the language of fatwas appear to aim at misleading people rather than correcting the Maulana’s errors, so I do not consider their words worthy of consideration.

Several scholars in Bangladesh have strongly objected to Maulana Maududi’s book entitled Khilafat o Mulukiyat. Among them, I certainly consider the booklet entitled Bhul Shongshodhon, written by Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri (رحঃ), worth reading. Maulana Faridpuri (رحঃ) loved Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) very much and was also very affectionate toward me. Because I was closely associated with him, I knew that he had substantial objections to Khilafat o Mulukiyat. He did not attack Maulana Maududi’s intention, nor did he regard him as an opponent of the noble Companions. While writing Khilafat o Mulukiyat, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) cited several historians whom Maulana Faridpuri considered Shi’a, and he believed that the author reached erroneous conclusions because he accepted the opinions of Shi’a historians.

The language Maulana Faridpuri (رحঃ) used in criticizing Khilafat o Mulukiyat shows that he harbored no hostility and wrote on the basis of complete sincerity. This is clear from the title Bhul Shongshodhon. He did not write with the aim of misleading the people. Wherever he considered Maulana Maududi’s writing mistaken, he attempted to correct it. Of course, in some places the book contains statements that do not accord with Maulana Faridpuri’s naturally courteous language. Allah Almighty alone knows whether those statements were added by someone else. The publisher added at the very beginning some extremely indecent statements by several scholars. This raises the suspicion that not all the statements in the book belong to Maulana Faridpuri.

I request those who wish to judge fairly and seek the truth to read Khilafat o Mulukiyat together with Bhul Shongshodhon, written by Maulana Faridpuri (رحঃ). The replies to the objections raised in Bhul Shongshodhon have also been given in the final section of the original book. After reading the book, readers need only refrain from accepting those statements in which they believe Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) made mistakes. It is not necessary for everything written by any author to be correct.

But it is deeply regrettable that, on the basis of the discussions concerning Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) in Khilafat o Mulukiyat, some critics have tried to prove Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) a reviler and insulter of the noble Companions. The hostile language of their writings suggests that Maulana Maududi wrote the book with the very aim of creating hatred toward the Companions, whereas I do not know whether they have read the passionate and heartfelt praise of the noble Companions, in accordance with the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, found in the Maulana’s tafsir Tafhimul Qur’an and other books. The subject discussed in Khilafat o Mulukiyat is connected with certain painful events in Islamic history, and whoever writes on this subject cannot at the same time prove both Hazrat Ali (رحঃ) and Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) to have been on the correct principle. According to the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, Hazrat Ali (رحঃ) was among the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) did not accept Hazrat Ali’s caliphate. In such a situation, how can both possess the same rank?

Maulana Faridpuri (رحঃ) tried to prove Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) a much more qualified caliph than Hazrat Ali (رحঃ). He claimed that all the accusations against Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) were completely false. Even so, it remains a major question why the Muslim ummah does not regard Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) as one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Although Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) was a Companion, Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah does not regard him as one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. He is called Ameer Muawiya (رحঃ), not Caliph. There must certainly be a reason for this. While acknowledging that Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) rendered great service to Islam, historians have remarked that, in terms of the principles and ideals of the Islamic caliphate, his policy was not correct. All those who have tried to argue in favor of Hazrat Muawiya (رحঃ) have been compelled to declare the Rightly Guided Caliph Hazrat Ali (رحঃ) guilty. Thus, this history is so problematic that it is virtually impossible to regard these two as possessing the same rank.

Therefore, those who discuss this subject out of the unavoidable need of historical study should not have their statements unnecessarily discussed among the general public. If people who are not historians debate this matter, there is a danger of causing fitnah.

While discussing the fundamental principles of an Islamic constitution, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) identified the Qur’an, Sunnah, and ijma as sources of law. Ijma means a unanimous judgment. Whoever recognizes the consensus of the scholars of the ummah of Muhammad on a matter as a hujjah or proof of the Shariah cannot reasonably be suspected of considering the ijma of the noble Companions anything other than an even higher form of proof.

In 1950, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) played a worthy role at the conference of thirty-one leading scholars from all schools, held in Karachi under the chairmanship of Allama Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi (رحঃ), where the twenty-two fundamental principles of an Islamic constitution were declared. Among the thirty-one leading Maulanas of Pakistan at that time, Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) held a distinguished position. Those who issue fatwas against such a person only damage their own standing. Refuting Maulana Maududi’s statements through reason is certainly a religious duty. But I request everyone concerned to consider whether circulating fatwas is benefiting the religion in any way.

It seems appropriate to mention one more matter here. Several scholars in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have certainly made adverse remarks against Maulana Maududi (رحঃ). But leading scholars and Islamic thinkers throughout the world recognize Maulana Maududi (رحঃ) as one of the greatest scholars of the present world and a great authority on Islam. His tafsir and other books have been translated into forty languages of the world, and the light of Islam is reaching millions of people through them. Therefore, a few people in this country will not be able to suppress this light by issuing fatwas. I believe that if they read Maulana Maududi’s books attentively, they would actually appreciate them.

In the Service of the Respected Scholars and Shaykhs

I hold deep respect for the respected scholars and great shaykhs. They are the heirs of the Prophet. Knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah is obtained from them. For uneducated people, there is no way to learn religious knowledge and practice except by turning to them. Even modern educated people have no alternative to seeking the help of the respected scholars and shaykhs if they wish to gain correct knowledge of Islam and follow the Messenger. Broad knowledge of the religion must be obtained from the Qur’an and Hadith, and I myself bear witness that English-educated people and those holding college and university degrees have no alternative but to seek the assistance of those who are knowledgeable in this field.

I did not have the good fortune to study at any Qawmi or Alia madrasa in order to acquire deep knowledge of the Qur’an, Hadith, and fiqh. Whatever little knowledge Allah Almighty granted me, I received through the medium of sincere scholars and shaykhs. Because of my learned father’s special insistence, I was compelled to study Arabic as one of my principal subjects up to the B.A. level, and with the limited Arabic I acquired I made some attempt to study Islam. From my school days, I had the opportunity to read in Bengali books translated by Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (رحঃ). In 1938, when I was a student in the eighth grade, I became deeply attracted to Hazrat Thanwi’s (رحঃ) reasoned sermons as a regular reader of the monthly magazine Nemat. Thus, it was as a translator of Hazrat Thanwi’s (رحঃ) writings that I developed a close relationship with Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri (رحঃ).

In 1950, a few months before my M.A. examination, I was influenced by Tabligh Jamaat and, after the examination, went out for three chillas. Having the opportunity to perform a chilla with Hazrat Maulana Abdul Aziz, the Ameer of Tabligh Jamaat in this country, and going to Hindustan for the Tabligh chilla, I was inspired, through the company of many qualified scholars, to dedicate my life to the path of religion. Through the opportunity Allah Almighty granted me to work regularly with Tabligh Jamaat for four and a half years, this conviction arose in my life: the religion of Islam alone should be the sole mission or purpose of a Muslim’s life.

Through my association with Tamaddun Majlis in 1952, I had the opportunity to understand Islam as a revolutionary movement. I then began studying Islam from the perspective that the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was not confined to the religious sphere, and that he had brought about a revolution in social, political, and economic life as well. It was through Tamaddun Majlis that I first had the opportunity to read some books by Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) in Bengali and English.

For the next two years, I continued working wholeheartedly with Tabligh Jamaat and Tamaddun Majlis. By working with both organizations simultaneously, I had the opportunity to read the books of both sides thoroughly. I then felt that remaining with Tabligh Jamaat was essential for me with regard to the religious and spiritual aspects of Islam, while leaving Tamaddun Majlis was also impossible for me with regard to Islam’s political, economic, and other aspects. After embracing Islam wholeheartedly as a complete way of life, I could not find nourishment for my thirsting soul in Tabligh Jamaat or Tamaddun Majlis alone. Therefore, I tried to attain complete Islam through a synthesis of the two.

In those days, Tabligh Jamaat held a large monthly gathering at Lalbagh Shahi Mosque. I too had to deliver speeches there. After hearing the speeches on the Six Principles that I gave from the Tabligh platform, Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) would remark about me to those close to him, “This man cannot remain satisfied with the programme of Tabligh Jamaat.” Later, after I joined Jamaat-e-Islami, when I went to meet him, he said, with many people present as witnesses, “Did I not say that Tabligh Jamaat would not be able to hold him back?” Hearing his words, I realized that even while speaking from the platform of Tabligh Jamaat, the note of Tamaddun Majlis’s Islamic revolution may have been expressed in my words. That is why such a learned person had been able to sense it. His encouragement of me after I joined Jamaat-e-Islami made me even more certain.

In the preface to my book A Guide to the Islamic Movement, which I wrote in English in 1968, I wrote: “From my father, I had understood Islam merely as a religion. Through the writings of Hazrat Maulana Thanvi (may Allah have mercy on him) and the company of Maulana Faridpuri, I came to understand that Islam is a great mission, and that dedicating one’s life to it is a demand of faith. After coming to Jamaat-e-Islami, I realized that Islam is such a revolutionary movement that striving to establish Allah’s law in Allah’s earth through it is the greatest obligation in the life of a believer. Now I gratefully acknowledge that Hazrat Thanvi, Tabligh Jamaat, Tamaddun Majlis, and Jamaat-e-Islami successively inspired me to become a true Muslim. After coming to Jamaat-e-Islami, I had the opportunity to learn the comprehensive form of Islam in detail.”

Outside Jamaat-e-Islami, I had relationships with several eminent scholars from whom I received considerable light concerning various aspects of the religion. Since they loved me, they gave me the opportunity to gain much benefit from them even in a short time. Through Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Haq Faridpuri (may Allah have mercy on him), I had the good fortune to become close to a great scholar such as Hazrat Maulana Nur Muhammad Azmi (may Allah have mercy on him). In Bangladesh, I have not found people as broad-minded as these two in showing respect for all kinds of religious service and every religious organization, and in maintaining a generous attitude toward everyone. Although I did not have as much opportunity to mix closely with others as I did with these two, through whatever time I spent with them I learned many valuable lessons about the others as well. Among them, the following are especially noteworthy:

Hazrat Maulana Saiyed Mahmud Mustafa al-Madani, martyr (may Allah have mercy on him)

Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Akram Khan (may Allah have mercy on him)

Hazrat Maulana Abdullahil Kafi al-Quraishi (may Allah have mercy on him)

Hazrat Maulana Atahar Ali (may Allah have mercy on him)

Hazrat Maulana Mufti Dini Muhammad Khan (may Allah have mercy on him)

Hazrat Maulana Mufti Saiyed Amimul Ihsan (may Allah have mercy on him)

I had the good fortune to come into close contact with many scholars from Pakistan, Hindustan, and Bangladesh belonging to Jamaat-e-Islami. I found their books, as well as the books of many Islamic thinkers outside the Jamaat, to be provisions for my religious life.

Through this discussion, I wish to make it clear that for countless modern educated people like us, there is no way to learn about Islamic knowledge and practice without the help of the scholars and shaykhs. By Allah’s grace, today even students in schools, colleges, and universities have been attracted toward Islam through the books of Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) and other eminent scholars. In an educational system that is producing people whose minds, thinking, and character are contrary to Islamic knowledge and practice, the Islamic literature that has created such an encouraging awakening has been written by the scholars themselves.

There is no doubt that most of the books that student and non-student workers of the Islamic movement use to learn about various aspects of the Islamic way of life and to understand the Holy Qur’an in the light of the Islamic movement of the Messenger are written by Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him). They are also acquiring considerable knowledge from the Bengali books of earlier and contemporary scholars written on the basis of the Qur’an and Hadith. But since there is no way to proceed without Maulana Maududi’s writings, everyone is compelled to read his books. If anyone else had possessed an abundant Islamic literature, and if that literature could have built a strong movement against anti-Islamic ideas and ways, then many modern educated people like us could have advanced along this path without Maulana Maududi’s literature.

Can the respected scholars and shaykhs name any other person whose literature can provide us with detailed instruction about the Islamic way of life in language suited to this age? In this situation, when a scholar issues a fatwa against Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him), what impression can educated workers of the Islamic movement form of him? When a religious person says, “I do not like Maududi’s Islam,” a natural question arises in the minds of the workers: Maududi’s attempt to understand Islam is clearly visible in his written works. But no one has had the opportunity to know whether the person making this statement has offered any better explanation of Islam. Then, can such a declaration by that person create any favorable impression of him in the minds of the thousands of workers in the field? If he could present the correct Islam and prove himself capable of protecting people from “Maududi’s erroneous Islam,” then those struggling against falsehood for the sake of Islam would accept him as their leader and would not feel the need to read Maulana Maududi’s books.

I humbly request all truthful scholars and shaykhs to kindly spend some time and effort reading Maulana Maududi’s six-volume exegesis, Tafhim al-Qur’an, and his seven-volume answers to the countless questions of the people of this age, entitled Rasa’il wa Masa’il. Do not reach a decision merely by listening to others’ comments; examine them yourselves and then decide. This is a tremendous responsibility. We will all have to answer to Allah.

Today, how many great tribulations have raised their heads against Islam in Bangladesh! Secularism, language-based nationalism, socialism, and other forces are engaged in a conspiracy to uproot the Islamic ideal from this country with immense strength. Everyone in the country can see who is working for Islam and to what extent in the practical field to confront these tribulations. Everyone can see whom the anti-Islamic forces regard as their true enemies. Do those who are devoting themselves to the Islamic movement in the field, including colleges and universities, and against whom the secularists and socialists have united, not deserve the help, sympathy, and support of all of you?

In this situation, does the work of those who, without undertaking any movement against the enemies of Islam, issue fatwas against the Islamic movement calling it the “Maududi fitna” not indirectly serve the interests of the enemies of Islam? If they truly care for Islam, it is only natural that they should help the Islamic workers active in the field. If anyone considers certain statements in Maulana Maududi’s books contrary to the Qur’an and Hadith, let him point out those errors with arguments. Pointing out errors in this way would be a great service to Islam, and the workers of the Islamic movement would remain grateful to such scholars and shaykhs. But if, without undertaking even this effort, they try to discharge their responsibility merely by issuing fatwas, how can those issuing the fatwas gain a position of respect among discerning people?

I earnestly request the respected scholars and shaykhs to give special thought and consideration to one matter. Surely you have observed how, in my beloved homeland Bangladesh, secularist, pro-India, and socialist parties are trying to seize power with foreign patronage. There are also many organizations of these parties among the student community. You are not unaware of the struggle being waged against these anti-Islamic forces by Jamaat-e-Islami in the broader field and by Islami Chhatra Shibir among the students. You yourselves should consider what the duty of those who love Islam ought to be in this situation. Is it not a religious duty to provide help and cooperation to Jamaat-e-Islami in these circumstances? If, as a result of failing to perform this duty, the anti-Islamic forces become victorious, there is still time to consider whether you will continue to have the opportunity to carry out even your present religious services.

Finally, I wish to request that if there is anything in Maulana Maududi’s books that contradicts Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah, please help us identify it. We believe ourselves to be part of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah. Therefore, if there are errors in his books in this respect, we will not accept them under any circumstances. I also wish to draw everyone’s attention to another point. Some people separate a statement of Maulana Maududi’s from the meaning of the original book and present it without its context in such a way that confusion results. Therefore, it is not safe to reach a decision merely on the basis of an isolated statement without examining the original book.

I have extensive contact with countless modern educated people. Most of them do not possess a good understanding of the scholarly community. I debate with them and explain that religious knowledge must be obtained from the scholars. If there is no respect for them, where will religious knowledge be obtained? For the scholarly community to be regarded as worthy of respect by modern educated people, they must, rather than criticize Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on him) in the language of fatwas, point out his errors with the intention of correcting them. Educated people who are eager to learn about Islam find Maulana Maududi’s books to be their principal resource. If fatwas cause such people to develop disrespect for the scholars and shaykhs, it will result in tremendous harm to the religion. But if you point out his errors in a compassionate manner, their respect for you will increase even further.

— The End —