Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi was still in prison when an inquiry commission comprising Justice Munir Ahmad and Justice Muhammad Rustam Kayani was formed. This commission conducted investigation and inquiry from July 1953 to January 1954. After one hundred and seventeen hearings, the report was made public on April 10, 1954. It is generally referred to as the Munir Commission Report or the Munir-Kayani Report. In the context of Pakistan’s religious identity, this report is of great significance. This report also includes a detailed statement by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi. Therefore, we consider it indispensable to present a brief commentary on it.
Although the report held various individuals and religious factions, including the ruling party Muslim League, responsible for the riots alongside the failure of the government administration, Majlis-e-Ahrar was held primarily responsible for these disturbances. In this regard, consider the following essential excerpts from the report:
The Existence and Purpose of Majlis-e-Ahrar
The very establishment of Majlis-e-Ahrar was in fact based on the objective of using the issue of Ahmadis to evoke religious fervor among the public and, on that basis, to achieve political objectives. (Justice Munir Report, Chapter 2 — Background)
It is to be noted that all the founding members of Majlis-e-Ahrar were members of the All India Congress, and they separated from the Congress to organize themselves in the form of Majlis-e-Ahrar. Until the partition of India, they remained staunch opponents of the Muslim League, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and the establishment of Pakistan.
The Use of Religious Sentiments
Ahrar turned this issue into a political movement by utilizing public sentiments and incited the people against the government on a religious basis. (Reference: In the summary of the Report)
Challenging the Authority of the State
This proves that Majlis-e-Ahrar, under the guise of religious objectives, challenged the state administration and incited the people against the government through public gatherings and speeches. (Reference: Commentary on the activities of Ahrar in the Report)
Leadership and the Mentality of the Organization
The leadership of Ahrar deliberately continued to create an environment in which the public’s attention was diverted from social and economic issues and remained focused solely on religious sentiments. (Reference: Social Analysis in the Report)
Conclusion
The activities of the Ahrar and similar groups demonstrate that if religion is not kept separate from politics, it can pose a serious threat to the structure of the state and to law and order. (Reference: Final chapter of the Report)
In light of this part of the report, we can easily assess which factors have played a significant role in shaping the current circumstances of Pakistan.
Maulana Islahi’s Statement
During these riots, the Majlis-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat had demanded that Ahmadis be declared non-Muslims. In this regard, the commission inquired from Maulana Islahi about whether Ahmadis are Muslims or non-Muslims. The responses of the Maulana and the questions of the commission are presented here:
Question: Who is a Muslim?
Answer: There are two types of Muslims—political Muslims and true Muslims. In order for a person to be called a political Muslim, it is necessary that he believes in the oneness of God (Tawheed); that he acknowledges our Holy Prophet as Khatam an-Nabiyyin, meaning that he accepts him as the final authority in all matters concerning his life; that he believes every good and evil is from Allah the Exalted; that he believes in the Day of Judgment; that he is convinced the Holy Qur’an is the final divine revelation; that he performs the pilgrimage to Mecca; that he pays zakat; that he prays like Muslims; that he abides by the outward rules of Islamic society; and that he observes fasting. A person who fulfils all these conditions is entitled to the full rights of citizenship in an Islamic state. If he fails to fulfil even one of these conditions, then he will not be considered a political Muslim.
If a person merely professes faith in these ten matters, whether or not he acts upon them, then this is sufficient for him to be considered a Muslim. However, for one to be a true believer, it is necessary that he believes in and acts upon all the commands of Allah Almighty and His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, exactly in the manner in which those commands and directives have been imposed upon him.
Question: Would you say that only a true Muslim is a righteous man?
Answer: Yes.
Question: If we understand from your statement that, in your view, merely having the correct belief (aqidah) is sufficient to be considered a political Muslim, but to become a true Muslim, in addition to belief, action is also necessary—then have we, in your opinion, correctly understood your intended meaning?
Answer: No. You have not correctly understood my point. In the matter of a political Muslim as well, action is necessary. What I mean is that if a person does not act according to the beliefs that are essential for a political Muslim, then he will fall outside the sphere of political Muslims.
Question: If a political Muslim does not believe in the matters which you have declared to be essential, would you consider such a person irreligious?
Answer: No. I would merely call him non-practicing.
The Background of Separation from Jamaat-e-Islami
It is a fact that Maulana Islahi’s inclusion in Jamaat-e-Islami occurred as an incident. The details of this have already been described in these pages. We have also come to know that after the creation of Pakistan, when Maulana Maududi decided to actively engage in practical politics, Maulana Islahi did not like this decision. According to Maulana, he had not joined a political party. He had joined an organization whose purpose was the intellectual and scholarly purification of society and to give a complete invitation to Islam to both Muslims and non-Muslims. However, after the partition of India, following the decision of the Jamaat, he migrated to Pakistan.
Upon arriving here, despite strategic disagreements with Maulana Maududi and the Jamaat, he continued to work under the organization’s discipline with great enthusiasm. He responded strongly to the criticisms directed at the
Jamaat and Maulana Maududi. He endured the hardships of imprisonment and also adhered to the extremely unpleasant decision of participating in elections. But then what circumstances arose that compelled him to decide to part ways with the Jamaat? With regard to this matter, Maulana Islahi openly expressed his stance to his friends and students. This conversation became a part of the record when he, in a detailed interview with my brother Dr. Mansoor Al-Hamid, explained the complete details of this incident:
There has been a difference in taste and thought between Maulana Maududi and me from the very beginning, but it was not such a difference that I could not cooperate with him. My opinion carried considerable weight in the Consultative Council of the party. On this basis, rightly or wrongly, I felt that I could prevent the party’s overall policy from straying onto an erroneous path. Therefore, despite this difference in taste and thought, I wanted to maintain the relationship that had been established between myself and the party.
After the establishment of Pakistan, I felt that certain changes had taken place in Maulana Maududi, which could ultimately lead to misleading consequences. For example, I observed that he had succeeded in forming a faction, and now he wished to reap the benefits of that factionalism as soon as possible. Another matter was that some of his followers had convinced him that the people of this country now wished to replace the Muslim League leadership with his leadership, and that there was restlessness among the people in this regard. I felt that this notion had truly taken root in Maulana and that he had come to believe it. A third thing was that some of his overly devoted followers had made him believe that movements are not sustained merely on principles and ideologies, but require a strong personality, and that a personality does not come into being automatically—it must be built. Therefore, unless we undertake all the necessary measures to construct his personality, this mission cannot move forward. The fact is that this enchantment cast by his companions had also proven effective upon Maulana Maududi.
When these matters came to my knowledge, I attempted in various meetings with the Maulana to make it clear that it is merely a delusion that the people of this country wish to replace the leadership of the Muslim League. This is something far-fetched and currently has no possibility whatsoever. I also tried to explain that there is no doubt that movements are driven by individuals, but personalities are not created artificially; rather, they develop naturally through service. The service you are rendering is itself what will shape your personality, and if artificial means are adopted for this purpose, the result will be that all those features will be embraced which, in the modern era, are considered essential characteristics and accoutrements of leadership, and which you regard as forbidden.
Maulana Maududi would listen to my concerns with his usual attentiveness and would reassure me that I was not under any misunderstanding. However, in reality, exactly what I had been pointing out to him began to take place. Thus, all the trappings associated with political leaders were adopted; photographs began to be taken at every step. Wherever he went, information would be sent in advance so that a reception could be arranged, people would come to the station and chants of welcome would be raised. These developments strengthened my feeling that the vehicle had now set off on this very path.
Nevertheless, nothing happened that compelled me to break away from the Jamaat. I considered myself an effective presence in the Shura, and I believed that, God willing, I would not let the Jamaat, as a whole, go down a wrong path. Eventually, the phase of the first election in Punjab arrived.
At that time, my opinion and that of some like-minded friends was that participating in the elections at that moment would not be beneficial for the party. However, since Maulana Maududi’s mind was fully prepared
to contest the elections, we did not wish to oppose it too strongly. Consequently, Maulana Maududi entered the political field as the head of a political party, and those of his associates who had been waiting for such an opportunity became fully active in the election campaign.
But the result was that by participating in the elections, the party violated all the moral and religious principles that it had consistently proclaimed until then. As a political party, it failed to achieve any success. In fact, among all those who entered the field as candidates of the party, perhaps not a single one was able to recover their security deposit.
From a moral standpoint, the Jamaat committed such grave errors that a severe crisis emerged within the organization, raising questions like: Why did we rise? What were our claims? What have we been proclaiming until now? And how, in a single trial, did we lose everything? As a result of this crisis, when a sense of disillusionment arose, the Majlis-e-Shura, probably in early 1956, appointed a review committee comprising a few members. This committee was entrusted with the task of assessing all the circumstances and presenting a detailed report to the Shura. However, the leader of the Jamaat, Maulana Maududi, became extremely angry over the formation of this review committee. Among his various objections, he also objected that this committee had been assigned the role of a muhtasib (auditor) of the central organization, although it included certain members who were highly undesirable. Consequently, due to Maulana Maududi’s persistent demands, this committee was dissolved. Subsequently, the Majlis-e-Shura appointed another committee consisting of four senior members—Ghazi Abdul Jabbar, Sheikh Sultan Ahmad, Hakim Abdul Raheem Ashraf, and Maulana Abdul Ghaffar Hasan—which was given the same task.
The Review Committee conducted a tour across the entire country, recorded statements from members of the Jamaat at every location, and after several months of strenuous effort, compiled a report. When this report reached the Amir of the Jamaat, unfortunately, he perceived it as a charge sheet against himself. However, when the report was presented in the Shura, which was presided over by Maulana Maududi, the Shura unanimously appreciated the services of the members of the Review Committee, expressed gratitude to them, and passed a resolution consisting of four clauses. In this resolution, it was acknowledged that some mistakes had occurred, but those were not of the kind that could not be overcome; it emphasized the need for vigilance in the future.
A particularly important clause of this resolution was that, for the time being, attention should be diverted from the activities related to general elections, and greater focus should be placed on the reformation of society, because the reformation of society along Islamic principles would ultimately become the means for genuine political change in the country. After this resolution was unanimously passed, the session of the Majlis-e-Shura was concluded with prayers and salutations.
After the adoption of this resolution, in my view, the Majlis-e-Shura had overcome the crisis that had arisen due to participation in the elections. However, Maulana Maududi did not accept this resolution from the heart. Moreover, the grievance also remained in his heart that the report of the Review Committee was, in fact, a charge sheet against him. Thus, only a few days after the conclusion of the Shura’s session, he sent a notice to all four members of the Review Committee, stating: Since you gentlemen have committed an unintentional conspiracy, you should resign from the Shura; otherwise, I will write to the members of your constituencies requesting them to recall you.
For several years, I had been feeling that Maulana Maududi did not accord importance to consultation (shura), which is a fundamental characteristic of the Islamic system, in the affairs of the organization.
However, this particular incident completely shook my trust. Because this action of Maulana Maududi was not only contrary to the constitution of the organization, but also devoid of respect for the basic demands of justice and fairness.
Consequently, I tried to draw his attention to this clear injustice and the decision which, from the perspective of the interests of the organization, was disastrous. I made it clear to him that his decision was wrong from every angle. Therefore, those who have received your orders should be withdrawn, and those who have not yet received them should be stopped. Otherwise, this matter will result in a major catastrophe.
Maulana Maududi kept assuring me that it would be reconsidered, but practically, he remained firm on his stance. At that point, I wrote him a detailed letter in which I drew his attention to the fact that his action, in his capacity as the leader of the organization, was not only against the constitution, but also against justice and fairness.
This letter of mine is a historic letter which, at that time, even appeared in the press. Upon reading it, Umar Baha al-Amiri of Syria, who during that period served as Pakistan’s ambassador, remarked: “You have written this letter as a judge writes a ruling, but there is some harshness in it.” Maulana Maududi did not give me any response to this letter; rather, on the very next day, he resigned from the leadership of the party in a most strange and astonishing manner.
For some time, Maulana Maududi had adopted the practice in the sessions of the Shura that whenever he failed to convince others of his position through reasoning, he would immediately resort to the threat of resignation. (Quarterly Tadabbur, April 1998)
Maulana Islahi, while providing further details of this incident, states:
Before this, he had threatened to resign many times during the sessions of the Shura, and the purpose of this was to intimidate the Shura and to give the impression to other members that those who expressed disagreement were causing distress to the Amir of the Jamaat. Thus, when he resigned this time, the Shura of the Jamaat unanimously decided that the resignation should be kept highly confidential, but the central staff had it published in the newspapers with great fanfare, and at various places gave ordinary members the impression that in fact it was my insolence which had caused this incident in the Jamaat. Simultaneously, in most circles of the Jamaat, a vile campaign of slander was initiated against the members of the review committee and others who sympathized with them.
An emergency session of the Majlis-e-Shura was convened to deliberate upon this resignation, in which a few members whose memberships had been suspended during that period also participated. This Shura expressed unconditional confidence in the Amir of the Jamaat and, in an attempt to please the Amir, interfered in policy matters—something that was beyond its jurisdiction. I did not participate in this Shura because I considered the Shura’s unconditional expression of confidence in the Amir of the Jamaat as an endorsement of all those decisions that he had made against the members of the Review Committee. Therefore, during this time, I resigned from the Jamaat.
After my resignation, Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad Sahib, who had been appointed as the acting Amir at that time, met me along with Maulana Baqar Khan Sahib and assured me that the expression of confidence by the Shura in no way, whatsoever, signified an endorsement of the Amir’s actions taken against the members of the Review Committee. They also stated that the resolution of the December Shura remained valid and in effect. Furthermore, they assured me that the Amir of the Jamaat would not only withdraw the
notices sent to the members of the Review Committee but would also apologize to them. Based on these assurances from these gentlemen, I withdrew my resignation. But it is regrettable that these gentlemen did not prove truthful in fulfilling any of these promises.
After this resolution of the Shura, Maulana Maududi retracted his resignation—which had stated that it would not be withdrawn under any circumstances—within just three days. However, he remained firm on his decision regarding the members of the review committee. As a result, those four members of the Shura were removed, and along with them, several other individuals, disheartened, also resigned from the Jamaat. That Shura came to an end, which, from Maulana Maududi’s point of view, had the capacity to disagree with him. Only those remained who believed that while the religion was brought by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), in this era, it was Maulana Maududi alone who had understood it.
Although it was futile to expect any disagreement from such a flattering and subservient type of shura, even then, in order to pre-empt any potential insubordination, Maulana Maududi altered the system of Islamic consultative governance within the Jamaat and imposed an authoritarian and dictatorial system. Accordingly, at the Machhi Goth gathering of members, he had amendments introduced into the constitution through various means, whereby the Shura was transformed from an executive body into a consultative council. A few months later, a session of this new Shura was held in Kot Sher Singh, where Maulana Maududi demanded for himself those powers which are granted to a commander of an army during wartime. Alongside this, he also issued a threat that if he were not given these powers, he would resign from the leadership of the Jamaat. I had criticized his stance, but the Shura succumbed to the pressure of his resignation threat.
I walked out from that session of the Shura, and later, all those amendments were made to the constitution, as a result of which the democratic and consultative system of the Jamaat was transformed into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. According to the amended constitution, an executive body (amilah) consisting of a few members was formed, which was seemingly granted broad powers. However, in practice, all these powers were concentrated in the person of the Amir of the Jamaat, because under this constitution, the Amir was no longer bound by the majority opinion of the executive body and could dismiss the entire executive or some of its members at will.
When the situation reached this point, it became absolutely clear to me that the constitution, system, and policy of the party had all changed. This party was established for the establishment of the religion (Iqamat- e-Deen), but its leaders had led it astray. Their utmost desire was merely to gain control over a few seats in the assembly. The slogans of bearing witness to the truth (Shahadat-e-Haqq) and establishing the religion had become hollow. I made every possible effort to bring reform from within, but I was not successful.
It was also not possible for me to silently tolerate the actions taken by the leader of the party against the members of the review committee. If I had remained silent in the face of this oppression and injustice, my conscience would have died, and my soul would have felt ashamed before God. During this time, some people made attempts at reconciliation, but when they too lost hope, I resigned. And in the end, I also wrote that this resignation is not to be withdrawn.
Maulana Maududi came to me and said that he wished I would take back my resignation. I said: “Maulana, I have already stated that this resignation is not for withdrawal. I believe that I have come to know you well, and you have come to know me well. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to unite again. Hādhā firāqu bayni wa baynika” (There is now separation between you and me). Maulana Maududi stood
up and left, and thus my disassociation from the party was finalized. (Quarterly Tadabbur, April 1998, pp. 48-53)
Here we mention the changes that were approved in the meeting at Kot Sher Singh. This will clearly show to what extent Maulana’s statement is based on reality, that: “Maulana Maududi demanded for himself the kind of powers that are granted to a military commander during a state of war.”
Significant Amendments in the Constitution of Jamaat-e-Islami
1. The ultimate responsibility for the organization of the Jamaat and running of the Islamic movement shall rest with the Amir of the Jamaat, and he shall be accountable before the Shura Council and the members of the Jamaat.
2. The formulation of the party’s policy and the decisions on important matters shall be made by the Amir of the party in consultation with the Majlis-e-Shura, (whereas, in practice, the Majlis-e-Shura had become entirely the “disciple” of the Amir).
3. Among the members of the Shura Council, the Amir of the organization shall have the authority to appoint his Executive Council (Majlis-e-Amila) himself, and the Executive Council shall possess those powers which shall be assigned to it in the future constitution of the organization.
4. In important matters, if it becomes necessary to take immediate action and it is not feasible to convene a meeting of the Executive Council or the Consultative Council, then the Amir of the organization may, with the advice of those members of the Executive or Consultative Council whom he is able to consult, take such action.
5. The Amir of the Jamaat shall be authorized to appoint deputy leaders for his assistance, and they shall be empowered to perform the delegated duties and exercise the assigned authorities.
6. The number of members of the Majlis-e-Shura shall be at least fifty. Before each election, this number shall be distributed among the various organizational circles in proportion to the number of members in those circles; however, no circle shall be deprived of at least one seat.
7. Members of the Jamaat may attend the sessions of the Central Consultative Council as listeners; however, for a specific session, the Amir of the Jamaat may revoke this permission in the interest of the Jamaat.
8. If a vote of no confidence against the Amir of the Jamaat is passed by a two-thirds majority of the total elected members of the Majlis-e-Shura, the Amir of the Jamaat shall be deposed.
9. The Consultative Assembly shall have the authority to interpret the constitution and to amend the constitution.
Those members of the Jamaat who remain committed to the pledge of adherence to the constitution of the Jamaat, but whose perspective on the practical methods for achieving the objective differs from the collective decisions of the Jamaat, must observe the following limits within the Jamaat:
1. They shall have full right to express differences of opinion in the gatherings of the organization, but they shall not have the right to use the press or public platforms for this purpose. Nor shall they have the right to engage individually in secret discussions with the members of the organization.
2. Decisions made within the group by majority opinion shall be accepted by them as collective decisions of the group, and they shall be bound by them. However, they shall have the right, within the prescribed limits, to attempt to have these decisions changed in the relevant gatherings.
3. If any member of the group expresses disagreement with the policy determined by the group, he shall not remain in any such position within the group whose duty is to implement the group’s policy.
The All Pakistan Members’ Convention of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan hereby declares that:
1. On the basis of Constitutional Resolutions No. 1 and No. 2 (mentioned above), the next elected Majlis-e-Shura will be required to recompile the constitution of the Jama’at afresh.
2. The amendments that had been presented for consideration to the Constitution Amendment Committee, which was elected in the 1955 Assembly of Members, should be entrusted to the new Majlis-e-Shura.
3. The election of the upcoming Majlis-e-Shura should be conducted before 31st March 1957.
4. The current Consultative Assembly shall remain in place until the election of the new Consultative Assembly.
In accordance with the aforementioned decisions of the All Pakistan Gathering of Members, the election of the Majlis-e-Shura was completed before 31st March 1957. The first meeting of this Majlis was held at the residence of Mr. Sardar Muhammad Khan in Kot Sher Singh, District Lahore, from 19th to 26th May 1957. Out of fifty members of the Council, forty-five participated in this meeting, and the entire constitution was unanimously approved with the exception of Clause 6 of Article 34. Only on the mentioned clause was a vote required. Four members voted against it, two members remained neutral and did not participate in the voting. This constitution was approved on 25th Shawwal 1376 AH, corresponding to 26th May 1957, and it came into effect on 2nd Dhu al-Qa’dah 1376 AH, corresponding to Saturday, 1st June 1957.
(Reference: Evolutionary Stages of the Constitution of Jamaat-e-Islami: Appendix 5)
[To Be Continued…………..]