fter this, Dr. Mansoor Al-Hameed inquired: “You had previously held disagreements with Maulana Maududi on various issues, yet you remained within the Jamaat. But this time, you immediately resigned— what was the reason for that?”
AAt this point, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi unveiled the specific incident—the “immediate cause”—that had deeply angered him:
Maulana Maududi wrote a letter to Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad and in it, he wrote about me, stating: ‘No one has been indulged and appeased by me as much as Maulana Islahi. Yet for some time now, his attitude has been such that he continuously makes hurtful remarks about my close associates. There was no need to send this letter to me, yet Maulana Maududi sent me a copy of it. Upon reading it, I felt I had delayed too long in resigning. I immediately wrote my resignation, and in reply to that letter, I wrote: ‘If you have indulged someone who was not deserving of it, then blame yourself. And if he was deserving, then you did no favor. Therefore, do not remind me of this indulgence and expect me, in return, to sell my conscience.’ (Tadabbur Quarterly, April 1998, p. 53)
In the above excerpts, Maulana Islahi merely alludes to several significant facts. However, the gravity of those circumstances warrants a clearer explanation. For instance, he mentioned that members of the Review Committee—individuals regarded among the most senior figures in the Jamaat and selected with the approval of Maulana Maududi himself—were subjected to character assassination. But this single term does not fully convey the severity of the atmosphere that prevailed within the Jamaat at that time.
To illustrate the bitter treatment endured by the Review Committee, Maulana Islahi described the situation in his letter as follows:
The approach you adopted regarding the Review Committee’s report was presented to the Shura members from the outset as though it portrayed a completely one-sided picture of the Jamaat. It was claimed that the committee had overstepped its mandate, that it had compiled all the filth and shortcomings spread throughout the Jamaat, and thus the report appeared as nothing more than a basket of filth, and so on. (Maqalat-e-Islahi, vol. 1, p. 63)
As for the emotional and psychological toll this harsh and unjust response had on the senior members of the Jamaat, Maulana Islahi wrote:
During his speech, I saw Sultan (Hakim Sultan Ahmad Islahi) weep uncontrollably for the first time over the state of the Jamaat—and his tears moved many others to tears. Ghazi wept so profusely that, in that very state, he suffered a heart attack. His convulsions were so intense that we began to fear for his life. A doctor had to be summoned at midnight. Never before in the history of the Shura had such a scene been witnessed. It was the view of myself and, I believe, of most Shura members, that this emotional breakdown was directly caused by the atmosphere generated by the Review Committee’s report. However, from your remarks, it seems you believed that all of this was merely a staged drama meant to silence you. Now, who will decide whether this was a drama or reality? (Maqalat-e-Islahi, vol. 1, pp. 63–64)
Those familiar with Maulana Islahi’s temperament understood that his reaction at the time was an expression of momentary anger. The deeper reason, however, lay in his firm belief that the new constitution of the Jamaat had concentrated such powers in the hands of the Ameer that it amounted to outright autocracy. Maulana Islahi’s conception of Shura (consultative governance) differed significantly from that of Maulana Maududi. He had expressed this divergence on multiple occasions in conversations with close companions.
On one such occasion, his most senior student, Mr. Khalid Masud (author of Hayat-e-Rasool-e-Ummi), reported Maulana Islahi’s sentiments in the following words:
To establish his own autocracy, he [Maulana Maududi] altered the constitution and organizational system of the Jamaat. Through unethical and unconstitutional measures against the Review Committee, he plunged the Jamaat into crisis. And when objections were raised, not only did he engage in character assassination of the dissenters, he introduced a new principle—that there is a difference between theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. According to him, an Islamic leader must decide what strategy to adopt for implementing Islam, and in doing so, he may even sacrifice certain principles.
After passing through these experiences, I was left questioning the very purpose of my continued involvement in the Jamaat. I do not equate the slogan of ‘revolution in leadership’ with Islam, nor do I consider the race for votes to be the true means of societal reform. The current constitution of the Jamaat, in my view, is neither consultative nor democratic. The only meaningful bond that remained was the presence of many sincere, God- fearing Muslims within the Jamaat—something I continue to hold in high esteem. I love all these brothers and pray for them, but remaining formally bound to the Jamaat is not a prerequisite for such love and prayer. I can continue this service even from outside. (Tadabbur Quarterly, October 1997, pp. 11–12)
Maulana Islahi himself expressed these concerns even more forcefully in a letter addressed directly to Maulana Maududi:
I reread your aforementioned note (regarding the resignation of the Review Committee), which, in both tone and content, might more aptly be described as a decree. I gave it careful and repeated consideration from all angles. Even after such reflection, my opinion remains the same as I had conveyed to you verbally.
In my view, your entire note is fundamentally flawed in reasoning, extremely harmful to the interests of the Jamaat, devoid of even the most basic demands of justice and fairness, and—when examined from a constitutional and legal perspective—so problematic that it seems we who set out with the resolve to establish a model of Islamic democracy and consultative governance have now, before even catching a first glimpse of that vision, grown weary and have become enamored with experimenting in a kind of fascism the likes of which cannot be found in recent or distant memory.
When I reflect upon this aspect of your note, I am compelled to wonder whether our previous writings in praise of Islamic democracy and Shura were merely literary exercises—or perhaps rhetorical devices aimed at criticizing the ruling elite of our country. Otherwise, before taking this step, you ought to have reflected on what would become of the Shura and the Constitution upon which we built the very foundation of the Jamaat. (Tadabbur, Quarterly, October 1997, p. 54)
We have examined this topic only briefly, and the reason for this brevity is undoubtedly the fact that it evokes some of the most painful memories of our history. Those friends who wish to explore the matter in greater detail may consult the relevant letter of the Maulana and other writings included in the first volume of his collected essays.
After the resignation of the Maulana Islahi, it was entirely natural for Maulana Maududi to feel deeply grieved. He wrote a detailed letter to the Maulana, in which he stated:
You are free to consider my opinion mistaken, if you so desire. You are at full liberty to offer arguments against it, even to the extent of interpreting it in the most negative and reprehensible terms. However, you cannot accuse me of having harbored, for years, a malicious ‘cat’ hidden in the sack of a guilty conscience, and of having finally released it at Kot Sher Singh when the opportunity presented itself. I regard this opinion as the truth, have always expressed it openly, and since the formation of the Jamaat I have practically acted upon it. You have every right to attempt to prove it wrong. There is no need to leave the Jamaat on account of this disagreement. While remaining within the Jamaat, you are fully free to persuade the Majlis-e-Shura to adopt an alternative opinion. (Monthly Ishraq, January 1998, p. 22)
In response, Islahi wrote:
You have attempted, unjustly, to revise the birth history of your ‘cat’. I am not unaware that this cat has been present in your sack since the very beginning. But you will recall that before the partition, in the Shura meeting held at Allahabad, I made an attempt to strangle it. If this has slipped your memory, you may refer to the minutes of that Shura session. At the time, it could not be killed, but I, along with other discerning members of the Jamaat, continued to deliberate upon it. The issue of its life and death surfaced repeatedly in the Shura until, after the partition, the constitution we formulated rendered a final verdict of its demise.
Let it be clear that this decision to eliminate the ‘cat’ was made in consideration of the requirements of Islamic law, the demands of the times, and the principles of Islamic democracy. The decision was supported by legal rulings from scholars and the opinions of knowledgeable individuals. Admittedly, you intermittently attempted to revive it through your actions, but our constitution never recognized its existence. Whenever you opposed the constitution in this regard, your actions typically reflected a lack of insight, which led the discerning members of the Jamaat to a unanimous conclusion that this ‘cat’ was better off dead.
But you found its death extremely hard to bear. You remained persistently restless in your desire to revive it. It was out of this very infatuation that you tendered your resignation. In Machhi Goth, you summoned confidants into seclusion to conspire for its revival. Then, at Kot Sher Singh, you cast a final mystical spell upon it — and the cat did indeed come back to life.
Now, you are inviting me to return to the Shura and once again attempt to kill it from within. I must respectfully decline. I spent years putting this ‘cat’ to death; you have now revived it, and your executive council has assumed responsibility for feeding and nurturing it. To return to the task of killing it again would mean dedicating the entirety of my remaining life to this perpetual ‘cat-slaying’. And pray, what noble occupation is this supposed to be?” (Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Maqamat, p. 120)
We have previously stated that Maulana Islahi faced numerous questions regarding his decision to separate from the Jamaat. In this context, many journalists and well-wishers conducted interviews with him. Among these, the most comprehensive and insightful interview was conducted by Dr. Mansoor al-Hameed. He raised all possible questions in detail. We reproduce here some of the key questions from that interview, which offer a thorough understanding of the events leading up to this unfortunate incident:
Question: Did Maulana Maududi not have the constitutional authority to demand the resignation of the members of the Review Committee?
Answer: Maulana Maududi did not make the demand for resignation under the provisions of the constitution. Rather, it was an authoritarian directive. The justification he provided was that, being the Ameer (leader) of the Jamaat, he bore a great responsibility to protect the Jamaat from falling prey to any conspiracy. And since these four individuals had—albeit unknowingly—become involved in such a conspiracy, he ordered them to resign. However, such an order could not be given under the constitution. I protested precisely on this ground—that the order was not only unconstitutional, but also contrary to the principles of justice and fairness.
Some of his simple-minded followers began to argue that if the Ameer of the Jamaat asks someone to resign, then resignation is obligatory. I responded by saying: if someone is accused of conspiracy and then asked to resign, it becomes a matter of criminal indictment. First, the crime must be proven; only then can such an order be justified. In truth, just as in autocratic regimes there often exists a constitution alongside a higher, unwritten law that validates every action of the ruler, this order too was issued under that “higher law”—a construct that every dictator has devised to serve his own interests, not under the written constitution.
Question: What policy was decided at the Machhi Goth general assembly of members?
Answer: In fact, Maulana Maududi had retracted his resignation on the condition that he would place the matter before the general assembly of members. Due to his resignation, the members were under intense pressure and the majority had become mentally paralyzed. In this scenario, Maulana Maududi wished to present a resolution regarding the Jamaat’s policy for a vote of approval.
When this resolution was first brought before the Shura (Consultative Council) prior to the general meeting, I strongly criticized it, leading to a deadlock in the Shura. After approximately 24 hours, Maulana Baqar Khan came to me with the resolution and conveyed that the Ameer had said: “If you wish to make any verbal amendments to the resolution, you may do so.”
Although such minor amendments could not truly address my concerns, still, out of a desire to prevent further division within the Jamaat, I made some slight changes to the language of the resolution to bring it closer to the original objectives of the Jamaat. Thereafter, it was passed by majority vote.
The resolution consisted of four parts, and it was decided that a balance would be maintained among all four areas of the Jamaat’s activities. The core philosophy of the resolution was that moral reform of society is the essential means to bring about genuine political change in the country.
However, Maulana Maududi did not remain loyal to this resolution. His approach continued to center all Jamaat activities around electoral politics.
Question: Were those individuals who disagreed with Maulana Maududi opposed to the Jamaat’s engagement in political activities?
Answer: The individuals who disagreed with Maulana Maududi were not opposed to the Jamaat’s participation in political activities per se. They did not hold the view that the Jamaat should never engage in politics. Rather, their desire — which was also in accordance with what had been decided by the Shura — was that political activities should be suspended temporarily. In fact, the circumstances at the time left little room for such engagement. The Jamaat lacked the necessary strength to effectively function as a political party in the public arena. Our perspective was that, for the time being, political activities should be scaled down, and efforts should be focused on education, training, and organizational development, so that the Jamaat might build sufficient
strength to later influence national politics in an effective manner. Then, if feasible, it could participate in politics directly. There was never any fundamental objection to the Jamaat’s involvement in politics. It was only later — in an attempt to frame certain individuals as culpable — that it was alleged they wanted to transform the Jamaat into a purely religious preaching movement (Tablighi Jamaat).
Question: What was the declared objective (nizam al-amal) of the Jamaat when you first joined it?
Answer: At that time — and this is a matter of fact — we had risen to establish the religion (Iqamat-e-Din) following the prophetic model. In our writings, speeches, statements, and actions, it was made abundantly clear that our method and mission were aligned with that of the prophets: the establishment of the religion in accordance with their way.
However, after the partition of the country, certain changes began to emerge in Maulana Maududi. It became evident to me that, having successfully formed a political bloc, he now sought to capitalize on it. The steps taken against the members of the Review Committee, and subsequently the events at the Machhi Goth General Assembly, made everything clear: that the movement was now being reoriented to function explicitly as a political party. The vision of establishing religion upon the prophetic model had effectively been dismantled.
Question: Did the realization of this deviation from the original objective come about after the Review Committee’s report?
Answer: After the release of the Review Committee’s report, the elements that indicated deviation from the original objective became even more apparent. The primary reason for this was the conduct observed during the elections, which revealed that the pledges we had made were in fact no more than hollow words. All the tactics and strategies that we ourselves had once deemed impermissible were employed during the elections. As a result, for the first time, the Jamaat was confronted with the stark realization of the contrast between its professed ideals and its actual conduct.
Question: What efforts did you make to reform those trends within the Jamaat that ultimately led it away from its original objective?
Answer: In truth, I was perhaps the most active and effective person in attempting to prevent the Jamaat from deviating from its original objective. Whenever I sensed a development that could foster an incorrect trend either within the leadership or among the general membership of the Jamaat, I immediately raised my concerns.
Even before the creation of Pakistan, when the Jamaat’s religious mission began to be recast as a worldly political movement—and expressions like “Islam is a movement” and “the Prophet (PBUH) was a leader of this movement” started appearing without hesitation—I objected. I cautioned Maulana Maududi that such terminology would not only mislead the minds of common people but would also diminish the dignity of religion rather than enhancing it. There are, after all, numerous movements in the world—some even satanic in nature—but there is only one Deen (true religion). Similarly, countless individuals may be termed leaders, but the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the Seal of the Prophets. Therefore, such expressions could cause confusion in the public mind regarding the true nature of Islam’s message.
Maulana Maududi would often claim that there was no significant difference between his viewpoint and mine, yet he and his like-minded companions continued to use such language. Because these terms were repeatedly employed, they created a real danger that people might start viewing the call of Islam as akin to
an ordinary worldly movement and might begin to strategize accordingly. Hence, in my speeches and writings, I consistently emphasized that our fundamental duty is the establishment of Deen (Iqamat-e-Deen) and bearing witness to the truth (Shahadat-e-Haqq), and that we must remain indifferent to the worldly outcomes of our efforts.
In fact, these controversial terminologies gained greater prominence only after I began drawing attention to them. It was precisely in this context that I authored my book “Dawat-e-Deen aur Us ka Tareeq-e-Kaar” (The Call to Religion and Its Methodology). In it, I clarified the Quranic concepts of Shahadat-e-Haqq and Iqamat-e-Deen, and demonstrated how the Quran charts a course for this mission that is distinct from ordinary political movements.
Similarly, when I observed that the notion had taken root that “movements are not driven by principles but by personalities,” and that until a strong personality was built, the movement could not advance—I once again spoke to Maulana Maududi. I told him that, to begin with, I do not agree with the very idea of Islam being reduced to a “movement.” However, even if this idea were granted, personalities emerge organically through their actions, not through artificial construction. If personalities are artificially created, then the movement must adopt all the trappings of worldly leadership—practices that Maulana himself had declared unlawful. Such tendencies are deeply contrary to the ethos of a religious mission, and I stated unequivocally that this direction was wrong.
Regrettably, Maulana Maududi did not accept this counsel and instead embraced the idea of becoming a leader. Consequently, all the external attributes of leadership—many of which he had earlier condemned— were adopted. For instance, take the matter of photography, which Maulana had declared haram (prohibited). Personally, I did not consider it impermissible, but he had issued a fatwa that having one’s photograph taken was forbidden. Yet, in pursuit of leadership, he had no hesitation in having himself photographed repeatedly.
Similarly, if an objectionable article was published in any of the Jamaat’s periodicals and I was made aware of it, I would summon the author and issue a warning. If I received reports from outside that a certain member had delivered a problematic speech or expressed concerning views, I would question them as well.
These were the kinds of corrective efforts I could make within my capacity. In fact, my continual critique and efforts toward reform eventually became so uncomfortable for some of Maulana Maududi’s admirers that they began to suggest that I was driven by jealousy or rivalry. However, the reality is that I have never desired even the smallest position of authority in my life. Nevertheless, whenever I was entrusted with a responsibility, I always sought to fulfill it with a deep sense of duty and accountability.
Question: Were such matters also discussed in the Shura (consultative council)?
Answer: Yes, these issues were indeed discussed in the Shura, but criticism within the Shura on such matters was not particularly effective. The reason was that whenever the writings or speeches of certain individuals were brought up, they would promise to exercise caution. However, once the Shura meetings concluded, the same actions would resume.
Question: Some people object to those who left the Jamaat (Jamaat-e-Islami) by asking why they did not form a new organization.
Answer: This is a rather foolish notion—that those who left the Jamaat were somehow obliged to form another group. Simply creating a new organization and thereby igniting a new source of discord is not a
means to attain success in this world or the hereafter. The truth is that the experience of Jamaat-e-Islami served as a great lesson for many, highlighting just how difficult it is to run a movement with a truly righteous objective. This endeavor had begun with grand aspirations, lofty claims, and noble intentions, and many capable individuals had joined it. But the way in which matters deteriorated is now apparent to all.
After this experience, people realized that a serious mistake had been made. Therefore, they redirected their efforts toward more beneficial pursuits—initiatives from which the entire Ummah has reaped benefit. I personally feel that the service I rendered to the faith and to the Ummah after parting ways with the Jamaat could never have been accomplished had I remained within it. As for others, my opinion is that they too engaged in many religious, educational, and intellectual endeavors that have benefited the wider Muslim community.
As for those who were eager to form organizations, their condition is also evident. These individuals form groups in the name of noble causes, but soon succumb to the temptation of reaping the benefits of the faction they have gathered around themselves. We, however, had no such objective in mind, which is why we chose not to take on that risk. To the extent of our capabilities, we have served the entire Muslim Ummah. The Ummah as a whole is our Jamaat, and we consider ourselves its servants.
Question: Some people believe that being part of an Islamic collective (ijtimaiyyat) is among the religious obligations. What is your opinion on this?
Answer: This notion is entirely incorrect. The entire Muslim Ummah is our Jamaat, and serving it is among our religious duties and obligations. Every religious group formed within this Ummah has, in fact, severed a limb from the body of the Muslim community and established a private shop—what they call their “Jamaat.” They then continue to run that shop with utter disregard for the broader Ummah.
After joining Jamaat-e-Islami, I realized that forming a group and trying to serve the Ummah through it is an extremely difficult task—one that not everyone is equipped to handle. People form organizations, but instead of serving the Ummah, they end up serving only their own faction. That is why such organizations, rather than benefiting the community, often become a source of discord.
Therefore, my opinion is that this path is not beneficial but rather dangerous and destructive. It is better to remain free from the rigid discipline of any one group and not to be used merely as a tool for its specific interests. Instead, one should serve the entire Ummah with a broad vision. One should engage in religious, educational, or political work in accordance with one’s abilities. This alone constitutes our religious obligation, and nothing more than this is binding upon us. (Tadabbur Quarterly, April 1998, pp. 55–58)
Despite all this, the truth remains that parting from Jamaat-e-Islami was a profoundly distressing experience for Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi. A testimony to this comes from Abdur Rasheed Iraqi, a noted journalist associated with Jamaat-e-Islami, who writes:
Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi was a man of few words, but he was active, serious, and deeply perceptive. The furrows on his forehead were constantly searching for meaningful insights. He remained affiliated with Jamaat-e-Islami for seventeen years and stood steadfast for its dignity and honor in every delicate moment. Such was the soundness of his judgment that Maulana Maududi (RA) and the members of Jamaat-e-Islami deeply valued his counsel. He combined seriousness with fearless candor—this was his distinctive trait.
Professor Hakim Inayatullah Naseem Sohdri (RA), who was associated with Jamaat-e-Islami for many years and left it after the Machhi Goth meeting, told me on several occasions: When Maulana Maududi
submitted his resignation from the leadership, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi became immediately enraged and said to Maulana Maududi: ‘We will not let you escape. This is no bed of roses—it is a garland of thorns. We will grab you by the collar. If you were not capable of walking this path, why did you establish this Jamaat in the first place?'” (Tadabbur Quarterly, April 1998, p. 89)
[To be continued….]