There is no doubt that the expulsion of more than fifty-six (56) individuals—including the Deputy Amir— from Jamaat-e-Islami was a major shock for the organization. These were not ordinary members; they were counted among opinion-shaping scholars and leaders. The Jamaat did feel the blow, but its overall posture was regrettable: it scarcely ever examined the episode with the seriousness it deserved. The Jamaat’s official stance on this crisis—gleaned from Tarjuman al-Quran and other house journals—may be summarized as follows:
• This was not a principled disagreement; it was an expression of anger over the expulsion of members of the Review Committee, which then took an unpleasant turn and led to the incident.
• In 1956–57, distressed by the situation arising from the Review Committee established by the Majlis-e Shura and its proceedings, Maulana Maududi resigned from the office of Amir and said that henceforth he would work only as an ordinary member. To resolve matters, a national general convention of members was held at Machhi Goth. There, too, Maulana Maududi insisted on his position. At that point, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi delivered such an effective and forceful address—jolting Maulana Maududi as he said: “You gathered us around yourself; now where do you think you’re running off to? We will by no means leave you, nor let you flee. You must take up this responsibility.”—that the atmosphere of the gathering changed. Of the 935 members present, only 15 remained dissatisfied with Maulana Maududi and separated from the Jamaat; the remaining 920 members, together with Maulana Islahi, compelled him to withdraw his resignation, and thus the crisis ended. (This is the position of Miyan Tufayl Muhammad in response to an article by Janab Khalid Masʿud.)
• The impression is entirely false that Jamaat-e Islami had become dominated by the Amir rather than the Shura, or that it had come under an authoritarian leadership rather than democratic principles.
• Those who left were by no means of the view that the Jamaat should not take part in practical politics; rather, they thought that for the time being the Jamaat should withdraw from politics and devote itself to intellectual purification and the moral formation of society.
The statement of Miyan Tufayl Muhammad—cited above in reply to Khalid Masʿud—must, however, be viewed critically for the following reasons:
• The number of those who left at that moment was indeed fifteen; but subsequently, owing to policy and doctrinal disagreements, the total gradually reached fifty-six or fifty-seven. Maulana Islahi himself was among the last to part ways. Despite his disagreements, he had no objection in principle to continuing with the Jamaat; he separated only when, in his judgment, the malady had grown so grave that no remedy remained. It appears Miyan Sahib, perhaps to simplify the matter, cited the smaller figure tied to that specific occasion. Our analysis is that the senior leaders of the Jamaat, out of love and reverence for Maulana Maududi, did not adequately apprehend the serious ills to which Maulana Islahi had drawn attention.
Mushahadat-e-Haram (Observations in the Sacred Precinct)
Maulana Islahi stepped down from Jamaat responsibilities in January 1958, deeply pained. He expressed what he was passing through in these words:
For some time I had been so disheartened by my surroundings that my heart repeatedly wished to leave this environment for a few days at least. The best place I could choose for this purpose was the House of God. God, in His grace, arranged it, and a long-standing wish I scarcely expected to be fulfilled was indeed fulfilled by Him. (Mushahadat-e-Haram, 2)
Thus, Maulana set out for hajj. He wished to be accompanied by, besides his wife, Shaykh Sultan Ahmad (Karachi), Maulana Masud Usmani (Karachi), and Hakim Maulana Abd al-Rahim Ashraf (Faisalabad). Shaykh Sultan Ahmad excused himself due to constraints. The Maulana then did not broach the matter with Maulana Usmani, knowing he had already expressed a preference to perform hajj with Hakim Sultan. Hakim Abd al-Rahim Ashraf, however, happily agreed despite adverse circumstances. In place of the two who could not go, Maulvi Barkat Ali and Malik Aslam joined the party.
Shaykh Sultan Ahmad was a capable physician based in Karachi. Dr. Masud Uthmani, after separating from Jamaat-e-Islami, had formed a group called “Jamaat al-Muslimun.” Hakim Maulana Abd al-Rahim Ashraf— editor of the monthly al-Minbar—was a distinguished scholar and physician. He established the renowned clinic “Ashraf Dawa-khanah” in Faisalabad; later his sons founded “Ashraf Laboratories” for Unani medicines, which still flourishes. All three gentlemen shared with Maulana Islahi the experience of leaving the Jamaat at the same time and agreeing with the Review Committee’s recommendations.
After the companions were set, applications were filed; but in the draw the names of the two Lahore gentlemen did not come up. Thus, on 10 June 1958, the Maulana departed for hajj by sea, accompanied by his wife and Hakim Abd al-Rahim Ashraf. He describes the beginning of the journey:
Having passed that stage, we reached the gangway of the ship Sardhana. From the outside it appeared splendid and spotless. The thought that no governmental formalities now remained between me and boarding this vessel for the most beloved and sought-after journey filled my heart with a joy I cannot express. I was all gratitude to my gracious, all-providing Lord. While we were still below, our brother Sultan Ahmad—separated from us in the customs mêlée—arrived. As I put my foot on the steps, my wife reminded me to place the right foot first. I acted on this advice, and with prayers for safety and wellbeing, purity of intention and success in action, I set my foot on the steps. I thought: Allahu Akbar! What dignity this journey confers, that because of it even a ship of an English company becomes so sanctified that we take care to board it with the right foot first.
On deck we first went to our cabin and checked our baggage—God be praised, everything had arrived safely. Brother Sultan Ahmad arranged the luggage neatly and acquainted us with all the features and rules of the cabin (residential regulations on board). We had boarded at the last moment; shortly thereafter the whistle for departure sounded. Brother Sultan Ahmad had to disembark. He first requested prayers for some noble aims, then embraced me; so overcome was he with affection that I too was carried away by the flood of love. I bid him and Shahidah (may she be kept safe) farewell with the Prophetic supplication and turned to attuning myself to the new environment of the ship. (Mushahadat-e-Haram, 30–31)
At journey’s end, upon reaching Lahore, he wrote:
“We spent thirty-six hours in Karachi, met friends, and set off for Lahore. I scarcely slept a minute on the train that night—not from worry, but from the sheer joy that, God willing, in the morning we would see the children and kiss our mother’s feet. When the train reached Lahore Cantonment, I caught sight of Numan Miyan (may he be preserved). He had boarded from Multan, thinking of us, but refrained from seeking us out lest we be asleep. Seeing him filled me with delight. Within minutes the train entered Lahore Station. We recited the supplication upon returning from travel, saw the children and embraced them, and exchanged greetings with the devoted friends who had come to the platform. Everyone knows the joy one feels on returning from such a journey; to me, this joy alone compensates for the hardships of travel. (Mushahadat- e-Haram, 172)
The Maulana returned to Lahore on 4 August. From the outset he had intended to write a travelogue of the hajj; upon return he fulfilled this resolve. In many respects it is a unique work of his: a purely literary composition, with all the hallmarks of fine travel writing. He himself wrote:
My travelogue is based solely on observations, experiences, and impressions. I have not included the supplications of hajj or its rulings. When it is time to publish it as a book, it is my request to Hakim ʿAbd al- Rahim Ashraf that he include, as an appendix, a translation or summary of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Risalah fi Manasik al-Hajj, so that it may benefit those who wish to carry it with them on the journey. (Monthly Mithaq, June 1960, p. 31)
He serialized it in Mithaq (Lahore) and al-Minbar (Lyallpur). Though complete, it did not then appear as a book. He became absorbed in other scholarly work—especially Tadabbur-e-Quran—and likely did not turn to preparing other writings for publication; and Hakim ʿAbd al-Rahim Ashraf, who intended to publish his works alongside al-Minbar, never launched the project. The travelogue thus lay buried in the files of al-Minbar and Mithaq until our brother Muhammad Ahsan Tahami’s press, Dar al-Tadhkir, published it in 2000.
A Series of Scholarly Articles
Even after parting from the Jamaat, Maulana Islahi might never have expressed himself on these matters—but an incident took a turn that sparked major scholarly exchanges between the two elders, and a series of articles ensued.
Maulana Maududi published an essay, “The Place of Strategy (hikmat-ʿamali) in Religion,” in Tarjuman al- Quran. He argued that a leader of an Islamic movement operates in the real world, not an imagined one; therefore it is not possible for him to execute every task at the highest standard of the Shariah. He must keep in view, alongside religion, the demands of strategy and practical politics. The Shariah, he said, allows him—on grounds of temporal interests—to render something ordinarily haram temporarily halal. He illustrated the point with nine examples, adding that he and the Jamaat had acted in this vein out of the sole intention to establish God’s religion in the country.
To Maulana Islahi this view was plainly erroneous. He met Maulana Maududi and drew his attention to the misguided nature of this philosophy and its consequences: it would unleash corruption and distort the very visage of the religion. He recounts:
I met him specifically to draw his attention to this misleading philosophy and its misleading results, and I said: What difference remains between your philosophy and that of those we have long opposed? Despite his well-known forbearance, Maulana took offense at my respectful submission and challenged me: if I consider this philosophy wrong, let me write a refutation; he would graciously publish it in Tarjuman and reply to it. I said that if matters have reached the point where you and I refute one another in the Tarjuman itself, it would be better for me to separate from the Jamaat first. With that, I took my leave. (Maqalat-e-Islahi, 1/87)
Note that by then he had not yet resigned. Nor did he write on the subject even after his resignation—until, having gone for hajj and returned, he learned that critiques had appeared in Maulana Manzur Nuʿmani’s al- Furqan (Lucknow) and in Hakim Abd al-Rahim Ashraf’s al-Minbar (Faisalabad).
As mentioned, Hakim Abd al-Rahim Ashraf was among those who left Jamaat-e-Islami over precisely this position of Maulana Maududi. Maulana Maududi replied to such critiques in the Rasail wa Masail series of Tarjuman al-Quran. Maulana Islahi set forth his stance in an article in the Karachi journal Maqam-e Risalat; later, once Mithaq commenced publication, he serialized his pieces there.
These essays addressed weighty and contested questions: the condition of Qurashi lineage for the caliphate (al- aimmah min Quraysh), the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils (ikhtiyar ahwan al-baliyatayn), the relationship between backbiting (ghibah) and the hadith-critical discipline of jarh wa-tadil, and the prophets’ method of establishing the deen.
A brief note on “Qurashi lineage as a condition for the caliphate” may be of interest, in light of remarks the Maulana made in their meetings. Maulana Maududi had taken as an example of altering settled principles for strategic reasons the following: Equality and parity are among Islam’s foundational teachings, preached by the Prophet (PBUH) throughout his life. Yet, since the demands of practical politics required that the caliphate be entrusted to Quraysh, the Prophet—contrary to that principle of equality—commanded at the end: al-aimmah min Quraysh, i.e., “the leaders shall be from Quraysh.” Had he not done so, Maududi wrote, Muslims—eager to test the principle of equality—might have appointed a non-Qurashi and fallen into calamity.
Maulana Islahi replied:
In my view, the Prophet’s statement al-aimmah min Quraysh—that the leaders are from Quraysh—is neither an imperative (amr), nor an informative report (khabar), nor a bequest (wasiyyah); rather, it is a judgment and resolution of a dispute. Though the case was not formally presented, it existed in people’s minds; its effects surfaced from time to time. It was not difficult for the Prophet (PBUH) to gauge that after his passing this could become a contentious matter and cause division. Therefore, he decided the issue during his lifetime: after him, Quraysh are entitled to the caliphate. (Maqalat-e-Islahi, 1/117)
Thus, in a few concise lines, he resolved a major question in the ummah’s intellectual history. The Maulana, recounting this, would quip:
Was it a small gain from our debate with the Amir al-Muminin (Maulana Maududi) that a longstanding issue of the ummah was settled once and for all?
[To Be Continued…]