DIFFERENCES IN THE UMMAT AND SIRAAT-E- MUSTAQEEM, Fiqh / Thursday, February 17th, 2011

You have mentioned that a group of your companions are admirers of Moulana Maududi. According to them there
is no other Aalim besides Moulana Maududi. You have asked my opinion regarding this also.

I have already expounded my humble opinion (regarding this matter) in two treatises, namely; “Tanqeed aur Haqq-e-Tanqeed” and “Al-Imaamul Mujaahid”.

We will also, in fulfilling your request, make brief mention on this topic.

I openly concede to the many good and notable qualities and abilities of Moulana Maududi, however, I have many differences with him as well. There are numerous little and isolated differences I have with him, but here we will suffice on the major issues.

(1). Firstly, the power and the effect of Moulana Maududi‟s pen is well-known to be one of his advantages and strong points. Nevertheless, my humble opinion is that this is also one of his weakest points and greatest disadvantages. His pen takes a swipe at the believers and non-believers alike, and it does not differentiate between the two. Just like his pen swipes at a kaafir socialist, so it reacts to a sincere and innocent servant of the Deen. With the same power and force he criticises one of his contemporaries he does so on the Salf-e-Saaliheen (pious predecessors).

When he lifts his pen against the atheists and new-formed sects, it seems as though it is a Sheikhul Hadith from Daarul Uloom Deoband that is speaking, and when he attacks the Ahle Haqq, then it appears as though Moulana has taken the pen from Ghulaam Ahmed Qadiani or some other anti-Haqq person.

You are well aware how delicate and precarious the position of Nubuwwat and Risaalat is?

No interpretation should ever be made wherein the status and honour of any Nabi (alaihi salaam) is slurred. The perfect example of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) is right before our eyes. Study the entire treasure of Ahaadith , and you will never find a single word which denotes even the slightest disrespect to any Nabi. However, the sharp pen of Moulana Maududi has even reached the sanctity and respect of the Ambiyaa. He mentions with indifference and informally:

a). “ The example of Moosa (alaihis salaam) is like an impatient conqueror, who marches ahead without making arrangements for those whom he left behind, and behind him rebelliousness spreads like a wild, uncontrolled fire.” [Risaalah Tarjumaan Qur`aan, vol.29, no. 4, page 5]

b). “Hadhrat Dawood (alaihi salaam) was influenced by the general Israeeli society‟s custom during his era and asked Urya to issue a Talaaq.” [Tafheemaat, Part 2, page 42, second edition]

c). “There was base and carnal desire in the act of Hadhrat Dawood (alaihi salaam) and there was inappropriate usage and abuse in his authority. It was an act which did not suit any consenting person in the government.” [Tafheemul Qur`aan, part 4, Surah Swaad, page 327]

d). Regarding Hadhrat Nooh (alaihi salaam) he states: “Sometimes a delicate and natural occasions arises for a Nabi, even such lofty and honoured humans are prone to give in to their human weaknesses. But when Allaah Ta`ala gave him a warning that the son who left the Haqq and took to Baatil, understand him to be yours purely for this reason that he was born from your back. It was the result of ignorance. He then immediately disregarded this wound in his heart.” [Ibid]

e). Regarding the statement of Hadhrat Yusuf (alaihi salaam): “Appoint me as treasurer of the land”, Maududi states: “This was not merely a request for the post of the treasury, as some people assume, in fact, it was a desire for dictatorship. As a result of this, the position which Yusuf (alaihi salaam) achieved was very much similar to the position Mussolini had held in Italy.” [Tafheemaat, part 2, page 122]

f). “Hadhrat Yunus (alaihi salaam) was neglectful in the duty of prophethood. Presumably he left his place before time after losing his patience.” [Tafheemul Qur`aan, Part.2 Surah Yunus, footnote 312, 313]

It is possible that according to Moulana Maududi and his followers, phrases such as “an impatient conqueror”, “base and carnal desire”, “inappropriate usage and abuse in his authority”, “prone to give in to their human weaknesses”, “It was the result of ignorance”, “neglectful in the duty of prophethood” and “dictatorship” do not have any disrespectful connotation, hence, he finds the use of such phrases for the Messengers as acceptable. This judgement can be decided in 2 ways one is that if such words are used for Moulana Maududi himself or for any of his followers, would they feel hurt? For example, if it is stated that Moulana is a dictator, a Hitler or a Mussolini of his time, he acts according to his carnal desires, he is overcome by the emotions of ignorance, he is abusing his authority and he has been deficient in fulfilling his responsibility, etc. etc., then, I am certain, no follower of Moulana will ever tolerate these “arraignments”. If these words are deemed derogatory and disrespectful when used in relation to Moulana, then let us be fair, how can they ever possibly be suitable for the lofty status of the Ambiyaa.

Listen to another statement of a similar nature:

“Here you should understand the reality of the human weakness that was apparent of Adam (alaihi salaam). A spontaneous emotion caused by satanic encouragement made him negligent. As soon as his self-control languished he fell from the lofty pedestal of obedience into the pit of sin.” [Tafheemul Qur`aan, page 133, vol. 3]

If the name of Hadhrat Adam (alaihi salaam) is substituted in this text by Moulana Maududi‟s name, then I feel that there will be complaints in his circle and a storm of protest will erupt in Pakistan. From this it can be realized that this statement is impolite and insulting.

Concerning one of the holy wives of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) he says: “She became a little bold in opposition to Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and began abusing him.” [Haft Roza Asia Lahore, 19th November 1976]

Maududi has made this statement regarding Nabi‟s (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) wife, but I regard it more insulting to Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) than to his wife. It is obvious that the respected wife of Moulana is not more disciplined or holier than the wife of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). If any of his followers has to comment that Moulana‟s wife speaks out of turn in his presence, then Moulana will regard this statement as insulting and humiliating. Therefore I cannot understand how a statement which is regarded as irreverent for Moulana could not be offensive for Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and his wives.

In short, are such phrases which emanate from Maududi‟s pen, disrespectful to the Ambiyaa (alaihimus salaam) or not? One way of deducing this, as has been explained above, is that if these words are used for Moulana and cause discomfort to his followers, then it should be accepted that they are also disrespectful for the Ambiyaa (alaihimus salaam), and hurt the feelings of those who believe in and accept prophethood.

The second method of deducing this is to investigate whether these statements, when used in Urdu, constitute a derogatory connotation or not? After testing these two standards, it can be concluded that these words are disrespectful, hence the Moulana should abstain from its usage. In fact, he should make Tawbah. Because disrespect for the Ambiyaa (alaihi salaam) is a sign of losing one‟s Imaan.

4 Replies to “MOULANA MAUDUDI Part 1”

  1. Please paste texts directly from Maulana Maududi’s books, don’t just type somebody else’ comments. Maulana Maududi did not write these in English. You will be held responsible in front of Allah for lying like this. Go read his books by yourself and then comment. I don’t have time to answer your stupid questions and comments, you have to be concerned about your own future. Also do not pick up just one line, post the whole paragraph and then tell me what wrong do u see. But Urdu first and then translate it.

  2. Modudism is an evil ideology where his folowers start and end up at maudidi ,the unfortunate part is it has been derived from quran , nalayaks complete interpretation is baatil . the history bears witness what these modudis have delivered and given to ummah for the past 70-80 years . the greatest fitnah in subcontinet . modudism , communism , socialism , liberalism, globalism all in one evilism

  3. I reply to masood malik in this way that all followers of maududi are blind in his following, they regard mauddudi more to prophet, if this is not the case then how can one even follow a person whose pen has used objectionable words agains hazrat osman ra. etc. and the followers of maududi read his books only and consider all other imams useless. the conflict of Hazrat Ali and Mavia ra. is well known but Ali ra never wrote anything against Osman ra but maududi dares to write objectional things against osman ra. for which he has to reply before allah and all those who follow him blindly will fall behind him on day of judgement.

  4. Brothers,
    please read carefully in the hope you stop engaging in bad mouthing persons who have exerted selfless endeavour to help humanity understand the message.

    Br Masood Malik is right to caution us in the use of translations. Those of us learning Islam through second and third languages are definitely at a disadvantage. The culture of the interpreter plays a great role as does their level of education and environmental influence as well as gender and many other factors such as historical etc.

    Here is an example that will be recognised globally.
    A Papyrus written by Ani, one of the chief scribes of the Pharaoh Seti 1 ((date–) recorded that The Book of Coming Forth by Day (which contains Ancient Egyptian religions texts and all spiritual doctrines)came to be named The Book of the Dead.

    This by no other than those considered very highly qualified professionals who founded the subject known as Egyptology. This is accepted worldwide as having been a mistranslation but the world is sticking to it.

    There is every chance many of Maududi’s works may have been mistranslated, and as usually happens quoted without considering proper context in order to suit agendas. We learn this from an authentic book translated by a concerned Egyptian that ancient Egyptians did not worship many gods and goddesses, although this came to be the commonly held view. This too is a misconception which arose from mistranslation of certain words.

    It is most unfortunate brs/srs that whenenver we disagree, we abandon Qur’an and Sunnah when that is the first place to look for anyone who wants to be rightly guided. The holy Prophet said that we would never go astray when we refer to Qur’an and his Sunnah. Qur’an Yusuf:76. It might help if we submit that either Abul A’la Maududi knew more than our selves, which we can overcome by continuous learning or perhaps if some of you know more than he did, still carry on learning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *