salam,
I am posting here a quotation from wikipedia about maulana maudodi :rehm: can anyone explain all the allegations made on this great islamic scholar esp. the ones in bold
thank you
"Maududi has been an intensely controversial figure. Criticism has come both from secularists and from within the Islamic religious establishment. Many of the ulama who were involved in the founding of the Jama`at-e Islami left shortly afterwards in protest against Maududi’s policies and leadership style. Traditional Sunni Muslims have viewed Maududi and his group as a particularly pernicious branch of the Wahhabi](Wahhabism - Wikipedia) movement. Both Barelwi](Barelvi movement - Wikipedia) and Deobandi](Deobandi movement - Wikipedia) ulama have accused Maududi of having turned Islam upside down.
From the Barelwi side, a representative critique is that offered by Shaikh al-Islam Sayyid Muhammad Madani Ashrafi who authored a series of books on Maududi’s misunderstanding and abuse of traditional Islamic terminology. Foremost amongst Deobandi scholars who have written formal refutations of Maududi is Shaikh Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi, the late hadith scholar and influential figure in the Tablighi Jama`at. Kandhalwi’s book “Fitna-e Mawdudiyyat” begins with a mention of how Maududi was expelled from his madrasa studies for insubordination. Both authors concur that Maududi’s self-education led him to develop a distorted understanding of Islam. They claim Maududi and his movement urge Muslims to take up religious rituals (prayer, etc.) in order to prepare for acquiring state power, whereas some other Aalim’s understanding is that the rituals of Islam are the purpose of life, and state power is a means to establishing the worship of Allah. The critics also point out that Maududi seemed to have no control over his pen and an unlimited sense of his own importance. He repeatedly denigrated the traditional ulama and the sufis, and,** more grievously, defamed the prophets of Allah in his “Tafhim al-Quran” and elsewhere, and the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in “Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat.”**
**Maududi also has been accused by secularists and some Western thinkers of being a key source of the **extremism](Extremism - Wikipedia) which caused the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, and the passage of highly problematic “blasphemy” and “Hudood” laws](Islamisation in Pakistan - Wikipedia) that have led to many human-rights violations being committed against religious minorities and women. Such extremism has been accused of being a source of terrorism in the Islamic world today. However, his followers, known as the Jamatis, deny the accusations and call it unfair, seeing as Maududi and his party Jamaat-e-Islami have always emphasised the illegitimacy of violent acts of terrorism, which the party has condemned."
Yes that is true but why is maulana sahib the target for the conservatives and “liberals” alike usually the scholars are maligned from one side only while the other glorifies them.
the barelvis and deobandis did not like maulana maududi for what he wrote in his book "khilafat and malookiyat"....
they say he has written this under the influence of shiaas and to please them he has presented distorted views of history....
also they criticize him for never hacing a proper islamic education from a madrasah or a scholar....
if u read this book "ikhtilaaf-e-ummat or siraat-e-mustaqeem" (i advise people not to read it, its highly praised by the group to which the writer(s) belong but in fact it is a useless book which only propogates 'tafaruqqa' and hatred for other sects), u will know more about why they hate maududi....
read his books and u will know how wise a scholar he was....
the traditional scholars of pakistan call anyone who is not following their localized version of Islam "a kaafir", and if not kaafir, he is a wahaabi....
when family planning campaing started in the world, maududi warned against it and said that a time will come when these very people will reward the women who give birth to children....
those nations who had laws for family planning r now suffering and some like japan and canada giving out cash reward for families who have more than one child....
I thought maududi was a deobandi himself as he headed Jamate Islami?
But he sure was a ‘character’ as he first opposed Pakistan (JI used to call Jinnah Kaafir-e-Azam) but then after Pakistan came into being in 1947, he shifted there right away (should’ve stayed in india if he was so much against partition..).
Jamatis are one of the most two-faced people I’ve met!
Actually that is nothing traditional about it.. I have heard it more in pathans / punjabis that have the wahabbi / deobandi outlook than the mainstream ahle-sunnat!
The Jamaat-i-Islam is not Deobandi… Jamaat-i-Islam-i-Pakistan (or whatever Fazlur Rehman’s party is called) is the deobandi party.
The JI didn’t oppose Pakistan per se.. they felt that partition should have been the third option behind maintaining a united India with protection for Muslims, or having a confederation of autonomous Muslim and Hindu states. They accused Jinnah of pushing too quickly for partition and not spending enough time trying to work on alternatives.
Their leadership shifted to Pakistan in 1947 because they felt that since a Muslim state was created anyway, unity amongst Muslims was required and that their presence in Pakistan could push Pakistan towards becoming an Islamic society.
Didn’t they have brain that Jinnah actually tried the unity formula (rejected by Nehru)???
Or maybe they were of those breed that iqbal said that “they {mullahs) got permission to bow down (for prayers etc) in india, they think they are free to do anything”.
Maudodi sahib had some weakpoints as many of other scholars-His book *KHilafat o malukiat * was a lame attempt in history, his definations of 4 basic terms like ilah-Rab-Deen-Ibadat etc were also considerd very controversial-
Read what he said about Prophets alihassalam
*Moosa alihassalam ki misaal uss juld baaz fatih ki see hay jo apnay iqtadar ka istehkam kiay hoay baghair march kerta chala jae *
Aur iss kay nateejay main sayedna yousaf ko jo position hasil hoi wo qareeb qareeb wahi thee jo iss waqt masoolini ko hasil hay --TAFHEEMAT Pg122
ABout sahaba
Doosri taraf hadrat usman inn tamam khososiat kay hamil na thay iss liye un kay zamana main jahiliat ko zamam e iqtadar main aanay ka mauqa mil gaya
Examples like this are sufficient to prove that although he was a genious but lack of proper religious education made him do some serious mistakees.
But also keep in mind that these discussions are not for some lay person who is a non practicing muslims- Disagreement between ulema is normal thing- We should concentrate on what good deeds maudodi sahib did - like dawah etc-
Leave the rest on ALLAH.
He wasn’t shia-leaning per se. I believe the issue was that he wrote a line that was critical of Hazrat Uthman’s (ra) record as a ruler.
Many sunni scholars who were his peers were horrified by this and argued that any criticism of him was an insult to him. Maududi refused to retract his comments, arguing that he did not intend to and did not insult Hazrat Uthman, but was writing on what actually happened.
^ He was at fault even then- what he wrote was not correct-
Read Maulana Taqi Usmani's book on the issue-Madudi sahib could'nt properly answer Moulana Taqi
Scholars have made Companions of Prophet PBUH as “infallible” thats why any statement of a fact that goes in ‘negative’ way becomes a “criticism” or “insult” which is “strictly forbidden”. I believe the reason for that is in the time of rise of Shiism… anyway, thats my take on that.
what was the objection raised by scholars at that time? was it because masolini’s name was mentioned in same sentence as Hazrat Yousuf AS (for comparison purpose)?
What was wrong in his statment which makes scholars say that this is due to “lack of proper education”?
