The Islamic Law and Constitution

Written by Syed Abul Ala Maududi

Published in 1955.

Maududi was the great champion of a theocracy in Pakistan. He was also the founder of the Jamaat-i-Islami. His writings are enlightening in that he is not as much of a monster as I would imagine. He did want the rule of Allah but a lot of the fine print was quite idealistic, even utopian. He was for an independent judiciary and for free access to justice; he was also willing to concede non-Muslim Pakistanis way more rights and protections than I would have thought. Of course, he also wanted to prevent non-Muslims from playing any role in governing the country.

The fundamental difference between him and secularists lies in that he would like the state's chief purpose to be the creation of a moral people while secularists would like the state to worry about effecting economic and social change that would improve people's lives materially, but not necessarily spiritually.

The difference between him and Iqbal rests in their understanding of the concept of free will in Islam. For Iqbal it is a central concept and the individual Muslim must make his own choices in following Islam instead of having the state force Muslims to make those choices. Righteousness as the result of free will is the highest form of worship and piety. Maududi saw differently. A Muslim's freedom was limited. Perhaps his freest choice is conversion into Islam, but once that person chooses to become a Muslim he must abide by the laws of Islam and he has no choice in that matter. So it is completely acceptable for the state to force Muslims to obey; it could be considered the work of God even. So to arm the state with laws that it must enforce, Maududi scours the Quran and takes injunctions about personal behavior and makes them into laws; stuff like help the poor and the orphans. It is ultimately quite unconvincing and I have to agree with Ayesha Jalal that as much as the likes of Maududi frown upon bidat this political Islam is to a large degree a modern invention cooked up by Maududi himself.

Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Written by Sir Muhammad Iqbal
Published in 1986.

The book has seven speeches by Iqbal on Islamic thought. Over the series he lays out a philosophical groundwork for Islam in keeping with advances in science and thought. It addresses issues from metaphysics to government to prayer. The level of his engagement with Western philosophers ranging from Aristotle to Nietszche to Russell is quite remarkable. He acknowledges Islamic thought's debt to classical Greek philosophers but argues for a reinterpretation of the Quran that takes into account the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity on metaphysics.

The Quran for him is a starting point for scientific inquiry, an impetus to study our surroundings. The ossified Islam of today is anathema to him. Free thinking is crucial for society, and freedom essential to humankind. He is the complete opposite of the shariah fanatics who want to compel all Muslims to follow the dictates of Islam. Iqbal says that freedom is a necessary condition for goodness because without making the choice, goodness holds no value.

Jinnah of Pakistan

Written by Stanley Wolpert

Published in 1984.

Interesting book. Gave me insight into Jinnah's early years as the beacon of Hindu-Muslim unity. That is a part of Jinnah that tends to be overlooked and was so especially when I was doing research on events taking place during the final years of his life.

His shift from that champion of Hindu-Muslim unity to champion of Pakistan to once again champion of secularism is not explained all that convincingly by Wolpert. Wolpert gives us the facts and the events but in my opinion relies too much on Jinnah's vanity and megalomania to explain these shifts. He frames the shift not as Jinnah choosing his Muslim identity over his identity as an anti-imperial Indian but of him choosing the path that offered a greater certainty to power. I find Jalal's account more convincing. It maintains that Jinnah remained a secular man throughout his life, even when he was advocating for Pakistan. But what is lost in Jalal's book is the endless rhetoric that Jinnah pours out in favour of Pakistan during the years of the Pakistan movement. Pakistan was merely a bargaining chip for Jinnah but rallying Muslims of India to this bargaining chip went a long way in creating communal sentiments in India, which were to cause so much bloodshed in 1946-47. In this sense, Jinnah's hands are dirty. At the very least he is culpable of neglecting to think out the effect of all his scare-mongering.

Wolpert's book was also useful in that it was a window to Jinnah's person in those last crucial years of the Pakistan movement. Jalal considers only his goals and strategies, Wolpert gives us his feelings and aspirations. The man he finds in the 40s is frustrated, embittered and sick. The impact of these feelings on the events of the 40s should not be minimized.