Abul A’la Mawdudi is once again in discussion as some Islamist student groups comemmorated him on his 39th death annivesrasry on September 22. In this context, it would be enlightening to look at the history of some very interesting debates Mawdudi ignited in Malabar, between the Salafis and Islamists of the region.

Although some Muslim scholars in Kerala had access to Mawdudi through his Urdu writings even before the formation of the Jamā-ath-e-Islami in 1941, they were not clear about the points at which he dissented with the majority of Muslim-Ulama. In 1943, Haji V PMuhammad Ali, a Muslim-youngster from Valāncheri in Malappuram District, went to Punjab and met Mawdudi. They spent almost nine months together. Muhammad Ali reached home in 1944 with a deep understanding of Mawdudi’s arguments, and a strong admiration for them. In the same year, he established a local association under the name “Jam’iyyathul Mustharshideen” at Valāncheri in order to propagate the ideals of the Jamā-ath. A publishing bureau — Islamic Publishing House (IPH) — was opened in 1945. IPH started publishing Malayalam translations of the Urdu books authored by Mawdudi. However, the All India Jamā-ath-e-Islami could form its (official) Kerala committee only in 1948. Muhammad Ali was elected as the secretary of the organization. The first issue of Prabodhanam, a Malayalam weekly which was the party-organ in Kerala, came out in August 1949.

Kerala already had an influential presence of Salafi scholars and intellectuals when Mawdudi’s Islamism entered the region. The Jamā-ath conception of Islam was at logger heads with many of their Salafi ideals. Mawdudi argued that ‘Ibādah’ (translated as Worship i.e. prayer, invocation etc by majority of the Muslim scholars) in Islamic terminology actually stands not only for worship but also for “obedience to state-laws”. Muslims by consensus agree that Allah is the only one to whom ‘Ibādah’ is to be directed, and as such Mawdudi’s argument implied that Muslims are allowed to obey the state if and only if the state-laws are Allah’s laws. Islamic monotheism was equated with disciplined life in an Islamic state whilst polytheism was defined as obedience to the laws of any non-Islamic state. The argument culminated in an understanding that Indian Muslims including Salafis are indulging in polytheism. The important question which the party had to face in context of this take, was that as the Jamā-ath-activists are also obeying the state-laws, how are they practically different from other Muslims in this regard. Prabodhanam tried to address this issue thus:

“The Qur’an has permitted eating forbidden meats [like pork] when forced [by severe hunger] provided that there is neither willful intake of the prohibited food nor transgression of due limits. Similarly, if a person aiming iqāmathudheen (establishment of the government of God) is obeying the existing government laws [without any way out], Allah would be ready to forgive that [sin].”(1)

The difference, according to the party, was then that while other Muslims obey state laws willfully without acknowledging it as a sin, Jamā-ath-activists do it scornfully in the light of the pork-permission in the Qur’an. The organization explained that while obedience to state-laws is an unavoidable accident in India, becoming part of the secular government is not and as such, entering government services, contesting in elections, working in political parties, and even exercising the right to vote are ‘harāms’ which a true Muslim is not supposed to do. The Prabodhanam declared,

“For a Muslim who has determined to practice Islam in all spheres of life, it is not at all good to accept government posts offered by any non-Islamic administration. A [true] Muslim has option [in religion] neither to become candidate [in public elections] nor to work for the victory of any other candidates in today’s secular-materialistic nation. Even casting of votes [in such elections is not allowed in Islam].”(2)

The idea explicitly indicted the Muslim League, which enjoyed strong support among the Muslims of Malabar, and more importantly, the Salafi movement in Kerala which backed the League politics, for making use of the secular democratic space in India. Moreover, modern education and representation in government jobs, both of which the Jamā-ath branded as un-Islamic, were two important slogans of the Salafi movement in Malabar from its very inception. The editorial of Prabodhanam on 1 December 1949 stated that Muslims should not serve un-Islamic administrative systems and therefore the Muslims [who have mistakenly entered] in government services including ministers, judges, magistrates, barristers, and policemen were ought to resign as soon as possible. The editor opined that Muslims shall not bother about the material loss which might follow such a mass resignation because Muslim standpoints must be driven by religious principles and not by community interests.

In the meanwhile, the Salafi leaders initiated a counter campaign. They argued that the Jamā-ath stances regarding politics and government jobs were not derived from the basic religious scriptures, but from the books of Abul A’la Mawdudi. They used the Salafi understanding that Islam had become ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ by the time of the death of Prophet Muhammad to dismiss Mawdudi’s modern and novel interpretations of Islam. The Salafi scholars felt his ‘Islamism’ as something different from ‘Islam’. According to them, the ‘centrality of state’ which Mawdudi ascribed to Islam was a baseless construct. The fact that Mawdudi tried to give a new meaning to ‘Ibādah’ was used to show that the new movement would misinterpret any Islamic term to serve its ideological purposes. They detailed on the Muslim social exclusion in India, and argued that the Jamā-ath would only worsen the situation.

The anti-Jamā-ath Salafi intellectual campaign in Kerala was triggered by K. M. Seethi, who was active in the Salafi movement as well as in the Muslim league. In his public speeches organized by the League, Seethi spoke against the Jamā-ath attempts to brand the League politics as un-Islamic, and argued that the decision of the Jamā-ath workers to abstain from elections would help only the political parties which are anti-Islam or anti-Muslim.(3) The Kerala Jam’iyyathul Ulama, the Salafi Ulama organization formed in 1924, actively supported K M Seethi’s arguments. Its members focused on the religious part of the issue. In April 1951, Paurashakthi, a Malayalam newspaper, carried statements from M C CAbdurrahman Moulavi, the then secretary of the Kerala Jam’iyyathul Ulama, which warned Kerala Muslims of the “grave falsehoods in the Jamā-ath understanding of Islam”. N. V. Abdussalam Moulavi, the Salafi scholar and Muslim League leader, was the key figure in the Jam’iyyathul Ulama campaign against the Jamā-ath-e-Islami in Kerala.

In 1952, Jam’iyyathul Ulama conducted a four-day “lecture series” on the “religious deviations of Jamā-ath-e-Islami” at Chennamangallur in Calicut District. Abdussalam Moulavi, as the Jam’iyyath-representative, advised the audience not to entertain the Jamā-ath view on politics as it is removed from the teachings of Islam, and pointed out that their stance would be suicidal for the Muslim minority in India. To show that the Qur’an had not taught what the Jamā-ath was teaching with regards non-Islamic states, he cited the example of the prophet Yusuf (Joseph) who, according to the Qur’an, had been entitled with a ministerial post in a non-Islamic state. Salafi scholars like P PAbdul Gafoor Moulavi and K C Aboobakkar Moulavi popularized these arguments through their public speeches in the sixties and the seventies. Salsabeel, a Salafi periodical in Malayalam started by K Umar Moulavi in 1971, constantly published articles criticizing Mawdudi’s interpretation of ‘Ibādah.’ All these contributed to the making of a strong anti-Jamā-ath Salafi commonsense in Kerala.

As compared to the Salafi movements in other parts of the world, the Salafi movement in Malabar could develop a very comprehensive critique of political Islam. The Salafi movement in Malabar was not only a religious movement but also an ideological shield of the Muslim League. While the Jamā-ath-e-Islami campaign in Kerala was intended at smashing the religious legitimacy of the League, the Salafis countered it. As the difference of opinion was centered upon the meaning of Islamic monotheism, the very basic ideal of Islam, the Salafi- Jamā-ath conflict in Kerala was religiously very significant. Books were authored from both the sides in order to defend the scriptural legitimacy of the respective views. However, the Jamā-ath, in the course of time, adopted step-by-step practical shifts from its ideology. After 1975, the Jamā-ath workers in Kerala started voting in the elections. Thus after 1975, the single point which made the Jamā-ath practically different from other Muslim organizations in Kerala in the approach towards the non-Islamic government in India became this: other Muslim organizations allow their members to work in political parties while Jamā-ath-e-Islami does not. Even this identity, which had deep roots in the party ideology, was compromised after 2000. The party organ started publishing articles theorizing the new change. In a tone of critical introspection, one of these articles noted,

“One of the sequels of the policy-program [put forth by Mawdudi] was that we (Jamā-ath-e-Islami) kept away from politics. As a result, our influence became very much limited. Common people in this country did not consider us [Jamā-ath-workers] as people worth of any use. The [absence in politics] affected [badly] our solutions even to the Muslim-problems. Keeping away [from politics] might have been good in the beginning [years of the organization]. But we ought to have been changed our decision long ago. What I have to say is that, no one shall advise Jamā-ath-e-Islami to keep away from politics anymore.”(4)

Reflecting this turn in the thought, in 2011, Jamā-ath-e-Islami formed a political party of its own in the state namely ‘Welfare Party’, and started contesting in elections. The party practically tries to present itself as an appealing alternative for the League, and usually opts to stand against the League candidates. They get defeated in almost all seats. The reformism of the Salafi leadership of the League is thus affirmed by the Muslim community in Kerala.

Notes:

1. K T Alavi Wandoor, ‘Bhouthikarāshtrathil Ningalkk Jeevikkāmo?’[ ‘Are You Permitted to Live in a Materilastic-state?’], Prabodhanam Malayalam Weekly, 1 December, 1954, p. 255.

2. Abdul Saleem Abdul Hayy, ‘Islāmika pādangal’ [‘Islamic Lessons’], Prabodhanam Malayalam Weekly, 15 November, 1954, p. 239.

3. See the reports of such speeches published in Chandrika Malayalam daily on 29 January 1950 and 21 November 1959.

4. Najathullah Sidheeqi, ‘Islāmika Prasthānathinte Mungananakal Māranam’ [‘Priorities of the Islamic Movement Should Change’], Prabodhanam Malayalam Weekly, 25 July 2009, p. 19.

Abdul Kahhaar