Political Islam, Extremism and Mawdudi

Dr Mahfooz Jawed Nadvi

In recent times, there has been considerable interest and discourse in Western academic circles, particularly within policy-making institutions, regarding ideologies rooted in religious extremism that aim for religious supremacy and the establishment of an Islamic state through armed struggle. It has become a common approach in such discourse to trace the intellectual or theological foundations of these ideologies back to the religious thought of Maulana Abul A'la Mawdudi, among others.¹ This is primarily because, when the waves of militancy, commonly referred to as terrorism or religious extremism, are analysed, their ideological roots are generally attributed to 'Political Islam'.

The term 'Political Islam' stems from a Western framework shaped by political priorities, aimed at understanding religious and political tendencies in non-Western societies, particularly the Muslim world, on their own terms. Western powers coined 'Political Islam' as part of their expectation that global ideological and civilisational structures should evolve toward Western values, especially secularism, which detaches religion from public affairs. Secularism, rooted in Western historical experiences, has been gradually adopted by Western nations. With their dominance in cultural, political, economic, and military domains, the West expects these values to be globally embraced. This expectation is particularly directed at the Muslim world, where religion has historically influenced social, economic, and cultural spheres, suggesting a gradual disengagement of religion from these areas.

When analysing socio-political systems in the Muslim world, Western scholars and powers encounter narratives that challenge their own. Movements in the Muslim world resist secularism by advocating that politics, economy, and social practices be rooted in religion and Shariah, arguing that political priorities, both domestic and international, should be based on religious foundations. This worldview directly opposes the cultural, political, and economic priorities of Western powers, clashing with their vision for global progress. To understand this divergence, the West employs the term 'Political Islam'. In the Western paradigm, 'Political Islam' is often conflated with militaristic movements and viewed as the ideological basis driving Muslim communities toward extremism and militancy.

The question arises whether the term 'Political Islam' accurately captures Mawdudi's religious-political thought. Even if we accept the term's suitability, we must consider whether this ideology can be directly or indirectly linked to extremist and militant tendencies that challenge established systems, either internationally or within states, using illegal methods and radical narratives. To what extent can these movements be rooted in the concept of 'Political Islam'? It is essential to recognise that if 'Political Islam' suggests that societal systems in Muslim communities should align with Islamic principles for collective benefit, then this is not a modern phenomenon but rather a continuation of 'Traditional Islam'. The concept of structuring society under Islamic principles and the supremacy of monotheism is a core tenet of traditional Islam, rooted in its inception. Apart from the first few years of Prophet Muhammad's life, Islam has inherently been political, not merely a religion of rituals, but one that seeks to shape society according to its religious values, principles, and Shariah. This includes social norms, economic activities, law, and international relations.

Western intellectuals often view 'Political Islam' as a surprising or novel phenomenon because they believe their political and economic values, developed through their own historical experiences, are universal. They expected Muslim societies to embrace these values, moving towards democracy and free-market economies, and away from religious governance. The resurgence of 'Political Islam' in Muslim societies, advocating for the re-establishment of religion as the foundation of society, contradicts these expectations. This surprise is also due to the colonial history of the Muslim world, during which Western powers introduced modern political concepts, leading to the assumption that religious governance had lost its appeal. However, the revival of 'Political Islam' suggests a desire within Muslim societies to reconnect with their historical and religious roots. From a Muslim perspective, 'Political Islam' is not a new concept but an attempt to restore the continuity of Islamic civilisation, emphasising that Islam's role is not confined to worship but extends to shaping society, politics, and economy.

If Mawdudi's thought is seen as part of the Islamic tradition, how do we differentiate between modern 'Political Islam' and extremism? Both aim to establish Islamic dominance, enforce Shariah, and support oppressed Muslims globally. Whether we classify Mawdudi's ideas within Islamic tradition or as 'Political Islam', what distinguishes this philosophy from extremism or militancy? Understanding these differences is essential to clarify whether 'Political Islam' aligns more with Islamic tradition or with extremist narratives, determining its true ideological roots and whether it diverges from or shares similarities with militant interpretations.

Extremist groups often invoke Quranic verses and claim adherence to Shariah principles to justify their pursuit of Islamic dominance. While their sources align with tradition and 'Political Islam', they fundamentally differ both in the very definition of this goal as well as in their methods of achieving it, particularly in their methodologies, strategies, and direction of struggle. Modern global politics and economics have fundamentally shifted, with changes in political thought, power balances, and social structures now considered objective realities. Although ideologies, whether religious or secular, may derive their objectives from transcendent sources, their strategies must account for the current environment, ground realities, and existing obstacles.

At this juncture, a key difference emerges with extremist movements: they refuse to accept the realities of the modern era, believing they can challenge the established global systems of power, politics, and economics. Driven by emotional fervour, detachment from reality, or reliance on religious prophecies, they expect supernatural intervention to dramatically alter the situation. They denounce current Muslim rulers as apostates, rejecting democracy as incompatible with Shariah. They oppose the nation-state system, which does not differentiate by religion, unlike classical Islamic divisions, such as Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. Instead, they advocate for a Caliphate, rejecting state borders and treaties, leading them to confront both Muslim governments and the international system. Their strategy relies on creating chaos, hoping it will trigger divine intervention as foretold in religious prophecies.

Let us consider the period when Mawdudi outlined his plan for religious dominance and political sovereignty. Comparing his thought with extremist narratives reveals fundamental differences, as well as the extent to which militancy may draw from his ideology. Mawdudi, particularly focused on India and later Pakistan, emphasised avoiding certain erroneous paths in the struggle for Islamic governance. He highlighted that the prevailing environment, shaped by colonial powers and secular politics, was not conducive to establishing a divine government. Muslims, influenced by British democratic principles, lacked the vision for Islamic governance. Mawdudi argued that reintroducing the concept of divine government and addressing intellectual and emotional doubts was crucial, making abrupt actions to establish Islamic rule unfeasible under current circumstances.²

Mawdudi outlines three key principles for establishing the political supremacy of Islam and Shariah governance in modern society:

The process must be gradual, advancing step by step rather than attempting sudden change.
Prioritisation is essential; efforts should focus on the most fundamental issues first, which will then facilitate further changes.
Avoiding confrontation with influential elements within the Muslim community who oppose religious governance in the modern era is crucial. Instead, strategic engagement with these groups should be adopted, resisting their priorities without direct conflict, as they are also potential allies in the broader struggle.³

Mawdudi emphasises that, in the modern era, abandoning constitutional and legal methods in favour of secretive revolutionary efforts leads to significant harms:

Firstly, such secretive systems, lacking public accountability, inevitably become dictatorial. Decision-making is authoritarian, with followers blindly obeying orders, even if unethical. This undermines a struggle aligned with religious, ethical, and Shariah principles.
Secondly, confronting an existing system through undemocratic methods, despite available democratic freedoms, fosters a law-breaking mentality. Mawdudi argues that this approach is religiously illegitimate and points to historical examples where constitutional violations led to a lasting culture of lawlessness in Pakistan. Such methods fail to cultivate a society grounded in the fear of God, adherence to His limits, and a commitment to lawful struggle.⁴

Mawdudi stresses that mutual agreements within the modern international system hold both moral and Shariah validity. Contrary to extremist narratives that view this system as an oppressive tool imposed by Western powers to hinder Islam, Mawdudi argues that the current international system, including nation-states and principles of non-interference, is binding for Muslims from a Shariah and ethical perspective. He further asserts that nation-states are not incompatible with the concept of the Caliphate. Unlike militant visions that reject nation-states, Mawdudi believes that separate Muslim states with distinct systems can still organise into a unified structure based on shared political interests, offering an alternative to the traditional Caliphate model. He argues that the Caliphate can coexist with nation-states, rather than requiring their abolition.

Mawdudi, referencing the Quranic verse "Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aid - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you, there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help from you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people with whom you have a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do." (8:72), derives a point supporting modern international law and systems. He indicates that Islam does not impose any international political responsibility on Muslims to intervene in other nations or to protect the rights and freedoms of Muslims living in other countries. Such obligations, he suggests, would create complexities that make it impossible to maintain stable international relations, and this Quranic directive spares Muslims from such complexities that could lead to perpetual chaos in international affairs.⁵

To sum up, Mawdudi's approach to establishing the dominance of Islam and Shariah governance differs fundamentally from that of militant groups. While the recognition of Islam as a political force and the pursuit of Shariah rule are established concepts in Islamic history, what sets Mawdudi apart is his acceptance of modern changes, such as the international system, nation-states, and democracy, and his moral and Shariah justification for integrating them into Islamic thought. Unlike extremist groups that reject these modern elements, Mawdudi emphasises adherence to them as a fundamental principle, opposing the extremist or militant narrative. Mawdudi's ideology also presents a comprehensive blueprint for an alternative social justice and welfare system. In contrast, extremist movements, beyond shallow isolationist slogans, lack both a coherent ideological foundation and a viable plan for today's civilised and pluralistic society.

The concept of Political Islam is intrinsic to Islamic tradition; there has never been an Islam that wasn't political. The real difference lies in how to pursue Islamic political sovereignty in the modern era. Mawdudi's thought shares nothing with extremist narratives, and conflating the two is a superficial analysis; a deeper examination reveals they are fundamentally different.

¹ For an example of this approach, see Michael Gove, Celsius 7/7 (Phoenix, 2007), London.
² Mawdudi, Jama'at-e- Islami ka Mauqif aur Tareeq-e-Kaar, Mahnama Tarjuman-ul-Quran, (Dec. 1956), Lahore, 9-32
³ Mawdudi, Hikmat-e-'Amali, Tafhimaat, (Islamic Publications), Lahore, vol. 3, 127-129
⁴ Mawdudi, Tasrihaat, compiled by Saleem Mansoor Khalid (Al-Badr Publications, 2017), Lahore, 89, 242-243, 303-305, 322
⁵ Mawdudi, Tafheemul Quran, vol. 2, 161-162, Khilafat-o-Mulukiyat, (Idara Tarjuman-ul-Quran) Lahore, 56