Maududi’s Greatest Critic: Safdar Mir On Maududism And Capitalism

Translator’s Introduction: September 25 today marks the 119th birthday of one of the leading Islamist scholars and ideologues of the 20th  century, Maulana Maududi. He has been a lot in the news lately, both in India and Pakistan. In India, his books were recently removed from the curriculum of Aligarh Muslim University in response to claims that they promoted jihadism. Here in Pakistan, a defamation notice was brought against one of Pakistan's premier progressive public intellectuals and musicians, LUMS academic Dr. Taimur Rahman, by the Jamaat-e-Islami, claiming that his widely popular vlogs on Maududi and Jinnah defamed and misinterpreted both the leaders. Both developments received scant traction in the print or national media here in Pakistan, barring a few social media flashes. A cult has now developed around Maududi where any attempt to factually criticise him or question his role in the Pakistan Movement is met with almost fascistic tactics, including distorting Maududi's questionable role in the formation of Pakistan, among other things.

I have been translating noted progressive scholar and polymath Safdar Mir's incendiary essays on Maududi and ‘Maududiyat’ – first published in the weekly Nusrat in the 1960s and 1970s – since the last few months, as a small tribute to the former, since 2022 marks Safdar Mir's birth centenary and 2023 will mark 25 years since his death.

I present below an original translation from the Urdu of Safdar Mir's essay on “Maududism and Capitalism,” which convincingly unmasks ideas that have been wrongly propagated for decades about Maududi’s role in a movement for Islamic equality. This essay sets the historical record about Maududi straight, and punctures his cult in a highly factual albeit polemical manner. This is done with sources and cross-references from Maududi's own works and words – as only Safdar Mir could!

(RN)

 

***

With the intention of deceiving some people, the fresh tactic of Maududism is to keep declaring one’s opposition to socialism along with capitalism and feudalism as well, so that this charge cannot be leveled that these people are in search of support of the capitalist and feudal economy behind the curtain of an ‘Islamic system.’ The Maududi party has very much said in its recent statements about the economy that limits be put on land ownership of the feudal system. But along with that, they lay down a condition that this limitation is temporary; since in Islam any permanent restriction cannot be put on ownership. The ‘new’ economic constitution of the Maududi party does not in any way refute their old stance, as Maududi himself has said too. His old stance regarding landownership is that:

“Islam like all other ownerships accepts the personal ownership of Man over land. No limit is fixed for it. From one square yard of land to thousands of acres how much the land may be, has come within the possession of a person through some legal means, then anyhow it is his lawful possession.” (Islam and Economic Principles pp. 127)

In connection with legal and illegal and unlawful, the decree of the new constitution is:

All those new and old estates be totally finished which might have been created in any period of government from the unlawful use of powers.

There is great intensity in the word ‘all.’ But reaching till the end of the line, it seems that firstly you will have to prove that the personal or hereditary property has been obtained by so-and-so landlord, or his forefathers, by “the wrong use of powers.” This style of giving with one hand and taking back with the other is a special strategy of the Maududi party.

In his old economic constitution, Maududi writes in this manner about hereditary assets. This will clarify that how any landlord can preserve his hereditary wealth through “legal means.”

“Like artificial methods, Islam does not prefer revolutionary methods too. In the period of ignorance, the Arab people abundantly used such means for earning livelihood, which Islam deemed unlawful and strictly loathsome afterwards. But the possessions which had been continuing from before [Islam], about them Islam did not create a fuss such that whichever people had earned wealth by dishonesty, now their assets should be confiscated. Until even the deeds of usurers and those making a living by prostitution and banditry were not objected to. Whoever had anything in his possession, the Islamic civil law accepted his right of ownership over it. (Economic Theories, pp. 124)”

In the light of this shining rule of Maududism, if we think about it, then the land of which landlord of Pakistan is not safe? And the capital of which capitalist, usurer, adulterer and dacoit is not secure? Who does not know that all the estates of our country are the result of the unwarranted generosity of the British government, and a reward for what type of service? When you remark about them that “which might have been created in any period of government from the unlawful use of powers,” then the landlord, whether he be old or new, will say just like this that “I was very much not independent. I was the slave of the government. I did not obtain this land with my discretion. This land was forcibly bestowed to me.”

It’s not that Maududi does not know that what the feudal system is. In the beginning of this very book, he declares the definition of the feudal system:

“The basis of power was decided to be the ownership of land. Honour, power, hegemony, and permanent rights were reserved for only those people who are landowners in some area.” (pp. 8)

Maududi knows, too, that religious leadership becomes the backer and instrument for the owners of the means of production e.g. landlords in every period:

“The Christian church which used to talk to the people in God’s name[…] had been newly established in Europe at that time. It reconciled with that newly-formed system feudalism, and it kept on awarding religious decree to all those traditional institutions and rights and distinctions and controls, which were taking root in society along with that system. Every idea which became old, became the belief of the church and to think against it was decided to be a sin. Every ritual which once came into practice became the Sharia and deviation from it meant deviating from God and His faith. Whether it be literature and philosophy or society and politics and economy, the shape of whichever thing was established in the feudal system, the church determined it to be a God-given shape, and on this basis any attempt to change it was not just a crime, but [religiously] forbidden too.” (pp. 9)

"In the light of this shining rule of Maududism, if we think about it, then the land of which landlord of Pakistan is not safe? And the capital of which capitalist, usurer, adulterer and dacoit is not secure? Who does not know that all the estates of our country are the result of the unwarranted generosity of the British government?" (Safdar Mir)

It is not very true to say about Maududi that he is unaware of the knowledge of economics. He has quite a proper knowledge, too, about the capitalist system. In praise of the capitalist system, he declares thus:

“The economic system whose building rose upon the ‘enlightened’ ideology of ‘free economy,’ its name in terminology is the modern capitalist system.” (pp. 21)

There is a world of meaning concealed within the word “enlightened” which is distinctly Maududi’s lot, and similarly an aspect of praise emerges from “free.” Just like an aspect of scorn emerges from pointing out the Muslim League of the Quaid-e-Azam as a “troupe.”

What are basic laws of the capitalist system? These are the same laws which Maududi later on is about to present as the laws of the economic system of Islam. Therefore, read a bit carefully:

“The basic laws of this system are as below: (1) the right of private property. Not only the right of property of the things which a person uses himself, but also the right of property of those things from which a person creates different types of things so that he can sell them to others. For example: machine, tools, land, raw material, etc. The individual rights of property over the first type of things are very much indisputably accepted in every system. But debate has risen in the matter of the second kind of things, meaning the means of production, in that whether or not the right of individual ownership over them is lawful. The first quality of the capitalist system is that it accepts this right. Also, in reality this very right is its foundation stone.” (pp. 21)

Maududi has declared it entirely accurately. This very “right of individual ownership over the means of production” is the foundation stone of capitalism. In the same manner as the foundation stone of the Maududi party is the opposition and enmity towards the leaders of the Pakistan Movement, the Pakistani state and the leaders of the Pakistan Movement e.g. Quaid-e-Azam and his companions (along with Allama Iqbal). See Muslims and the Current Political Struggle Part III, and if you go to buy it, ask for Part III since this is the very same ‘foundation stone’.

“(2) The right of freedom of enterprise. (3) Personal profit being the moving action. The thing upon which the capitalist system relies for the development of the production of needs is the greed of gain and the hope of profit which is naturally present within every person, and persuades him towards work and effort. (pp. 22) competition and taking the lead […] those who work and those who make use of work too in their respective place, due to competition on their own keep establishing balanced standards of wages and salaries provided that the competition is open and free, it is not narrowed by any type of monopolies. (5) The difference between the rights of an employee and hirer[…] by virtue of justice, the profit of the business is his share; the share within which the loss in business is included. And who runs the risk of business. As for the employee, he is very much deserving of receiving his appropriate wage which is settled upon a well-known method with regard to the nature of its work and quantity, according to the market rate. (pp. 24) […] It is a natural thing for a slight struggle to be created from this contradiction. But as happens in every worldly matter, in this matter too such wages will continue to be settled with humility on a natural basis which are acceptable for both parties. (pp. 25) […] (6) faith upon the natural causes of evolution[…] the laws of nature have kept undertaking the work of collective progress and prosperity by means of the individual effort and action of numerous scattered individuals and groups by themselves; which cannot be done by any collective planning with such excellence. This is the planning of nature which happens in an intangible manner.” (pp. 26)

"How can it happen that the partisans of Maududi very much roam about announcing that they are opponents of both capitalism and socialism, and [yet] we get to know from this interview that actually he is very much an opponent of socialism but [still] counts capitalism among “things that are not forbidden” from the Islamic viewpoint?" (Safdar Mir)

All these economic principles are very important and – as Maududi will clarify later – all these are exactly according to Islam, because they are ‘according to nature’. But the greatest importance is possessed by the seventh law.

“(7) The nonintervention of the state (this is actually the result of law number 1, meaning about the right to private property which is the fundamental principle of capitalism ~ Safdar Mir) In all this business it is not the task of the state to intervene without rhyme or reason in the natural process of wealth creation to spoil its balance; rather its task is to create such conditions in which individual freedom of action is as secure as possible. It should establish peace and order, complete agreements with the force of law and should save the country and its business from external attacks and resistances and dangers. The office of the state is that it should discharge the service of judge and custodian and guardian; and not to foist itself as a trader and manufacturer and landlord; or hinder traders’ and manufacturers’ and landlords’ work with its repeated intrusion.” (pp. 26, 27)

Maududi’s partisans say that actually, while describing the laws [under which the capitalist system operates], he did not clarify his own stance, meaning the values of the economic system; instead he explained the standpoint of the supporters of the capitalist system. His own stance is different, they claim, and it is Islamic.

On the other hand, in the very next line, Maududi himself presents these values as the eternal values of human economy:

“These were the laws which were presented with full force in the period of the birth of modern capitalism and since these contained truth despite exaggeration to some extent (to what extent?); that is why they were compelled to be acknowledged by the entire world. In reality, there was no new thing, too, in them. All matters were the same upon which the business of human economy has continued to be done since an unknown time. If innovation was there, it was in the exaggerated intensity which bourgeois gentlemen assumed in sticking some laws upon the economy of the period of the Industrial revolution.” (pp. 27)

Maududi acknowledges these laws – meaning the basic values of the capitalist system – as ‘truth’ and what sort of truth; upon which human economy has always been compliant.

A question may be put that from the extract above: how can you prove Maududi as a supporter of the capitalist system upon the manner of merely a logical deduction? Do tell whether Maududi confessed this thing somewhere in plain words as well […] in answer to this question, please consider Nawa-i-Waqt (06 May 1966):

“It is written that Maulana Maududi declared while giving an interview in Multan that: ‘Capitalism is neither lawful nor forbidden. Rather if wealth earned by illegal means is spent by illegal ways then Islam terms it forbidden.’ ‘Although according to the thinking of the Maulana there is no justification for socialism in Islam […] Belief in nationalizing properties is against Islamic teachings.”

Then a question arises, that possibly the reporter of Nawa-i-Waqt may have made some mistake. How can it happen that the partisans of Maududi very much roam about announcing that they are opponents of both capitalism and socialism, and [yet] we get to know from this interview that actually he is very much an opponent of socialism but [still] counts capitalism among “things that are not forbidden” from the Islamic viewpoint? Can a reference be given of such a writing of Maududi in which he has supported the above-mentioned laws of the capitalist system in a positive manner and termed them synonymous with the Islamic economic system?

Professor M.M. Sharif had compiled a very voluminous book with the title of Muslim Filasafi Ki Tareekh [The History of Muslim Philosophy] in which Maududi had written an essay with the title The Political and Economic Teachings of the Koran (Chapter 9, Volume I). In this connection, this is probably his most revered writing. He declares:

“The plan for the economy which the Koran has presented is entirely based on the idea of individual property in every field. There is no indication in it anywhere that a reservation be made in this connection in the possession of commodities and the means of production; and to say that merely the former come in private property and the latter is allowed to be ‘nationalized’. Neither is there any such thing in the Koran from which it can be found that the aforementioned plan is of temporary nature; which can be changed later by some other permanent method of action. Just this thing that at one place in the Koran there is a mention that ‘The earth belongs to Allah’ (Al-arz Allah) This is not enough to infer the result that the Koran is against the private property of land or forbids from it and allows it to be ‘nationalized’[…] besides to deduce from verse 41 (Surah Ha Mim As Sajdah) that the Koran wants to equally distribute all economic resources within the earth among all humans is exactly this much incorrect; and it is also wrong to conclude this that since this will happen only after ‘nationalization’, so the Koran looks at this system (nationalization) with favourable eyes or is its supporter. The translation of this verse is very much done incorrectly to reach an interpretation like this one; meaning ‘Allah kept within the earth its economic resources within four days equal for all seekers’. This inaccurate translation too does not fulfill the goal. To apply the words of ‘equal for all seekers’ on just humans will be wrong. All types of animals too are among those who are ‘seekers’. Therefore if this verse orders equal parts for all those who are seekers then there is no justification to restrict this equality for merely the human species.” (pp. 179)

Merely so that by some chance equality should not be created between humans and animals in the light of this verse, Maududi has put up with the fact that in the capitalist economy, the majority of humans, too, should be given the rank of animals.

But in view of these extracts, what of the ideas of the equality which emerge in the mind of every person immediately upon hearing the name of Islam?

Do not be alarmed: Maududi has supplied an interpretation for even this equality so that it can be proven according to the capitalist system and its so-called democracy. He declares that:

“The natural method of the movement of the economic system under this plan is that individuals will run it and try to develop it by an independent attempt. But it does not mean that they have been left totally free to do every work without any restriction or rule. For their own civic and economic welfare and for the prosperity of their society, some limits have been put upon this freedom.” (pp. 190)

In this connection, Maududi mentions interest, alms and assistance of the poor and orphans; meaning if interest is ended in the capitalist system (meaning it is made permissible by calling it profit), alms are arranged and poor-houses are opened for the needy and orphans, then it will become an Islamic economic system.

To control this – lest limits are taken to be something else – Maududi warns that:

“In this plan, to make available economic justice, the law or intervention of the state is not relied upon. For this objective (meaning for economic justice) after deeming some indispensable things the responsibility of the state, it (meaning Islam) enforces the remaining clauses of its plan for the mental and moral prosperity of the members of a society and its general welfare; thus economic justice harmonizing with the principle of individual freedom in the field of the economy is attained.” (pp. 190)

There is no economic principle in the remaining clauses, rather there are moral principles in that:

1. The difference between lawful and unlawful in the sources of wealth acquisition


2. The prohibition on wealth accumulation (if there is very much no limit on possession, then where will this prohibition on wealth accumulation be adhered to?)


3. The injunction to spend


4. Charity


5. The law of inheritance


6. Frugality

Seen collectively, the shape of Maududi’s economic system that emerges is that of a system in which the state and law in the hands of a few perform the duties of protecting and guarding the unlimited means of production and the possession of wealth; and do not in any way intervene in this reserved right of theirs. This is because Maududi finds this system closer to nature and describes it as the Islamic economic system. He declares:

“Islam wants to see Man closer to the natural state in every matter and does not like artificiality in any aspect of life. For the human economy, the natural state is this same that the sources of livelihood which God has created on this earth should be brought into their possession by persons; get possession of them and benefit from them singly and in groups and carry on free trade of articles and services mutually. Since time immemorial the business of the human economy has carried on in this same manner and this allowance could somewhat be made only in this natural system in that a man can be free in his economy and permanent in his life even living within the society.” (pp. 123, 124)

In the definition of the capitalist system, too, Maududi has very much used the word “natural” and has described the same about it, that:

“Since time immemorial, the business of the human economy had continued to be accomplished similarly.”

Obviously, when Maududi says the word “Islamic,” he means very much the “capitalist system.”

"Maududi mentions interest, alms and assistance of the poor and orphans; meaning if interest is ended in the capitalist system (meaning it is made permissible by calling it profit), alms are arranged and poor-houses are opened for the needy and orphans, then it will become an Islamic economic system"(Safdar Mir)

Maududi is very much a very great supporter of freedom in connection with the right of ownership of the individual – meaning the capitalist and feudal individual – but when the question of a worker’s labour right – meaning the right of work – arises, then the whole vanity of individual freedom becomes baseless.

“Islam does not impose the duty on the society and state that it provides employment to its members.” (pp. 135)

Now, if some gentleman tells the difference between this ‘natural’ economic system and the capitalist system, then I will become convinced of him and Maududi both. Despite this, Maududi’s partisans are raising hell, screaming, “Look! these socialist gentlemen accuse Maududi wrongly that he is a supporter of capitalists.”

The question arises that if a person is acquainted with the Koran and Hadith and is a claimant of the equality taught by Islam, how can he present an un-Islamic system like capitalism as an Islamic system before us? The gentlemen who are the defenders of Maududism, who keep protesting the foreign, non-national and un-Islamic way of life all the time, how do they bear that an attempt be made to impose a foreign, non-national and un-Islamic economic system like capitalism over the people very much in the name of Islam?

The answer to this question is also present very much within this question. After all, for us in our political history of the last 200 years, it is not such a new thing that religion be used for conservative ends. The manner in which Maududi has defined the feudal system in his book and how he has recounted the association of the Church with the feudal system of Europe; after a little alteration in it we can duly reach the conclusion that like the Church in Europe, Maududism too is using Islam to support a dying economic system. Maududism is actually a school of thought whose very goal is to support feudalism, capitalism and the neocolonial system in Pakistan. This is the very reason that contrary to the writings of our ancient religious scholars, the basic problem of Maududi’s writings is that somehow unlimited right of ownership should be proven according to the Koran and Hadith. And in order to uphold this unlimited right of ownership opposite the rising unlimited storms of popular forces, the map of a state be provided which is very much an Islamic state in name and insists on the sovereignty of God. But in reality, it should be a neocolonial state, in which the denial of the sovereignty of the people be done in the sacred name of God. Power be in the hand of landlords, capitalists and the bureaucratic parts of the neocolonial system.

After the trivial appropriation in Maududi’s text, it is not difficult to discover the similarity of the map of his ‘Islamic system’ and the map of the feudal system of Europe. In the same connection, the conformity of his new school of thought and the school of thought of the Church of Europe too comes to be understood.

The map of the economy in Maududi’s ‘Islamic system’ in his very own words is like this:

“The basis of power was decided to be the ownership of land. Honour, power, hegemony, and permanent rights were reserved for only those people who are owners of land and capital in some area.” (Islam and Modern Economic Ideas, pp. 8)

In this extract, I have added only the word “capital” from my side. The map of an Islamic economy which Maududi has presented: its real shape in the light of Maududi’s [own] idea is exactly the same. The basic value of this system is that no restriction can be imposed on the rights of unlimited individual ownership from the state or society. Rather the state means the machinery for the protection and imposition of these rights.

In this system, the shape of Maududism as a school of thought becomes such:

“The Maududi school of thought which talks to people in the name of God – and in our time has been newly-established in the continent – has reconciled with the ending feudal, capitalist and neocolonial system; and it kept on awarding religious decree to all those traditional institutions and rights and distinctions and controls which were taking root in society along with that system. Every idea which became old, became the belief of the Maududi school of thought and to think against it was decided to be a sin. Every ritual which once came into practice became the Sharia and deviation from it meant deviating from God and His faith. Whether it be literature and philosophy or society and politics and economy, the shape of whichever thing was established in the feudal, capitalist, neocolonial system, the Maududi school of thought determined it to be a God-given shape, and on this basis any attempt to change it was not just a crime, but [religiously] forbidden too.” (Islam and Modern Economic Ideas pp. 9)

In this extract, I have added the words “Maududi school of thought” in place of the Church, and “capitalist and neocolonial, feudal system” in place of the feudal system from my side. It is so surprising that with this trivial appropriation, we have found such a clear definition of the Maududi school of thought that any other definition cannot compete with its comprehensiveness and truth – and that too in the very own words of Maududi.