There will be words whose meanings will have to be rethought and retooled, since they have been so long in disuse.
Despite all the subtlety and finesse required to thread these needles, Mawdudi didn’t believe that his representation of the Right Path signified new or idiosyncratic interpretation of the Qur’an. He was simply preserving the “primordial” and “pristine” Islam that was in danger of being lost forever in a thicket of scholarly obscurantism. This conviction might account for Mawdudi’s excitement over his discovery of a young American woman who had arrived at exactly the same understanding of Islam as he had, without any knowledge of classical Arabic or familiarity with all those antique debates. From vastly different starting points, their shared methodology of rationality, diligence, and sincerity had led them to the exact same Right Path. Of course, that was until Maryam veered off and ended up in the madhouse.
There is room, Mawdudi goes on to insist, for healthy debate. Such differences are the soul of a free society and a sign of intellectual vigor. In sorting out God’s intentions, even the Prophet is no greater authority on the text than his companions. To suggest that the meaning of individual suras is unchanging is the conclusion of a society of unthinking “blocks of wood.”
What then of his invocation of a primordial Islam? What of his insistence that no part of the Qur’an is vague or wanting? But Mawdudi continues on blithely, the tone of reasoned discourse obscuring the contradiction, as if it were possible to have it both ways. Only those who read the work to quibble over split hairs are unwelcome, he writes. The Qur’an absolutely condemns to perdition those who create mischief by sowing endless picky controversies. Those who induce schisms by misunderstanding the fundamental truths of Islam are similarly damned.
But who is to decide what constitutes a quibble and what a subject for healthy debate? Who is to decide what the fundamental truths of Islam are or aren’t? Is questioning Mawdudi’s authority, in itself, divisive? But Mawdudi did not stop to consider such questions. For those who bring an earnest and open mind, he maintains, all that remains is the choice to adopt the way of life outlined in the Qur’an, or not. In the Mawlana’s mind, the right choice is perfectly clear. Only the most perverse or ungrateful person will spurn it.
So there is, in effect, no choice at all. Mawdudi skillfully peddled the illusion of independent choice, the illusion of debate, the illusion that everyone has been given the gift of understanding. But what he is really saying is that he doesn’t actually trust anyone’s reading but his own, thus the need for an “interpretative exposition” of the Qur’an. In Towards Understanding Islam, he is nearly venomous toward those “kufr” who persist in questioning. The person who, after reading the Qur’an, nonetheless rejects Islam will inevitably “spread confusion and disorder. He will, without the least compunction, shed blood, violate other men’s rights and generally act destructively. His perverted thoughts and ambitions, his blurred vision and distorted scale of values, and his evil activities will make life bitter for him and for all around him.”
The animus here, the departure from his signature lofty tone, suggests that Mawdudi was writing from personal experience. Did he have scheming and two-faced British officials in mind? Or was he thinking of those puppets of his enemies, the slavish ulema? They were the ones who presumed to correct his understanding of classical Arabic and tried to hustle him out of the political arena. Or perhaps he was thinking of those cynical and secular adversaries who, year after year, decade after decade, refused to recognize his moral authority? Was Maryam now considered perverse and ungrateful, her vision blurred and distorted? Perhaps the Mawlana had, on closer inspection, discovered that
Despite all the subtlety and finesse required to thread these needles, Mawdudi didn’t believe that his representation of the Right Path signified new or idiosyncratic interpretation of the Qur’an. He was simply preserving the “primordial” and “pristine” Islam that was in danger of being lost forever in a thicket of scholarly obscurantism. This conviction might account for Mawdudi’s excitement over his discovery of a young American woman who had arrived at exactly the same understanding of Islam as he had, without any knowledge of classical Arabic or familiarity with all those antique debates. From vastly different starting points, their shared methodology of rationality, diligence, and sincerity had led them to the exact same Right Path. Of course, that was until Maryam veered off and ended up in the madhouse.
There is room, Mawdudi goes on to insist, for healthy debate. Such differences are the soul of a free society and a sign of intellectual vigor. In sorting out God’s intentions, even the Prophet is no greater authority on the text than his companions. To suggest that the meaning of individual suras is unchanging is the conclusion of a society of unthinking “blocks of wood.”
What then of his invocation of a primordial Islam? What of his insistence that no part of the Qur’an is vague or wanting? But Mawdudi continues on blithely, the tone of reasoned discourse obscuring the contradiction, as if it were possible to have it both ways. Only those who read the work to quibble over split hairs are unwelcome, he writes. The Qur’an absolutely condemns to perdition those who create mischief by sowing endless picky controversies. Those who induce schisms by misunderstanding the fundamental truths of Islam are similarly damned.
But who is to decide what constitutes a quibble and what a subject for healthy debate? Who is to decide what the fundamental truths of Islam are or aren’t? Is questioning Mawdudi’s authority, in itself, divisive? But Mawdudi did not stop to consider such questions. For those who bring an earnest and open mind, he maintains, all that remains is the choice to adopt the way of life outlined in the Qur’an, or not. In the Mawlana’s mind, the right choice is perfectly clear. Only the most perverse or ungrateful person will spurn it.
So there is, in effect, no choice at all. Mawdudi skillfully peddled the illusion of independent choice, the illusion of debate, the illusion that everyone has been given the gift of understanding. But what he is really saying is that he doesn’t actually trust anyone’s reading but his own, thus the need for an “interpretative exposition” of the Qur’an. In Towards Understanding Islam, he is nearly venomous toward those “kufr” who persist in questioning. The person who, after reading the Qur’an, nonetheless rejects Islam will inevitably “spread confusion and disorder. He will, without the least compunction, shed blood, violate other men’s rights and generally act destructively. His perverted thoughts and ambitions, his blurred vision and distorted scale of values, and his evil activities will make life bitter for him and for all around him.”
The animus here, the departure from his signature lofty tone, suggests that Mawdudi was writing from personal experience. Did he have scheming and two-faced British officials in mind? Or was he thinking of those puppets of his enemies, the slavish ulema? They were the ones who presumed to correct his understanding of classical Arabic and tried to hustle him out of the political arena. Or perhaps he was thinking of those cynical and secular adversaries who, year after year, decade after decade, refused to recognize his moral authority? Was Maryam now considered perverse and ungrateful, her vision blurred and distorted? Perhaps the Mawlana had, on closer inspection, discovered that
Similar Books
