Today, as soon as I opened Facebook, I came across a statement that naturally caught my attention: “If the entire Qawmi community ever joins Jamaat-e-Islami, they will all be misguided.”
The statement is being circulated as a remark made by Mufti Abdul Malik (Hafizahullah), the respected Khatib of Baitul Mukarram National Mosque. Many people have already begun trolling and ridiculing him over this statement. Even when we disagree with the views expressed by a respected senior scholar, turning him into an object of personal mockery or online trolling is by no means appropriate.
Nevertheless, the way the statement has been presented raises a legitimate question: how consistent is it with the overall thinking and body of thought of a learned scholar like Mufti Sahib? If he did indeed make this statement, it is essential to understand the full context in which it was made.
This is because a sentence or a short video clip extracted from a longer speech can sometimes convey a meaning that does not fully correspond to the speaker’s actual intention. Therefore, considering the complete context when evaluating a scholar’s statement is a matter of intellectual fairness and scholarly integrity.
Nevertheless, if we assume that he made the statement deliberately and in the manner in which it is being circulated, several questions naturally arise.
First,
Why did the possibility that “the entire Qawmi community might one day join Jamaat-e-Islami” arise in his statement in this particular way? This needs clarification.
Does it indicate a change in his confidence in, or expectations of, the Qawmi community? Or does it reflect his concern about the current tendency of some Qawmi scholars to join Jamaat-e-Islami? Alternatively, is there a more specific context or trend against which he intends to warn people?
The full statement and its context would help us understand the matter more clearly.
Second,
Every group, school of thought, and ideological tradition has, to varying degrees, its own intellectual and practical shortcomings.
Here, an important distinction should be kept in mind: the term misguidance generally relates to deviations in thought, belief, or ideology, whereas the term deviation may also apply to morality, conduct, dealings, practice, and the discharge of responsibilities.
Intellectual deviation is undoubtedly more serious. Nevertheless, in practical terms, it is extremely difficult for any individual or group to remain entirely free from shortcomings and deviations in practice.
Therefore, criticism of misguidance, erroneous thinking, and deviations is certainly necessary. Indeed, constructive criticism is an important means of correction. However, such criticism should be scholarly, fair, compassionate, and constructive in its language and approach, so that it opens the door to reform rather than deepening divisions.
The problem is that we often identify the faults of others quite easily, while our vision seems to become somewhat impaired when it comes to recognizing the faults of ourselves, our own groups, and our own ideological traditions. We strongly demand self-criticism from others but do not feel the need for self-criticism to the same degree within our own circles. Yet, for genuine intellectual and moral refinement, self-criticism is even more necessary than criticism of others.
From this perspective, I believe that Jamaat-e-Islami may have certain aspects of its thinking and activities that deserve criticism—and, in reality, there are such aspects.
Similarly, there may be many ideas, tendencies, and practices within the Qawmi sphere that call for self-criticism and reform.
Therefore, the question should not simply be, “Where are others wrong?” Rather, the question “Where are we ourselves wrong?” should receive equal attention.
Mufti Sahib has every right to criticize the ideas and activities of Jamaat-e-Islami that he considers problematic. It is also entirely natural for a scholar to engage in scholarly discussion of such matters.
At the same time, however, a principled question may legitimately be raised: should there not be equally clear and public self-criticism concerning those aspects of the thinking and activities of his own ideological circle or the broader Qawmi community that warrant criticism?
This is not a matter of accusing any particular individual. Rather, it concerns the consistent application of the same principles of criticism to everyone. Such consistency is all the more reasonably expected from someone who holds an important religious position at the national level.
Third,
Personally, I am not an official member of any political party or ideological group. Some people believe that I am an important figure within Jamaat-e-Islami. The reality is that I consciously support Jamaat-e-Islami, while also holding other Islamic individuals and groups in high regard, particularly those whose activities demonstrate sincerity and integrity.
Nevertheless, compared with many other Islamic parties, I find certain positions of Jamaat-e-Islami more acceptable—particularly some aspects of its planned political programmes, organizational discipline, and public welfare activities.
However, I have never held any office or organizational responsibility within Jamaat-e-Islami, nor have I received any significant benefits or privileges from the party.
On the contrary, whenever I have found any of its activities or positions open to criticism or objectionable, I have expressed my criticism publicly on various occasions, while attempting to do so with sincerity and concern. I have also written a series of social media posts under the title “A Glimpse Through the Outside Window”, discussing various aspects of the party. Even today, I have published criticism of its Majlisul Mufassirin. As a result, some people associated with the party have become displeased with me.
Therefore, supporting a party and endorsing every one of its ideas and activities should not be treated as the same thing. Support and criticism can coexist. Indeed, even when we support a particular party, we should retain the freedom to criticize it when we believe it is wrong.
Fourth,
An important consideration must also be kept in mind regarding the use of the term misguidance: not all forms of misguidance are of the same degree.
In discussions of faith and creed, scholars have also examined different degrees and forms of disbelief (kufr) and hypocrisy (nifaq), including the concepts of kufrun duna kufr—a form or degree of kufr that does not amount to major kufr—and nifaq duna nifaq—a lesser form of hypocrisy. In other words, the use of a particular religious term does not mean that every instance in which it is applied must be regarded as identical in degree or severity.
Similarly, when a particular error committed by an individual, party, or school of thought is described as misguidance, it is essential to determine its nature, degree, scope, and implications.
Even if we assume that certain ideas or activities of Jamaat-e-Islami involve misguidance or deviation, questions would still remain: What is the nature of that deviation? How serious is it? And how does it compare with other prevailing ideologies?
In particular, if certain errors or deviations within a party that identifies itself as Islamic are characterized as misguidance from a religious perspective, then the same standard should also be applied to overt secularism, atheism, liberalism, extreme materialism, modernism, postmodernism, and other ideologies that conflict with the fundamental beliefs of Islam. Their adherents, too, should be assessed according to the same standard, with the intensity of criticism proportionate to the nature and gravity of the issues involved.
The reason is that the degree of criticism should not be determined solely by asking, “Which ideological group does this person belong to?” Rather, we must also consider how seriously a particular statement or belief conflicts with the fundamental principles of Islam.
This brings us to a broader question of principle: should we determine the intensity of our criticism on the basis of a person’s or party’s identity, or should we apply the same scholarly standards to everyone?
If we believe that Jamaat-e-Islami’s alleged misguidance or deviations warrant a particular degree of vigilance and outspoken criticism, should we not expect comparable—and, where appropriate, even stronger—warnings and criticism concerning other ideologies that conflict more fundamentally with the core beliefs and values of Islam?
At the very least, the principle governing criticism should be consistent and universal.
In other words, the question is not simply who has spoken how much against a particular individual or party. The real question should be whether the degree of criticism is proportionate to the seriousness of the deviation according to Islamic standards, and whether our intellectual and da‘wah responses are balanced accordingly.
Fifth,
Respecting a scholar’s status and intellectual contributions is not the same as considering every opinion he expresses unquestionably correct.
Mufti Abdul Malik (Hafizahullah) is undoubtedly a respected scholar. However, no one is in a position to guarantee that every one of his views is absolutely correct. Differences of opinion have existed among scholars, continue to exist, and will continue to exist in the future.
I have always been particularly cautious about presenting my own position as the exclusive and final truth on matters over which the great imams have differed. I may personally consider one opinion more correct, while someone else may not find that opinion equally convincing.
Different individuals may approach the same issue from different epistemological, historical, or practical perspectives, leading them to different interpretations and conclusions.
Therefore, disagreeing with a scholar’s statement does not constitute disrespect toward him. Likewise, respecting a scholar does not mean accepting every opinion he expresses as beyond question.
Scholarly etiquette requires us to preserve the dignity of the individual while examining the reasoning, evidence, context, and implications of what he says.
My intention is not to engage in a personal attack on Mufti Abdul Malik (Hafizahullah). Rather, I wish to discuss some broader questions of principle that have arisen in response to a statement being circulated in his name.
If a respected scholar such as him did indeed make this statement, its full context needs to be understood. If, on the other hand, the statement has been circulated in a truncated or contextually misleading form, that too needs to be clarified.
Finally, we must remember that identifying the faults of others is easy; identifying our own faults is difficult. Yet genuine intellectual integrity begins with the courage to judge our own ideological circles, our own thinking, and our own positions by the same ethical and intellectual standards that we apply to others.
What we need is not a culture of mutually invalidating one another, nor a tendency to indiscriminately label one another as misguided. Rather, we need to identify one another’s mistakes and create opportunities for correction while maintaining respect, justice, scholarly discipline, self-criticism, and mutual courtesy.