Muslim Political Theology and the Critique of Secular Nationalism in Modern South Asia

Article Nation as a Neo-Idol: Muslim Political Theology and the Critique of Secular Nationalism in Modern South Asia

Mohammad Adnan Rehman Graduate Division of Religious Studies, College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston University, 145 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA; [email protected]

Received: 30 August 2018; Accepted: 5 November 2018; Published: 13 November 2018

Abstract: Modern perspectives on nationalism tend to privilege structuralist readings which approach nationalism as entailing economic and political restructuring, thereby overlooking the necessary role of human factors in the functioning of nationalism. Religious opposition to secular nationalism is then condemned as backward, reactionary, fundamentalist, or ideological. However, a different understanding of nationalism is uncovered when the role of human factors in nationalism are scrutinized. Toward discerning the role of human factors in nationalism and its relation to religion in general, I turn to Liah Greenfeld’s analysis of social psychology of nationalism as a secular ideology. In exploring the effects of nationalist ideology on religion, I return to the earliest Muslim debates on nationalism in South Asia between two critics of nationalism, Muhammad Iqbal and Abu’l A’laa Mawdudi, and their opponents, Abul Kalam Azad and Husayn Ahmad Madani.

Keywords: nationalism; political Islam; religion and politics; South Asia; India; Pakistan; British colonialism; political theology; religion; revivalism; Islamism; neo-traditionalism; fundamentalism; Mawdudi; Iqbal; Azad; Madani

Whereas secular nationalism emerged in the West as an indigenous and therefore organic development, its rise in the Muslim world was predicated upon the importation of Western models. Accordingly, while some Muslims readily adopted nationalism as an ideological basis for national struggles against colonialism, founding new polities on this basis; others rejected it on theological grounds as antithetical to Islam due to nationalism’s secular commitments. The critique waged by the latter camp has played a central role in defining the course of modern Muslim politics. From within the Muslim perspective, given the perpetual presence within Muslim history of a certain religious consciousness that remains ever on guard in warding off or purging Muslim societies from foreign influences, the modern confrontation of some Muslims with secular nationalism should come as no surprise and should have be seen as inevitable. However, the privileging of structural aspects of modernization by nationalism studies, and social sciences at large, has prevented modern disciplines from fully appreciating the nature of Muslim confrontation with nationalism and the ensuing difficulties of modern Muslim politics. It is, nonetheless, possible to make better sense of the said clash while remaining within the perspective of nationalism studies by moving away from structuralist readings in favor of analyses that highlight the role of human factors in nationalism and its parallels with religion. When approached from this angle, it becomes possible to better appreciate the logic and rationale advanced by two Muslim critics of secular nationalism in South Asia, namely, Muhammad Iqbal and Sayyid Mawdudi, whom I will present as political theologians given that they directly link their theology to politics, and construct their political thought upon a theological basis. In presenting Iqbal and Mawdudi as political theologians and approaching them in the perspective of nationalism studies, I also hope to contribute to bridging the gap between nationalism studies and religious studies toward a multidisciplinary approach to the study of religion and politics. In this exposition, I will confine

Religions 2018, 9, 355; doi:10.3390/rel9110355 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2018, 9, 355 2 of 20 myself to what Raja calls “the first phase of Indian Muslim nationalism” aimed at “the articulation of Muslim particularity and exceptionalism” (Raja 2010, p. xvi). In scrutinizing the human dimensions of nationalism, I will first turn to Liah Greenfeld’s analysis of the psychology of nationalism.1 Greenfeld was trained as a sociologist and anthropologist, but as her career progressed she turned her attention to political science, particularly the study of nationalism. In this disciplinary transition, sociological and anthropological motifs continue to inform her investigations on nationalism, and constitute one reason why she grants due attention to human factors at work in nationalism. Her approach contrasts with the conventional approaches in nationalism studies, especially at its origins. The study of nationalism has been saturated with structural analyses of nationalism’s development emphasizing economic and political modernization, a process which tracks as its necessary concomitant the development of the modern nation-state.2 For sociologists in the tradition of structuralist-functionalist school, for example, nationalism emerges as a result of industrialization which breaks up the pre-modern society of orders, thereby necessitating a nationalized (read, centralized) political economy spearheaded by the nation-state. To perpetuate its existence and smooth functioning, the nation-state then formulates and promotes nationalism as an ideological justification for maintaining social solidarity and the state’s integrity (Gellner 2008). In their turn, Marxist analyses view nationalism as the result of the rise of capitalist economies and the bourgeois class, and for this reason, are wont to equate nationalism with false consciousness and superstructure—secondary and illusory effects (e.g., culture, arts, and religion) of economic processes (Özkirimli 2000, p. 27). Regardless of their preferred method, all structural analyses approach nationalism foremost as a socio-politico-economic system organized in the form of the modern nation-state (Greenfeld 2006, pp. 65–66). In this view, nationalism—along with industrialization, capitalism, and popular sovereignty—forms a primary constituent of modernization and equated with progress. To be sure, structural factors are essential to nationalism, especially in its relation to the state; however, structuralist analyses are methodologically unequipped to make complete sense of why some Muslims reject nationalism as antithetical to Islam, even as some of them have been more than willing to adapt the structure of the modern nation-state. In the structuralist view, any religious opposition to nationalism is reduced to an opposition to economic and political modernization, science, and historical progress. Religious politics is then customarily condemned and dismissed as backward, regressive, and fundamentalist. Such hasty dismissal of religious politics is a primary reason why structuralist readings of modernity were caught by surprise by the religious resurgence around the globe in late twentieth century. This is because a whole other dimension of nationalism was overlooked in the process. For altogether different factors come to light when nationalism is approached not as restructuring of economy and polity, but as a construct, philosophy, worldview, or “a species of political ideology” (Greenfeld 2006, p. 94). From the ideological vantage point, instead of scrutinizing structural factors, the inquiry into nationalism attends to, inter alia, the role of human factors. It is the human or the anthropological element in nationalism which helps to make better sense of nationalism’s relationship with religion. In the case of colonial South Asia, structural factors were undoubtedly operative and influenced the development of the various Muslim responses to nationalism; however, the nature of the Muslim responses cannot be fully grasped without considering the more human factors at play. One reason for this should be plainly obvious: religion itself cannot be fully fathomed within structural and structuralist analyses. In fact, religious studies would be unable to make sense of religion without

1 Among other notable nationalism experts who highlight the human side of nationalism are Benedict Anderson and Anthony D. Smith. Benedict Anderson, for instance, asserts (modern) nations as “imagined communities” given the undeniable role that collective imagination plays in regard to how a nation is conceptualized and sentimentalized in peculiar ways (Anderson 1991). Anthony Smith in his turn attends to the role of ethnicity and religion in nationalism, highlighting the inter-connections among national and religious symbols, memory, heroes, and the past (Smith 1988, 2003). 2 The studies by Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism (2008), Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1991), Hechter’s Internal Colonialism (1975), and Nairn’s The Break-up of Britain (1977) are a few examples of structural analysis of nationalism. Religions 2018, 9, 355 3 of 20 accounting for the human dimensions of religion—e.g., prophets, saints, worship, ecstatic experience, or charismatic authority, spirituality, moral agency, and so on. Whereas pre-modern Europe was committed to Christian ways of thinking and living, nationalism supplanted Christianity from its place of pride as the primary determination of European conceptions of anthropology, sociology, and politics. “Nationalism is an essentially secular form of consciousness,” observes Greenfeld, “one that, indeed, sacralizes the secular” (Greenfeld 2006, p. 93).3 For Greenfeld, nationalism is secular because it lacks a “transcendental orientation,” and instead perceives the world as “autonomous and ultimately meaningful in its own right” (ibid., pp. 93–94). As for sacralization of the secular, we have here a transvaluation of Durkheim’s view of religion as reﬂecting the social as the sacred over against the profane. Sacralization is an act of investing something with exceptional, extraordinary, or ultimate value, and anything so valued must then also be safeguarded against being devalued or undervalued. Exceptional valuation entails setting of boundaries around the sacred so as to protect it from being profaned by its other. Accordingly, if the sacred seeks to ward off the encroachment of the secular upon its territory, the secular in turn seeks to ward off the encroachment of the sacred upon its sphere of inﬂuence. In other words, both religion and nationalism are concerned with guarding the sanctity of their respective realms. This does not at all mean for Greenfeld that nationalism can be equated with religion. Nationalism for her is not another religion; rather, it should be “compared to a type of religion, such as monotheism, representing as it does a set of fundamental principles that can be realized in a variety of dissimilar and often incompatible doctrinal systems” (ibid., p. 94). Nationalism’s comparability to high-level, more abstract traits of religion means that

nationalism shares with transcendental religion certain central qualities that make it their functional equivalent. Both ... are ways to interpret—that is, invest with meaning—otherwise meaningless reality ... [Both] are order-creating cultural systems (ibid., p. 94; emphasis added).

As a consequence, nationalism has successfully “replaced religion as the basis of individual and collective identity in the modern world” (ibid., p. 94). In other words, while nationalism as an ideology does not share religion’s metaphysics or theology, it behaves and leads human collectivities to behave in a religious fashion (as a “type of religion”). Greenfeld notes that investing the material world with ultimate meaning makes nationalism “far more intensely spiritual than that of any of the prenational social formations” (ibid., p. 97). Nationalism is the “soul itself” of modern society (ibid.). While Greenfeld does not elaborate the meaning of national “spirituality” or “soul,” it can be inferred that she intends to indicate the unconscious, deep-seated, spirit and sentiments with which people relate to their nation and state. Greenfeld’s reading of nationalism as a type of religion find parallels in the studies of a minority of voices in nationalism studies. As early as 1926, Carlton Hayes saw nationalism as rooted in humanity’s inherent “religious sense” that he defines as “a mysterious faith in some power outside of himself” (Hayes 1926), and went on to compare nationalism to idolatry (Moses 1975, pp. 263–64). Anthony Smith has insisted on nationalism as a secularized religious form equipped with the conceptions of the sacred communities, holy lands, glorious pasts, and ancestral sacrifices: “[t]hese became the stuff of the new religion of authenticity that is nationalism” (Smith 2003, p. viii). More recently in sociological perspective, Mark Jeurgensmeyer’s reading of both nationalism and religion as “ideologies of order” closely tracks Greenfeld’s reading. For Jeurgensmeyer, both religion and nationalism offer respective coherent and meaningful visions of the world enshrined in social orders and practices seen

3 Greenfeld is not alone in her strong reading of the secular’s religious attitude toward itself. Speaking of the development of the secularization theory and its failure to ascertain the fate of religion in modernity, Swatos and Christiano call the Durkheimian readings of religion’s structural function of social integration and solidarity “‘religion’ of secularization”. They also quote Jeffrey Haden’s remark that the “idea of secularization became sacralized” in social scientific circles (Hadden quoted in (Swatos and Christiano 2000, p. 2). Religions 2018, 9, 355 4 of 20 as necessary manifestations of their respective visions (Juergensmeyer 2010, p. 266).4 Accordingly, Jeurgensmeyer classifies religion and nationalism as species of the same genus (Juergensmeyer 2010, p. 265). Meaning-making, order-creation, cultural system, social order, and ideology are all terms associated with identity formation. The stronger the linkages between these processes and structures, stronger the identity attachments associated with them. For this reason, there are two overall grave repercussions that result from instituting a nationalistic ideology of order in the midst of an existing one. To institute a new order means to destroy the existing one. Structurally, old economies and polities are demolished to make room for modern structures. Ideologically, new identity uproots the old ones, which is a more agonizing, immediately felt, and personal process. The total effects of the displacement of one ideology of order with another one make for conditions of anomie. For Greenfeld, the transition to nationalism for a society of orders necessarily accompanies anomie, especially among the old elites who are bound to suffer an identity crisis due to the loss of status, prestige, and power (Greenfeld 2006, p. 69). Not all anomie-stricken will take the painful transition lying down. Some will resist the change and fight back. We can then extrapolate that, as two species of the same genus, religion and nationalism think and behave in similar ways, occupy the same niche, compete for some of the same resources, hunt on the same grounds, thus bound to encroach upon one another’s territory. Accordingly, they also portray a similar psychology or spirituality. On the relationship between nationalism and religion, I advert to two notable manifestations of national psychology or spirituality characteristic of the national “spirituality” in Greenfeld’s discourse: national dignity and competition. Greenfeld observes that nationalism carries a high “dignity quotient” or “dignity capital” due to its conferring equality upon all of its members, regardless of class, race, status, gender, or religion. In Greenfeld’s explanation,

The main reason for national conﬂicts—and for conﬂicts within nations—is wounded pride or threat to dignity. National identity, which derives from the membership in a sovereign community of equals, is a dignifying identity. This is what distinguishes it from most other identities—all other inclusive identities, cutting across status lines—what makes it so attractive (explaining the spread of nationalism over much of the Earth’s surface) and what makes national mentality so competitive. Nations are in constant pursuit of prestige, always on the look-out for signs of superiority to others or at least equality to those whose superiority is recognized . . . (Greenfeld 2016, pp. 131–32).

In a democracy, for instance, the rich and the poor, the president and the grocer, all have one vote. This explains nationalism’s ready appeal to the masses, and incidentally, it also explains its clash with religion, as religion in general too can confer dignity, prestige, egalitarianism, and a sense of superiority on its adherents. Along with national dignity comes the spirit of competition, especially in relation to the modern capitalist economy of sustainable growth. Both of these result from the secularization (or, sacralization) of the material world which invests worldly activity, and material riches and success, with hitherto exceptional value as a matter of principle. A nation’s dignity capital augments with increased economic and political strength in the international arena, where nations compete with one another economically, militarily, and politically, trying to accumulate more dignity capital for themselves. Greenfeld, thus, identiﬁes the spirit of competition as inherent in nationalism (Greenfeld 2016, p. 5). The preceding exposition leads us to an obvious, and perhaps a startling conclusion, that if nationalism in its ideological mode resembles religion, then religion in its ideological mode must resemble nationalism. Hence, those religious followers for whom religion extends beyond the private

4 Juergensmeyer’s article interrogates the relationship between religious nationalism and violence, and concludes with a cautionary note about the “dangers” of the “marriage” between religion and nationalism. While significant in its own regard, this caution need not detain us here as I am not at the moment concerned with the legitimacy of Muslims’ religious engagement with politics. Religions 2018, 9, 355 5 of 20 sphere are likely to find themselves in confrontation with nationalism. For what are considered to be the ideological religious interests of some will clash with the national interests of others. In this scenario, religious and national interests meet one another as competitors. As Juergensmeyer has it: “Because both religion and secular nationalism are ideologies of order, they are potential rivals” (Juergensmeyer 2010, p. 267). On the ideological plane, then, nationalism becomes religion’s Other. Accordingly, related to national dignity and competition are two social pathologies—implied but not explicitly discussed by Greenfeld—that tend to accompany nationalism: otherization and exceptionalism. Spiritually, the sentiments of exceptionalism and the process of otherization necessarily follow from their axiological contradistinction as each claims for itself exceptional value (exceptionalism), subject to exceptional structures and regulations, and seeks to carve out an exceptional space or context for its operation with the exclusion of its other (otherization). Sociologically, exceptionalism and otherization are two manifestations of the consciously constructed imaginary of social difference—characteristics, factual or imagined, that help distinguish one group from the rest. Nationalism heightens a group’s sense of social difference in contradistinction to other groups, and, as a result, induces in themselves sentiments of national pride, prestige, confidence, distinction, and the like. It then follows that an intensification of the sense of national dignity, unchecked by higher spiritual or humanist ideals, can transform into the myth of national exceptionalism (‘we are uniquely different, hence, superior to the rest’). Otherization and exceptionalism, however, suffer from a paradox: asserting oneself as distinct and exceptional simultaneously confers on others the same distinction, thus opening up the possibility of the others’ reassertion and claim of the same against oneself. In other words, otherization and exceptionalism are reflexive, mutually reciprocal processes that in turn react upon the otherizing agent who then himself becomes the otherized. Reflexive otherization thus triggers a competing impulse to national exceptionalism among nations. The urge to outdo and get ahead of other nations so as to augment national dignity, most often by accumulating economic, military capital, and/or cultural achievements, is irresistible. The competitive spirit among nations, however, is not limited to nation-states, but affects nationalism at all levels, including ethnic nationalisms within a state. Nationalism’s competitive spirit is, however, also bound to clash with not only other nationalisms, but with all such ideologies that might resemble it, such as religion. For as a type of religion and an ideology of order nationalism is bound to encroach upon those areas of operation where religion too operates. For instance, to the extent that both make a diametrically opposite demand of a citizen-believer (say, to commit an act forbidden by the other), only one can be obliged, thereby both compete in testing the citizen-believer’s loyalty. On certain occasions, the citizen-believer must then choose between loyalty to the nation or loyalty to religion. Observe Greenfeld’s acknowledgement: “Islam, which, with its glorious history, contributes most to the dignity of the Arab and Persian nations [and by extension, all Muslims], is seen as their distinguishing ethnic characteristic” (Greenfeld 2016, p. xx). Islam holds high dignity capital for many Muslims than nationalism, and in the moments of competition, some citizen-believers will choose religion over secular nationalism.

1. Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Pragmatic Rejection of Democratic Nationalism The origins of the self-conscious Muslim discourse in South Asia on what can be considered proto-nationalism—as the explicit discourse on and a movement of nationalism had not yet arisen—can be traced to the context following the 1857 Rebellion. The Rebellion began as a mutiny in the ranks of the British-Indian army in one town (Meerut), but quickly spread among the general public, mostly concentrated in northern India. In the aftermath of the Rebellion’s failure, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) emerged as the chief spokesman and apologist for Muslim involvement in the ensuing violence. Khan identified two primary causes of the Rebellion: structurally, the deleterious effects of political and economic modernization resulting in the destruction of local industries, and the resulting poverty and unemployment; and culturally, indignities suffered by the natives at the hands of British officials’ disdain of native cultures, customs, and religions—an assertion of colonial otherization and Religions 2018, 9, 355 6 of 20 exceptionalism.5 After the Rebellion, the British–Muslim relationship was marked by a process of double otherization: while the British presented themselves as exceptional and the (master) Other of all the natives, Muslims were seen by the British as exceptionally troublesome, that is, as the exceptionally dangerous Other given that the Muslims were recently deposed from their longtime rule in the region (Qureshi 1985, p. 241, note 3). Whereas Indians of all stripes participated in the Rebellion, the British singled out Muslims as the primary perpetrators, and the main threat to the British rule in South Asia. The punishment of Muslims was severe, extensive in scope, and devastating in its consequences (Faruqi 1963, pp. 10–16; Qureshi 1985, pp. 263–64; Narang 1972).6 As a result, Muslim decline in the region reached its utmost limits as the Muslims suffered all manners of indignities previously unimaginable in their history in the region. The targeting of the Muslims as a single homogeneous community—without regard to their regional, class, caste, and sectarian differences—reacted upon them in asserting their own initial defeatist exceptionalism: Muslims as a uniquely disadvantaged and vulnerable community in South Asia. Thus began a new era of Muslim thinking born of a deep anxiety about its disadvantageous position in regards the Hindu majority, and whose articulation was championed by Khan. Khan’s program of politico-economic preservation of Muslim community went hand in hand with his opposition to and Muslim contradistinction (auto-otherization) with the rest of South Asia (‘we, the Muslim minority, are exceptionally different than the rest, especially the Hindu majority’). The greatest impetus to Muslim auto-otherization came with the birth of Indian National Congress (hereafter, INC) in 1885. After the Rebellion, the second significant milestone in the development of Muslim nationalism in South Asia was the establishment of the INC by a majority-Hindu elite with the participation of a few Muslims. The INC’s founding objective was to present the interests of India’s educated class before the British government (Griffiths 1946, pp. 135–36). INC quickly emerged as the largest and the dominant political organization, one claiming to represent all Indians, and would go on to spearhead the national movement for independence from colonial rule. The general direction and ideas of the INC projected a future secular order dominated by Hindus, and this inadvertently defined the tone and direction of Muslims’ relationship to nationalism and the Hindu majority. Sayyid Ahmad Khan led the charge against the INC as he chastised it for promoting democracy in India. Khan argued that democracy functions well in a society consisting of one nation (qaum), or in a society with multiple nations (qaumain) ¯ with each nation enjoying more or less parity with others. India could not be considered a single nation, as INC claimed, because it housed many nations (qaumain)(Malik 1982, p. 347).7 In a democracy, ¯ Hindus’ numerical strength put Muslims at a permanent disadvantage as a minority, thereby forcing them in an unfair competition. Khan mentions four bases on which a democracy could be established: numbers, wealth, fixed allotted proportions, and proportional representation. His calculations told him that Muslims were disadvantaged on all four counts against Hindus (Malik 1982, pp. 348–49). Consequently, Khan announced in no uncertain terms:

I do not think my people [qaum, meaning Muslims] so well-trained, and therefore I do not wish to run a [democratic] race with them [the INC] The object of the promoters of the

5 Later evaluations of the Rebellion and its aftermath more or less concurred with Khan’s assessments. See, for instance, (Hunter The Indian Musalmans (1876), chp. 4; Nehru’s Discovery of India (1989), pp. 295–302). 6 Hundreds of Muslims were rounded up on the suspicion of sedition activities, forced through quick military trials, and accorded capital punishment, including being blown to smithereens by cannons. In addition, “large scale conﬁscation of lands, deforestation and the destruction of local forts to erase habitats of resistance, mass burning of villages, razing of cities, and the hanging and deportation of rebels” (Lakshmi 2007, p. 14) were carried out, and bodies of the rebels left hanging from trees (Lakshmi 2007, p. 218). Indignities of the worst kind as vengeance against the Muslims have been documented, for example: sewing pigskin into Muslim corpses; besmirching Muslims with swine blood, and mutilating Muslim corpses (Qureshi 1985, p. 263). 7 Muslim reservations over a democratic polity were mirrored by some Hindus as well. For example, the Maharaja of Banares argues (in 1888): “Democracy is an occidental idea. A Hindu cannot comprehend it as long as he is a Hindu. It is against his religious belief. So long as Hindus remain in Hindustan, you cannot succeed in extending the democratical idea” (Grifﬁths 1946, p. 136). Religions 2018, 9, 355 7 of 20

National Congress is that the Government of India should be English in name only, and that the internal rule of the country should be entirely in their own hands. (Malik 1982, p. 357).

Consequently, Khan rejected the INC “in any shape or form whatever—which regards India as one nation” (Malik 1982, p. 394). India was, in fact, “inhabited by two different nations,” and promoting democracy could only “create animosity between them” (Malik 1982, p. 363). Realizing Muslim incompetence in the context of the unfolding British-led nationalization, Khan proceeded to support British rule in South Asia as a safeguard for Muslim interests against the Hindu dominance, in essence acknowledging British exceptionalism. British exceptionalism and an ascendant Hindu Other thus marked the two factors that decisively determined the birth of Muslim exceptionalism and the course of Muslim responses to nationalism thereafter. Khan’s reservations viz a viz the Hindu majority became a permanent ﬁxation on Muslim politics in the region, and later formed the primary negative impetus for Muslim separatist movement demanding Pakistan starting in 1930s (Malik 1982, p. xi). Khan’s political critique rested solely on political and economic considerations as it was not grounded in theoretical or ideological premises, nor does he convey any sense of a threat to Muslim religious identity in relation to nationalism.8 His political calculations and vision were, however, rooted in something deeper still: a burning desire to regain lost Muslim dignity and status—if not dominance and rule—born of a widespread Muslim condition of anomie, informed by nostalgia of bygone Muslim power, especially the prestige enjoyed by the nobility (ashraf¯ ) to which Khan belonged. The dynamics of anomie continued to preponderate in Muslim anxieties in the region, and eventually gave rise in 1906 to the INC’s Muslim rival, the All-India Muslim League, which was not only founded by, but whose leadership remained dominated by the afﬁliates of (Khan inspired) the Aligarh movement until the creation of Pakistan in 1947 (Becker 2013, pp. 64–67). Later Muslim intellectuals retained Khan’s pragmatic reservations in regards to Hindu dominance and democracy, but diverged from Khan’s approach in two distinct ways. Whereas Khan opposed the INC and supported the British rule, composite nationalists like Azad and Madani supported the INC and opposed the British. In contrast, Iqbal and Mawdudi rejected both the INC and the British rule in favor of Muslim autonomy, and went on to articulate a trenchant critique of secular nationalism.

2. Azad and Madani’s Theological Argument for Composite Nationalism In the interwar period, nationalism exploded on the world stage as old empires were broken up and from their wreckage new nations were born. Alongside this international chaos, universal ideologies of socialism and communism at the same time rejected nationalism as an atavistic force detrimental to the socialist ideal of transnational solidarities, and instead called for a supranational world without nation-states. In this background, Muslim peoples across the globe too felt the urge to liberate themselves from colonial rules, and the ensuing freedom struggles took on nationalist forms. Many Muslim nationalist movements underscored, with varied commitments and intensity, two pillars of their distinct national identities: ethnicity and Islam. As a result, religion and politics, theology and nationalism, spirituality and freedom struggle were integrated in ideological visions of Muslim nationalisms worldwide. Muslims in colonial South Asia too had to face up to their dual identity of being Indians and Muslims. In the midst of the unfolding anticolonial struggle, this meant to reckon with Indian politics and Muslim religiosity. The ﬁrst such deliberate reckoning was attempted by Abul Kalam Azad (1888–1958). Whereas Khan indefatigably campaigned for Muslims to keep their loyalty to the British, Azad’s ﬁrst goal in regard to nationalism was India’s independence and the ouster of the British as the irreconcilable, exceptional other. Azad launched his political theology through a weekly newspaper

8 This is not to say that Khan had no theology of his own. In fact, his reinterpretation of Muslim theology in light of modern science made him a highly controversial ﬁgure, and made him many enemies. Religions 2018, 9, 355 8 of 20

The Crescent (Al-Hilal) in 1912. For democracy to function well in India, it was necessary for all native religions to work together against the British rule. Interfaith solidarity was a necessary precondition, and one whose necessity needed to be explained, especially to the Muslims. Toward this end, Azad presented Islam as a universal, pluralist religion that acknowledges the common source of Truth from which all religions derive their inspiration, and in which all religions were united. In effect, Azad was attempting to soften interfaith otherization and Muslim religious exceptionalism. Extreme forms of interfaith otherization would forbid Muslims from solidarity with other religions. Azad’s theology thus sought to make it possible for Muslims to participate in interfaith solidarity on religious grounds (Mushir-ul-Haqq 1967, pp. 95–98).9 In other words, political engagement was sanctioned as a religious act, in effect, sacralizing politics. To further strengthen his argument, Azad expounded a “covenantal theory” (in Aziz Ahmed’s coinage) of nationalism. He retrieved a forgotten document of early Muslim history known as the Treaty of Medina (M¯ısaq-i Mad¯ınah) contracted between Prophet Muhammad and the Jews. The document includes language declaring the Muslims and Jews to be of “one ummah”, which Azad translates as one nation. As Azad’s argument goes, if the Prophet could form a single nation with the Jews for a common cause, Indian Muslims should unhesitatingly enlist themselves in the nationalist struggle (Ahmed 1967, p. 189). Azad’s political theology was appropriated and further buttressed by the Association of Indian Scholars, the largest Muslim religiopolitical organization at the time, representing the Deoband school of thought, led by Husayn Ahmad Madani, a leading religious and inﬂuential ﬁgure at the time.10 In 1938, Madani penned a tract entitled Composite Nationalism and Islam11 which complemented Azad’s covenantal theory. After Madani’s articulation, the theory became associated with the designation ‘composite nationalism’ (muttah. idah qaumiyyat). In the tract, Madani reiterates Azad’s basic anti-British animus: the British rule was the greatest danger to India as it rested on the policy of divide and rule, hence, it must be ousted for the sake of Indian unity (Madani 2005, pp. 16–18). The mainstay of Madani’s exposition of composite nationalism centered on semantics of the Arabic locutions in the Qur’an that approximate the meaning of ‘nation’—his rationale being “only an Arabic language dictionary can interpret the Koranic words and hadith [statements of the Prophet]” (Madani 2005, p. 56). In Madani’s reading, qaum is any group of people, usually a group of men, excluding women; millah (Urdu millat) means religious community; while ‘ummah (Urdu ummat) connotes religious community of a (monotheist) prophet (Madani 2005, pp. 56–77, 80–90). The point of Madani’s semantic analysis is that qaum as the most general category in the semantics of ‘nation’ can consist of any number of millahs and ummahs. Furthermore, Madani too references the Treaty of Medina and likens it to an earlier form of composite nationalism (Madani 2005, p. 113). Given that God in the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad in the Treaty have employed quam in reference to communities that include Muslims and non-Muslims, cooperation with non-Muslims for common causes becomes legitimate in national affairs (Madani 2005, pp. 66–87). In addition to the theological argument, Madani also advances a pragmatic argument: as the colonial powers have used nationalism to sow discord among various Muslim nations in order to weaken them and rule over them, Muslims should appropriate nationalism

9 At this stage in his career, Azad was a proponent of establishing a Muslim caliphate in an autonomous zone within India. After the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924, and the failure of the Khilafat Movement as a result, Azad relented on his quest for an Indian caliphate. For details, see (Mushir-ul-Haqq 1967; Hardy 1971), for example. 10 The Association of Indian Scholars (Jam‘iyyatul ‘Ulama¯ Hind) was founded in 1919 as a religiopolitical organization by the affiliates of the largest network of seminaries in South Asia, the Sunni school of Deoband, in order to provide religiopolitical leadership to the Muslim masses. 11 The tract was a response to a debate between Madani and Muhammad Iqbal. In December 1937, Madani had made a statement about the contemporary fact of modern nations predicated upon territorial nationalism. Iqbal criticized Madani’s statement as woefully misguided and regrettably ignorant of the true Islamic perspective on nationalism. Madani clarified that his intention in making the said statement was not to assert the normative nature of territorial nationalism, but that he intended to acknowledge territorial nationalism as a historical fact. After Iqbal’s death on 21 April 1938, Madani penned his final thoughts on the matter in Composite Nationalism and Islam in 1938. Religions 2018, 9, 355 9 of 20 as a weapon to combat the sordid scheme. Therefore, in India, composite nationalism was the antidote to colonialism (Madani 2005, p. 99). Composite nationalism stands in stark contrast to Khan’s position as Azad and Madani downplay religious difference, avoiding intense otherization of other religions, and elevating the common elements among different groups. At the same time, the conspiratorial side of their analysis intensified the otherization of the British—a logical outcome of their drive for independence. In stressing their contradistinction to the British and advocating for secular nationalism, Azad and Madani did not consider secular nationalism as threatening Muslim religious identity. Azad and Madani together defined the contours and arguments of Muslim political theology in favor of secular nationalism. Part theological, part philological, and part pragmatic, the importance of their argument lies in finding a passage from theology to politics, thereby laying the foundations of modern Muslim political theology and religious nationalism. This development was a logical consequence of the colonial context and the religious background of South Asian Muslims. For before a post-colonial national polity could be instituted, masses had to be convinced to lend support to nationalism and struggle for the national cause. Given the racial, linguistic, regional, and sectarian diversity and divisions of South Asian Muslims, it was necessary for Muslim intellectuals to make the case for nationalism before their Muslim audience in religious terms. To make a religious case for Indian nationalism meant Islamization of nationalism, or what is the same, nationalization of Islam. I thus consider composite nationalism to be a softer form of religious nationalism in the sense defined by Juergensmeyer as “the attempt to link religion to the idea of the nation state” (Juergensmeyer 2010, p. 271). Before the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate, Azad and JUH were involved in efforts to establish an Indian caliphate in an autonomous zone within the Indian state.12 This was full-fledged religious nationalism. However, after the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, Azad and JUH softened their stance in favor of the INC’s vision of a secular nation-state, but went on to justify even this position on theological grounds. Supporting secular nationalism on theological grounds is a softer form of religious nationalism. While the structural demands of nationalism were more than appealing to many Muslims like Azad and Madani, the implications of nationalism as an ideology and its practical implications were too odious for some to adopt in totality. Composite nationalists were therefore opposed by the counterargument advanced by Muhammad Iqbal and Sayyid Mawdudi. In John L. Esposito’s analysis,

if Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) had been the traditionally educated Muslim who sought to make modern Western liberal thought acceptable to Islam, Muhammad Iqbal was a modern Muslim, with a Western education, who reinterpreted Islam in conjunction with Western thought to show its relevancy as a viable alternative to Marxist and Christian European ideologies. (Esposito quoted in (Mohomed 2014, pp. 325–26)).

3. Iqbal’s Critique of Secular Nationalism Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) has been hailed as an eminent modern Muslim poet and philosopher. Educated in law at University of Cambridge’s Trinity College (1906), and in philosophy at Maximilian University of Munich (1908), Iqbal articulated a philosophical and poetic vision of Islam, along with a critical evaluation of the achievements and limits of Western civilization, with an explicit attack on nationalism. By his own admission, Iqbal was among the ﬁrst ones to broach the topic of nationalism in India (Iqbal 1973).13 Along with Mawdudi, Iqbal entered the debate on nationalism in late 1930s at the height of the worldwide fervor of nationalism. This was the time when Arab Muslims had rebelled and colluded with the European powers against the Ottoman rule over their lands. In addition, the

12 Azad articulated the basic argument of this attempt in his The Caliphate Question (Mas’ala’-i Khilafat¯ ) published in 1920. 13 “I have been repudiating the concept of nationalism since the time when it was not well-known in India and the Muslim world” (Iqbal 1973). Religions 2018, 9, 355 10 of 20

Turkish leadership itself had dismantled the institutional framework of the centuries-old Muslim Caliphate, shocking South Asian Muslims and galvanizing many of them for the restoration of the Caliphate. The international fervor of nationalism was reflected in the national fever at home in South Asia as the nationalist movement continued to make gains. Faced with a burgeoning nationalist movement spearheaded by Hindu revivalists, socialists, and Muslim theologians affiliated with the Association of Indian Scholars, all promoting a nationalist vision, Iqbal criticized secular nationalism from a spiritual perspective. Iqbal’s basic philosophical outlook is exposited in his famous lectures, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. In his basic theological insight, Iqbal presents God as the Ultimate Ego (equally, Self, or Consciousness) whose incessant creative activity issues forth individual egos or selves, carrying different intensities of consciousness from the minutest of subatomic particles and quanta to human self-consciousness, all of whom go to make up the universe. From this follows Iqbal’s basic statement on anthropology: issued forth as a result of divine creativity, the human ego is essentially spiritual, unencumbered by the limitations of time and space, and therefore, imbued with the divinely-induced tendency toward free and creative activity. The greater fulfilment of man’s spiritual essence translates into the greater realization of one’s ego-potential (khud¯ı), whose climax is an affective14 union with God in the form of religious experience. I say affective and not mystical or religious so as to avoid conflating Iqbal’s sense of spiritual experience with the traditional mystical modes. In Iqbal’s sense, affective experience still retains the intense emotionality that accompanies religious experiences, yet, at the same time, the affective holds a necessary and intimate relation with the rational. In the second instance, the human ego is also earthbound due to its biological constitution and terrestrial existence, thereby destined to operate within the limits of space and time. History, as the activity of earthly forces, therefore, forms the arena proper for the realization of human ego-potential as exemplified by the examples of the prophets in the Qur’an. Explaining the unity of the spiritual and the historical in the mission of Prophet Muhammad, Iqbal notes that the Prophet

returns [from religious experience to the ordinary world] to insert himself into the sweep of time with a view to control the forces of history, and thereby to create a fresh world of ideals ... [I]t is the awakening, within him, of world-shaking psychological forces, calculated to completely transform the human world. (Iqbal 2012, p. 99).

This statement holds the key to Iqbal’s integration of spiritual anthropology, political theology, and critique of nationalism. As the arena of realization of the spiritual quest, the historical movement presents repeated encounters with ﬁnite “forces of history” aligned with “fresh world of ideals” and, as Iqbal mentions later, “fresh loyalties” (Iqbal 2012, p. 116). In other words, the spiritual quest in its evolution ascends from stage to stage, creating new ideals demanding fresh loyalties. In this journey, earthbound historical forces represent challenges to be overcome and transcended, and nationalism is one such challenge. Failing to transcend the national ideal and loyalty deviates the spiritual quest, thereby arresting the ultimate realization of human ego-potential and, by extension, Muslim identity. This implies that nationalism presumes an anthropology of its own, one which, on the one hand, remains indifferent to man’s spiritual essence, and, on the other hand, misinterprets him as a national being, mistaking servitude to the nation as the climax of his ego-potential. Iqbal’s anthropology stands in stark contrast to the nationalist anthropology, as Iqbal presents the human individual as a spiritual being capable of transcending all earthly limitations. Accordingly, as

14 Iqbal resolved that the older forms of religious experience associated with long-term association with mystic orders, structured upon the master-disciple relationship, were now outdated and impractical for modern sensibilities and lifestyles, and that the Muslim world was in need of rational and discursive approaches to God-man relationship. See Iqbal’s preface to his The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. For Iqbal’s discourse on spiritual anthropology, see the ﬁrst lecture, “Knowledge and Religious Experience”, of the Reconstruction. Religions 2018, 9, 355 11 of 20

“an emotional system of uniﬁcation it [Islam] recognizes the worth of the individual

Religionsas 2018 such,, 9, x and FORrejects PEER REVIEW blood-relationship as a basis of human unity. Blood-relationship is11 of 20 earth-rootedness. The search for a purely psycho-logical foundation of human unity becomes possible onlyonly with with the the perception perception that that all human all human life is spirituallife is spiritual in its origin. in its Such origin. a perception Such a isperception creative of is fresh creative loyalties of fresh without loyalties any ceremonials without any to keepceremonials them alive, to keep and makesthem alive, it possible and formakes man it topossible emancipate for man himself to emancipate from the earth”.himself ( Iqbalfrom 2012the earth”, p. 116). (Iqbal [1930] 2012, p. 116). For Iqbal, nationalism is materialistic in that it is “associated with the body and the world of dimensions” in its relation to its geographical [and, let us add, linguistic and racial] factors ((MajeedMajeed 20092009,, pp. pp. 78–79). 78–79). “Earth-rootedness” “Earth-rootedness” pulls pulls humans humans down down and pegs and pegsthem themto the toworld the of world gross of matter, gross matter,which divides which divideshumanity humanity along eart alonghly earthly concerns. concerns. For humanity For humanity to unite to together, unite together, nothing nothing less than less thanthe infinite the inﬁnite spiritual spiritual idealideal will willdo. A do. corollary A corollary of the of spiritual the spiritual ideal ideal is the is thespiritual spiritual equality equality of all of allhumans humans which which determines determines the the “psycho-logical “psycho-logical foundation foundation of ofhuman human unity,” unity,” that that is is the the unity of human spiritual origins, which in turn determines the the spiritual “worth “worth of of the the individual individual as as such.” such.” Herein lies the foundational difference between Iqbal’sIqbal’s anthropology and secular nationalism. Iqbal’s spiritual anthropology locates the basis for the universal dignity of all human beings without regard to earthly factors.factors. Spiritual Spiritual universality universality then then lead leadss to to a a universal universal vision vision of of society society and politics, whereas nationalism can never offer dignity to all humanity due to its particularity, nor can it truly attain universality as universal nationalism is oxymoronic.oxymoronic. Ali Qasmi thus aptly labels Iqbal’s vision a “spiritual democracy encapsulating the whole world” (Dharampal-Frick (Dharampal-Frick et et al. 2010,2010, pp. 27–28), while Masud describes Iqbal’s vision as a “framework“framework for the theology of modernity focused on the autonomy of self” self” (Masud (Masud 2014).2014). In In Iqbal’s Iqbal’s words, words, “Islam “Islam does does not not aim aim at atthe the moral moral reformation reformation of ofthe the individual individual alone; alone; it also it aims also aimsat a gradual at a gradual but fundamental but fundamental revolution revolution in the social in the life socialof mankind, life of mankind,which should which altogether should altogether change its change national its and national racial and viewpoint racial viewpoint and create and in create its place in its a placepurely a purelyhuman humanconsciousness” consciousness” (Iqbal 1930) (Iqbal as 1930 opposed) as opposed to a national to a national consciousness. consciousness. In other Inwords, other Islam words, is Islaminherently is inherently supranational supranational and nationalism and nationalism must not mustbe allowed not be to allowed arrest its to supranational arrest its supranational potential. potential.Taken as Takena premise, as a premise, Iqbal’s Iqbal’sspiritual spiritual anthropology anthropology logically logically projects projects a political a political theology theology as its as itsnecessary necessary consequence. consequence. Iqbal was not against a healthy form of patriotism in the sense of one’s affection for one’s homeland. He held this sense of patriotism as incumbent on every Muslim as expressed in a famous Muslim proverb: ‘love of one’s nation [ vatan̤ ] is part of faith.’ So much so that one should be willing to lay down one’s life for one’s homeland. However, nationalism that Iqbal here criticizes is one that claims the nation as “a principle of human society and as such, it is a political concept” (Iqbal (Iqbal 1973).1973). To assertassert nationalismnationalism asas aa politicalpolitical conceptconcept isis toto underscoreunderscore itsits ideologicalideological dimension.dimension. Thus, as a political principle or an ideology, nationalismnationalism becomes the foundation for organizing the whole of public life that eventually affects the private sphere sphere,, including including spirituality, spirituality, and in Iqbal’s perspective, perspective, a change in spirituality is a change in a a Muslim’s Muslim’s essential essential identity. identity. In other words, words, where nationalism becomes the organizing principle of collective life, religion must necessarily withdraw within the narrow scope of privacy, andand cutcut offoff fromfrom thethe totalitytotality ofof life,life, witherswithers awayaway andand dies. In contrast, Iqbal asserts that Islam is “an ethical idealideal plusplus aa certaincertain kindkind ofof politypolity ...… a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a speciﬁcspecific ethicalethical ideal”ideal” ((IqbalIqbal 19301930).). This is because in “Islam God and the universe, spiritspirit andand matter,matter, church church and and state, state, are are organic organic to to each each other” other” (Iqbal (Iqbal 1930 1930).). Nationalism, Nationalism, in contrast,in contrast, “suggests “suggests a dualism a dualism which which does does not existnot exist in Islam” in Islam” (Iqbal (Iqbal 2012, p.[1930] 123). 2012, To reject p. 123). nationalism’s To reject religious/secular,nationalism’s religious/secular, private/public, private/public, and spirituality/politics and spirituality/politics dualisms amounts dualisms to amounts rejecting to secularism. rejecting Insecularism. the Islamic In sense, the Islamic “[a]ll thatsense, is secular“[a]ll that is, therefore, is secular sacred is, therefore, in the roots sacred of itsin being,”the roots Iqbal of its proclaims. being,” IfIqbal nationalism proclaims. is “essentiallyIf nationalism a secular is “essentially form of consciousness,” a secular form asof Greenfeldconsciousness,” noted, thenas Greenfeld it is antithetical noted, tothen Islam it is as antithetical conceived to by Islam Iqbal. as Hence, conceived when by “Islam Iqbal. will Hence, be reduced when “Islam to an ethicalwill be idea reduced with to indifference an ethical toidea its with social indifference order as an to inevitable its social consequence,”order as an inevitable the eventual consequence,” outcome willthe eventual be “irreligiousness.” outcome will It be is “irreligiousness.” It is due to nationalism’s extension in both private and public, and its accompanying effects on religiosity, that critics like Iqbal see nationalism as competing with Islamic ideals and loyalty (Ansari 1961).15

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20 possible only with the perception that all human life is spiritual in its origin. Such a perception is creative of fresh loyalties without any ceremonials to keep them alive, and makes it possible for man to emancipate himself from the earth” (Iqbal [1930] 2012, p. 116). For Iqbal, nationalism Religionsis materialistic2018, 9, 355 in that it is “associated with the body and the world of 12 of 20 dimensions” in its relation to its geographical [and, let us add, linguistic and racial] factors (Majeed 2009, pp. 78–79). “Earth-rootedness” pulls humans down and pegs them to the world of gross matter, due to nationalism’s extension in both private and public, and its accompanying effects on religiosity, which divides humanity along earthly concerns. For humanity to unite together, nothing less than that critics like Iqbal see nationalism as competing with Islamic ideals and loyalty (Ansari 1961).15 the infinite spiritual ideal will do. A corollary of the spiritual ideal is the spiritual equality of all Once taken root among a people, nationalism engenders a social pathology. For, absent the humans which determines the “psycho-logical foundation of human unity,” that is the unity of religious tie, a principle of national unity still needs to be discovered, recourse is then taken to the human spiritual origins, which in turn determines the spiritual “worth of the individual as such.” distinctions of race, language, and land, all of which inevitably sow seeds of hatred, animosity, and Herein lies the foundational difference between Iqbal’s anthropology and secular nationalism. Iqbal’s exclusion, not only among nations, but among different communities within a single nation. spiritual anthropology locates the basis for the universal dignity of all human beings without regard to earthly factors. Spiritual Bothuniversality nationalism then and lead atheistics to a universal socialism, vision at least of in society the present and statepolitics, of human adjustments, whereas nationalism can nevermust offer draw dignity upon to the all psychological humanity due forces to its ofparticularity, hate, suspicion, nor can and it resentment truly which tend to attain universality as universalimpoverish nationalism the is soul oxym of manoronic. and Ali close Qasmi up his thus hidden aptly sources labels Iqbal’s of spiritual vision energy ... Surely the a “spiritual democracy encapsulatingpresent moment the whole is one world” of great (Dharampal-Frick crisis in the history et ofal. modern2010, pp. culture. 27–28), (Iqbal 2012, p. 149). while Masud describes Iqbal’s vision as a “framework for the theology of modernity focused on the Stated differently, the great crisis of nationalism is spiritual, a result of its social pathology. autonomy of self” (Masud 2014). In Iqbal’s words, “Islam does not aim at the moral reformation of When Iqbal turns to nationalism in his spiritual-theological perspective, he discerns the the individual alone; it also aims at a gradual but fundamental revolution in the social life of mankind, functioning of the modern nation as an idol or a deity, as it competes with divine authority and which should altogether change its national and racial viewpoint and create in its place a purely loyalty. This is nowhere more conspicuously expressed than in Iqbal’s poem “Nationalism” (Iqbal human consciousness” (Iqbal 1930) as opposed to a national consciousness. In other words, Islam is n.d.).16 Iqbal opens the poem with a hermeneutical insight: inherently supranational and nationalism must not be allowed to arrest its supranational potential. Taken as a premise, Iqbal’s Inspiritual this age anthropology the wine, the cup,logically even Jamprojects is different a political theology as its necessary consequence. The cup-bearer started different ways of grace and tyranny Iqbal was not against a Thehealthy Muslim form also of constructedpatriotism in adifferent the sense Haram of one’s [sacred affection sanctuary] for one’s of his own homeland. He held this sense Theof patriotism Azar [idol as maker] incumbent of civilization on every madeMuslim different as expressed idols of in his a famous own Muslim proverb: ‘love of one’sCountry nation [ vatan̤ ]], is is part the biggestof faith.’ among So much these so newthat gods!one should be willing to lay down one’s life for one’sWhat homeland. is its shirt However, is the shroud nationalism of Din that [religion] Iqbal here criticizes is one that claims the nation as “a principle of human society and as such, it is a political concept” (Iqbal 1973). To assert nationalism asJam a political abbreviates concept Jamshed, is to theunderscore name of its a mythical ideological Persian dimension. king who Thus, possessed as a a wine glass through political principle or anwhich ideology, he could nationalism observe becomes the world. the Jam foundation is thus a tropefor organizing for political the authority whole of or the sovereign, whereas public life that eventuallyhis affects wine glass—athe private crystal sphere ball, including of sorts—is spirituality, indicative ofand ahermeneutic in Iqbal’s perspective, lens or medium (that is, method or a change in spirituality istheory) a change through in a Muslim’s which the essential world isidentity. perceived. In other A medium words, (or where an intermediary nationalism in religious terms) by its becomes the organizingvery principle nature of ﬁlters collective the content, life, religion thereby, must inﬂuences necessarily perception. withdraw At the within same time, the Jam is equated with the narrow scope of privacy,cup-bearer and cut off indicating from the thetotality function of life, of withers political away authority and dies. in serving In contrast, different Iqbal manners of intoxications to asserts that Islam is “an itsethical subjects ideal to plus confound a certain reality kind for of them polity so … as toa social keep themstructure tame regulated and domesticated. by a Modern sovereigns legal system and animatedhave by thus a specific concocted ethical a new ideal” intoxicant (Iqbal 1930). to deceive This is the because masses in to “Islam ensure God theperpetuation and of their tyranny. 17 the universe, spirit and matter,Nation church (mistranslated and state, here are as organic “country”), to each andother” by (Iqbal extension 1930). nationalism, Nationalism, is the neo-intoxicant of the in contrast, “suggests a moderndualism agewhich in its does political not exist function. in Islam” In its (Iqbal religious [1930] function, 2012, p. given 123). its To ideals reject and demand for ultimate nationalism’s religious/secular,loyalty, private/public, the nation is the and neo-idol spirituality/politics of the modern age.dualisms Nation amounts is thus ato false rejecting god contending for the status secularism. In the Islamicof ‘divinity’sense, “[a]ll that, that in ais monotheisticsecular is, therefore, tradition, sacred is properly in the reserved roots of forits andbeing,” deserved only by God—the Iqbal proclaims. If nationalismcaution is here “essentially is reminiscent a secular of the form Decalogue’s of consciousness,” prohibition as against Greenfeld graven noted, images. Consequently, to fall then it is antithetical to Islamprey toas theconceived tricks of by nationalism Iqbal. Hence, amounts when to“Islam replacing will be the reduced religion to of an Islam. ethical What then ought to be the idea with indifference toMuslim its social position order as and an responseinevitable to consequence,” nationalism? Iqbalthe eventual vociferously outcome exhorts will hisbe Muslim reader thus: “irreligiousness.” It is due to nationalism’s extension in both private and public, and its Your [Muslim’s] arm is enforced with the strength of the Divine Unity [tauh. ¯ıd] accompanying effects on religiosity, that critics like Iqbal see nationalism as competing with Islamic ideals and loyalty (Ansari 1961).15

15 It should be noted that during a brief earlier period in his life, Iqbal did promote Indian patriotism. Consider Zafar Ansari’s observation: “Except for a very brief period in his life, Iqbal pitted himself in opposition to nationalism. It is only in his 15 It should be noted that duringfirst collectiona brief earlier of poems, period Bang-i-Dim in his life, [sic., Iqbal Dara], did and promote only in Indian a few poems patriotism. of the first Consider period (i.e., prior to 1905) that we see Zafar Ansari’s observation:him “Except in the garb for ofa very an ardent brief Indian period nationalist. in his life, These Iqbal poems pitted eloquently himself speakin opposition of his love to of the nationalist variety for the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent and its people. The fatherland occupies the central place in his mind and religion is mentioned nationalism. It is only in hisas afirst divisive collection factor inof the poem nation.”s, Bang-i-Dim Iqbal changed [sic., his Dara], views and on nationalism only in a few during poems his stay of in Europe from 1905 to 1908, the first period (i.e., prior whereto 1905) he observedthat we see firsthand him in the the deleterious garb of an effects ardent of nationalism Indian nationalist. in Europe (TheseAnsari poems 1961). 16 For a critique of nationalism and the West in general in Iqbal’s verse, see Raja(2010, chp. 6). 17 Iqbal’s term in the verse is , properly translated as ‘nation;’ and in the seventh couplet, Khalil correctly translates des as “country;” thus distinguishing from des. I am surprised, therefore, to see translated in this verse as “country” instead of ‘nation’. Religions 2018, 9, 355 13 of 20

You are the followers of Mustafa18 [Muhammad], your country is Islam You should show the old panorama to the world O Mustafa’s follower! You should destroy this idol

Iqbal comes to oppose nationalism (“country” [des]) to Islam, and presents Islam as the proper Muslim alternative to nationalism. Iqbal is thus exhorting his readers to a battle between Islam and nationalism. This theological hermeneutic divides the world into two ideological camps: pure monotheism (tauh. ¯ıd) versus all other ideological manifestations destructive of monotheism. To adopt nationalism in all earnest is tantamount to sinning against God, and the destruction of Islam. Accordingly, Iqbal’s recommendation to the Muslims is to destroy the neo-idol in order to save their religion in its totality. Iqbal ends the poem thus:

God’s creation is unjustly divided among nations by it The Islamic concept of nationality is uprooted by it

Iqbal saw nationalism not only as a threat against the Muslim world’s sorely needed unity, already divided among nations, but also a shattering of human unity. On this point Iqbal agrees with Madani that nationalism was deployed by the West as a weapon to divide Muslims into warring camps. However, unlike Madani, Iqbal’s prescription does not call for appropriating nationalism as a weapon against the West. Iqbal saw nationalism by its very nature as earthbound hence limited, therefore, divisive and exclusionary, unequipped to serve the cause of restoring Muslim or human unity.19 Iqbal’s idealist philosophy dreamt of a universal theological humanism. In contrast to nationalism and racism, Iqbal’s vision approaches Prophet Muhammad as “a universal ﬁgure, rather than an Arab.”20 Prophet Muhammad was thus a universal prophet bearing the universal monotheistic message of Islam. As Majeed notes, upon God’s oneness Iqbal founds the unity of all humanity, because “all are equal before this universal God, this potential equality can become the basis for a society which in principle transcends race and ethnicity” (Majeed 2009, p. 71). Iqbal’s universal political theology and his critique of spirit of nationalism made composite nationalism’s arguments unpalatable to him. Madani’s articulation of composite nationalism offered Iqbal a worthy target given Madani’s status and importance. In a newspaper article entitled “Islam and Nationalism” (Iqbal 1973), Iqbal begins by appraising Madani’s semantics of nation and nationality. Agreeing with Madani’s analysis of qaum as any group in general, Iqbal underscores the givenness or involuntarism inherent in the idea of qaum. Millat (Arabic, millah), on the other hand, necessarily “stands for religion, a law and a program,” “a particular way of life,” which makes it a matter of choice; one can convert from one millat to another. For Iqbal, millat and ummat are nearly synonymous in meaning as they are used interchangeably in the Qur’an. Accordingly, “millat or ummat embraces nations but cannot be merged in them” (Iqbal 1973). Owing to this fact, for Iqbal, there can be multiple qaums in the world, but only two ummats/millats: Muslims (or monothesists in general) and non-Muslims. Iqbal thus concludes, over against composite nationalism, that the basis of a Muslim qaum (nation) cannot be other than their millat (religion). This is the quintessential and the deﬁning statement in favor of a religious nationalism in Islam. Whereas Azad and Madani’s composite nationalism reconciled secular nationalism and theology, Iqbal rejects secular nationalism in toto, but lays down the groundwork for another form of modern Muslim nationalism. Long before his debate with Madani, Iqbal had deliberated on the relationship between religion and state in Islam, denying any ideological or functional separation of

18 Mus.tafa¯ (‘the chosen one’) is one of the honorific titles of Prophet Muhammad. 19 Critics of idealist visions like that of Iqbal’s are wont to argue that a worldwide Muslim unity has never really existed in Muslim history. Even if this criticism be granted, nonetheless, the potential of Islam to unify Muslims in a pan-Islamic unity was in fact demonstrated by South Asian Muslims during the Khilafat Movement in which Muslims rallied for the preservation of the Ottoman Caliphate based in Turkey, and for a lenient treatment by the British and her allies of the Ottoman Empire after its loss in the First World War. 20 The idea of Prophet Muhammad as a Universal Human or the Perfect Man (insan-i¯ kamil¯ ) has enduring roots in the Muslim tradition, especially in the Sufi or mystical discourse of Islam. Religions 2018, 9, 355 14 of 20 the two. After noting that the (social and political) essence of the Islamic idea of unity of God (tauh. ¯ıd) is “equality solidarity, and freedom,” he concludes that the “state, from the Islamic standpoint, is an endeavor to transform these ideal principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organization” (Iqbal 2012, pp. 122–23). Iqbal thus blunted the secular edge of the nation-state by making it subservient to and an instrument of his spiritual vision, in effect converting the nationalistic ideology to religion and destroying the neo-idol of the nation. However, the form of Iqbal’s state is republican, a democracy and not a theocracy. Hence, structural modernization for Iqbal is accommodated within his spiritualized ideology. Iqbal did not, however, leave a detailed plan of his vision of an Islamic state. That task was taken up by Sayyid Mawdudi.

4. Mawdudi’s Critique of Secular Nationalism Sayyid Abu’l A’laa Mawdudi (d. 1979) was mostly self-taught since the age of sixteen. In his intellectual quest, he became conversant with both the traditional Islamic and modern Western sciences. At the young age of seventeen, Mawdudi took up the profession of journalism through which he sharpened his rhetorical skills, developing a highly rational and linguistically accessible style of argumentation. Whereas Iqbal sees Islam as primarily grounded in spirituality, Mawdudi sees it as a theological-rational outlook—which nonetheless projects a certain spirituality, yet this spirituality is not ingrained in a mystical or affective (in my sense of the term) experience of God, but on a purely rational understanding of and obedient servitude to God. Mind and thought are central to Mawdudi’s hermeneutic, not spirit or the heart, which seldom appear in his oeuvre. Given the scope of Mawdudi’s oeuvre covering topics related to theology, metaphysics, exegesis, economics, law, politics, and international relations, it is not too far off the mark to proclaim that “Mawdudi would appear to be much the most systematic thinker of modern Islam” (Osman 2003, p. 465).21 Along the same lines, he has been hailed as “one of the first Islamic thinkers to develop a systematic political reading of Islam and a plan for social action to realize his vision” and “without doubt the most influential of contemporary Islamic revivalist thinkers” (Nasr 1996, p. 3). One difficulty in dealing with Mawdudi is the contradictory nature of his political engagement before and after the 1947 Partition of India that resulted in the creation of Pakistan. Whereas the early, pre-Partition Mawdudi was an idealist who shunned politics and opposed Pakistan; the later, post-Partition Mawdudi moved to Pakistan, exhausting his energies in Pakistani politics, which include some uncharacteristic compromises on his part. As noted above, my analysis will remain limited to early Mawdudi. In 1937, Mawdudi began writing a series of articles addressing nationalism and now collected under two volumes entitled Tehr¯ık-i Azadi-yi¯ Hind (The Indian Freedom Movement).22 Masood Raja counts these writings among the “foundational texts” that paved the way for the formation of “Muslim national identity” in the region. For the present analysis, I will limit myself to the first volume as it contains Mawdudi’s sustained critique of nationalism as an ideological construct and its development in the West. Mawdudi broaches the topic of nationalism by observing that the Indian (read South Asian) Muslims were caught in the throes of an unfolding worldwide revolution—that of nationalism. In South Asia, he attributes the national development to two factors: (a) the advent of British colonialism, (b) and the concomitant effects of structural and cultural Westernization (i.e., modernization) (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 1). Whether as proponents or critics of nationalism, Muslim alertness to nationalism as a foreign, British importation once again underscores the structural factor of contradistinction in national identity.

21 Osman’s reference is to William Cantwell Smith’s quotation in Vali Reza Nasr, “Sayyid Abu’l A’laa Mawdudi (1903–1979),” (Esposito 1955). 22 The articles were originally serialized by Mawdudi in his own journal Tarjuman al-Qur’an, 1937–1941, later collected in book form in three volumes under the title Musalman¯ Aur Maujuda¯ Siyas¯ ¯ı Kashmakash (Muslims and the Current Political Struggle). The articles were thereafter collected in two volumes entitled Indian Freedom Struggle (Tehr¯ık-i Azadi-ye¯ Hind) along with another pertinent article “Mas’ala-yi Qaumiyyat [The Problem of Nationalism].” My references pertain to the latter collection. Religions 2018, 9, 355 15 of 20

In forging a response to nationalism, Mawdudi came to realize, as Iqbal before him, that the extent of the challenge was deep and far-reaching. For Mawdudi, Muslims faced a crisis of dual identity of being Muslims and Indians. As Indians, Muslims shared their plight and fate in common with all Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20 Religionsother 2018, Indians.9, x FOR PEER As Muslims,REVIEW however, they faced a predicament exclusive to themselves, in15 of which 20 no otherhad resulted community in a intremendous India had anydecline share in or Muslim concern: morals that foreign (akhlāq domination), culture (teh (ajnab1E95¯ıī istb),¯ıl lifestylea¯) had resulted (usūl-i had resultedin a tremendous in a tremendous decline decline in Muslim in Muslim morals morals (akhl aq¯(akhl), cultureāq), culture (tehz (¯ıbteh),ẕ lifestyleīb), lifestyle (us ul-i¯(usūhl-iay ḥat¯ay;ā literally,t; ḥayāt; literally, principles of life), and social organization (nizām-i¯ jamā’at). As far as Mawdudi. Religions was 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20 literally,principlesconcerned, principles of two lifeof life), options and), and social social presented organization organization themselves (niz (nizam-i¯ ā m-ito jam thejama’at¯ āMuslims:’at).). AsAs far (a) as eitherMawdudi Mawdudi adopt was was nationalism concerned, concerned, ( vat twoan̤ had resulted in a tremendous decline in Muslim morals (akhlāq), culture (teh1E95īb), lifestyle (usūl-i two optionsoptions presented presented themselves themselves to to the the Muslims: Muslims: (a) (a) either either adopt adopt nationalism nationalism (vatan̤ parasti)̱ and its quest parasti̱ ) and its quest for independence from colonial domination, remaining indifferent to Muslimḥayāt; literally, principles of life), and social organization (nizām-i jamā’at). As far as Mawdudi was quest for independence from colonial domination, remaining indifferent to Muslim cultural forcultural independence autonomy; from or colonial(b) struggle domination, to achieve remaining Muslim indifferentautonomy to(ā Muslimzādī) that cultural enables autonomy; Muslimsconcerned, orto two options presented themselves to the Muslims: (a) either adopt nationalism (vatan̤ autonomy; or (b) struggle to achieve Muslim autonomy (āzādī) that enables Muslims to recover their (b)recover struggle their to lost achieve power. Muslim Mawdudi autonomy saw the (az¯ ad¯ two¯ı) that options enables as Muslimsultimately to leading recover to their two lost different power.parasti ̱ ) and its quest for independence from colonial domination, remaining indifferent to Muslim lost power.Mawdudidestinations Mawdudi saw (Mawdudi the saw two the options2005, two pp. asoptions 73–75). ultimately asIndian ultimately leading nationalism to leading two without different to two explicit destinations different safeguards destinations (Mawdudi for Muslim cultural2005, autonomy; or (b) struggle to achieve Muslim autonomy (āzādī) that enables Muslims to (Mawdudipp.autonomy 73–75). 2005, was Indianpp. 73–75).detrimental nationalism Indian to nationalismthe without future explicit of without Islam safeguards in explicit the region—in for safeguards Muslim contrast autonomy for Muslim to Khan, was autonomy detrimentalfor whom recover the to their lost power. Mawdudi saw the two options as ultimately leading to two different was detrimentaltheBritish future were ofto the Islamthe safeguardfuture in the of region—in Islam for Muslims. in the contrast regi Accordingly,on—in to Khan, contrast faced for whomto with Khan, the for unfolding British whom were the national British the safeguard revolution,were destinations for (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 73–75). Indian nationalism without explicit safeguards for Muslim autonomy was detrimental to the future of Islam in the region—in contrast to Khan, for whom the the safeguardMuslims.Mawdudi for Accordingly, announced Muslims. his facedAccordingly, primary with the objective faced unfolding with as the national the preservation unfolding revolution, ofnational Islamic Mawdudi revolution, identity announced (tashakhkhus Mawdudi his primary) or the British were the safeguard for Muslims. Accordingly, faced with the unfolding national revolution, announcedobjective his asprimary the preservation objective as of the Islamic preservation identity of (tashakhkhus Islamic identity) or the (tashakhkhus “national type”) or the (Mawdudi’s “national own “national type” (Mawdudi’s own coinage) by achieving Muslim religious, cultural, and politicalMawdudi announced his primary objective as the preservation of Islamic identity (tashakhkhus) or the type” coinage)(Mawdudi’s by achieving own coinage) Muslim by religious,achieving cultural, Muslim andreligious, political cultural, autonomy, and eitherpolitical within autonomy, or without a autonomy, either within or without a national Indian polity (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 10, pp. 194–95).“national type” (Mawdudi’s own coinage) by achieving Muslim religious, cultural, and political either within or without a national Indian polity (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 10, pp. 194–95). Nasr nationalNasr underscores Indian polity “identity (Mawdudi formation” 2005, chp.as an 10, abiding pp. 194–95). objective Nasr of underscoresMawdudi’s revivalism, “identity formation” which autonomy,must as either within or without a national Indian polity (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 10, pp. 194–95). underscoresanassert abiding its“identity contradistinction objective formation” of Mawdudi’s to asboth an revivalism,Britishabiding and objective whichthe Hindus: mustof Mawdudi’s assert“Islamic its contradistinction revivalismrevivalism, therefore which to bothmust entailed British Nasr a underscores “identity formation” as an abiding objective of Mawdudi’s revivalism, which must assertand processits contradistinction the of Hindus: identity “Islamic formation to both revivalism Britishthat could and therefore competethe Hindus: entailed with “Islamic both a process traditional revivalism of identity Muslim therefore formation identity entailed and that seculara couldassert its contradistinction to both British and the Hindus: “Islamic revivalism therefore entailed a processcompetenationalism” of identity with formation(Nasr both traditional 1996, that p. 4).could Muslim Note compete Nasr’s identity withobse and rvationboth secular traditional in nationalism” seeing Muslim Mawdud (Nasr identityi’s 1996 concern, p.and 4). secularwith Note secular Nasr’s process of identity formation that could compete with both traditional Muslim identity and secular nationalism”observationnationalism (Nasr inas 1996, seeinga competition p. Mawdudi’s4). Note over Nasr’s concern identity. observation with For secularMa inwdudi, seeing nationalism IslamicMawdud identity asi’s a concern competition was withpredicated oversecular identity. on nationalism” his (Nasr 1996, p. 4). Note Nasr’s observation in seeing Mawdudi’s concern with secular nationalism as a competition over identity. For Mawdudi, Islamic identity was predicated on his nationalismForvision Mawdudi, ofas Islama competition Islamicas a complete identity over systemidentity. was predicated of Forlife. Ma onwdudi, his vision Islamic of Islamidentity as awas complete predicated system on of his life. vision of Islam as a complete system of life. vision of IslamOne as of a Mawdudi’s complete system general of hermeneutic life. principles was to reinterpret the Qur’anic concept of One of Mawdudi’s general hermeneutic principles was to reinterpret the Qur’anic concept ofOne of Mawdudi’s general hermeneutic principles was to reinterpret the Qur’anic concept of One of Mawdudi’s general hermeneutic principles was to reinterpret the Qur’anic concept of jjahiliyyah¯āhiliyyah inin the light of his modern modern interpretation interpretation of of Islam Islam as as a a system system ( (nini z̤ am¯ām).).2323 InIn ordinary Muslimjāhiliyyah in the light of his modern interpretation of Islam as a system (ni z̤ ām).23 In ordinary Muslim jāhiliyyah in the light of his modern interpretation of Islam as a system (nizā̤ m).23 In ordinary Muslim discourse, jjahiliyyahā¯hiliyyah connotes the pre-islamic cultures of ignoranceignorance and uncivilized behavior. Indiscourse, thisthis jāhiliyyah connotes the pre-islamic cultures of ignorance and uncivilized behavior. In this discourse, jāhiliyyah connotes the pre-islamic cultures of ignorance and uncivilized behavior. In this sense, Mawdudi asserts Islam as a system in contradistinctioncontradistinction to all other systems (worldviews,sense, Mawdudi asserts Islam as a system in contradistinction to all other systems (worldviews, sense, Mawdudi asserts Islam as a system in contradistinction to all other systems (worldviews, cultures, political orders, etc.). In a move reminiscent of Iqbal’s division of the world into the millatscultures, political orders, etc.). In a move reminiscent of Iqbal’s division of the world into the millats cultures, political orders, etc.). In a move reminiscent of Iqbal’s division of the world into the millats of Islam and non-Islam, Mawdudi asserts that the world admits only of two systems: Islam and of IslamIslam andand non-Islam,non-Islam, MawdudiMawdudi asserts that thethe worldworld admitsadmits onlyonly ofof twotwo systems:systems: Islam and of Islam and non-Islam, Mawdudi asserts that the world admits only of two systems: Islam and jāhiliyyat. His reasoning being that with the advent of Prophet Muhammad, jāhiliyyat was eradicated jjahiliyyat¯āhiliyyat.. His reasoning being that with the advent of Prophet Muhammad, jjahiliyyat¯āhiliyyat was eradicated jāhiliyyat. His reasoning being that with the advent of Prophet Muhammad, jāhiliyyat was eradicated and replaced with Islam as the true, universal, and final divinely-revealed religion. In Mawdudi’s and replaced withwith IslamIslam asas thethe true,true, universal,universal, andand ﬁnalfinal divinely-revealeddivinely-revealed religion.religion. InIn Mawdudi’sMawdudi’s and replaced with Islam as the true, universal, and final divinely-revealed religion. In Mawdudi’s historiography, history witnesses a perpetual confrontation between truth (haqq) and falsehood historiography, historyhistory witnesses witnesses a perpetuala perpetual confrontation confrontation between between truth truth (haqq ()haqq and) falsehoodand falsehood(bātil̤ ),, or Islam (read, monotheistic worldview revealed to the prophets from Adam to Muhammad) historiography,̤ history witnesses a perpetual confrontation between truth (haqq) and falsehood or(bā Islamtil), or (read,Islam monotheistic(read, monotheistic worldview worldview revealed reve toaled the to prophets the prophets from from Adam Adam to Muhammad) to Muhammad)and and jā hiliyyat (Ahmad 2013, p. 334). Mawdudi’s deployment of jāhiliyyat approximates the Marxist (bātil̤ ), or Islam (read, monotheistic worldview revealed to the prophets from Adam to Muhammad) idea of false consciousness which, in the Islamic sense, leads to different levels of alienation as regards jandahiliyyat¯ jāhiliyyat(Ahmad (Ahmad 2013, 2013, p. 334). p. Mawdudi’s334). Mawdudi’s deployment deployment of jahiliyyat¯ of jāhiliyyatapproximates approximates the Marxist the Marxist idea of and jāhiliyyat (Ahmad 2013, p. 334). Mawdudi’s deployment of jāhiliyyat approximates the Marxist truth, goodness, reality, and one’s essential humanity. Phrased differently, all cultures fall on a falseidea of consciousness false consciousness which, which, in the Islamic in the Islamic sense, leadssense, to leads different to different levels oflevels alienation of alienation as regards as regards truth, idea oftruth, false consciousnessgoodness, reality, which, and in one’sthe Islamic essential sense, humani leads toty. different Phrased levels differently, of alienation all cultures as regards fall spectrumon a between the two poles of pure Islam (absolute truth, goodness, reality) and pure jāhiliyyat goodness, reality, and one’s essential humanity. Phrased differently, all cultures fall on a spectrum(absolute falsehood, evil, unreality). On this spectrum, nationalism with Mawdudi appears closer to truth, spectrumgoodness, between reality, theand two one’s poles essential of pure humani Islam (absolutety. Phrased truth, differently, goodness, all reality) cultures and fall pure on jā hiliyyata between the two poles of pure Islam (absolute truth, goodness, reality) and pure jahiliyyat¯ (absolutethe pole of jāhiliyyat—an appraisal with which Iqbal would concur.24 Noting Nasr’s reading that “[a]t spectrum(absolute between falsehood, the two evil, poles unreality). of pure Islam On this (absolute spectrum, truth, nationalism goodness, withreality) Mawdudi and pure appears jāhiliyyat closer to falsehood, evil, unreality). On this spectrum, nationalism with Mawdudi appears closer to the polethe ofheart of Mawdudi’s approach was the belief that religious authenticity was a panacea” (Nasr (absolute falsehood, evil, unreality). On this spectrum, nationalism with24 Mawdudi appears closer to jtheahiliyyat¯ pole of jāhiliyyat—an appraisal with which Iqbal would24 concur. Noting Nasr’s reading that1996, “[a]t p. 54), any association with jāhiliyyat for Mawdudi became a mark of religious inauthenticity. the pole of jāhiliyyat—an appraisal—an appraisal with whichwith which Iqbal wouldIqbal would concur. concur.Noting24 Noting Nasr’s Nasr’s reading reading that “[a]t that the “[a]t heart of the heart of Mawdudi’s approach was the belief that religious authenticity was a panacea” (NasrFraming of nationalism as a form of jāhiliyyat helps Mawdudi to otherize nationalism as a the heartMawdudi’s of Mawdudi’s approach approach was the was belief the that belief religious that religious authenticity authenticity was a panacea” was a (panacea”Nasr 1996 (Nasr, p. 54), any association1996, p. 54), with any jassociationahiliyyat¯ for with Mawdudi jāhiliyyat became for Mawdudi a mark of became religious a mark inauthenticity. of religious inauthenticity.modern manifestation of old, pre-Islamic ignorance, instead of a progressive achievement. Moreover, 1996, p. 54),Framing any association of nationalism with jā hiliyyatas a form for Mawdudiof jāhiliyyat became helps a Mawdudimark of religious to otherize inauthenticity. nationalism adapting as a the concept of jāhiliyyat frees Mawdudi from “Westernistic image of world history” (in Framingmodern manifestationof nationalism of as old, a pre-formIslamic of jāhiliyyat ignorance, helps instead Mawdudi of a pr toogressive otherize achievement. nationalism Moreover,as a Marshall Hodgson’s coinage)25 that presents the West as modern hence superior, enabling him to modernadapting manifestation the concept of old, of pre- jāhiliyyatIslamic freesignorance, Mawdudi instead from of a“Westernistic progressive achievement. image of world Moreover, history” (in 23 The Arabic jahiliyyah¯ is a nominalization from the root j-h-l. The participle jahil¯ means ‘ignorant,’ ‘uncivilized,’ ‘uncultivated,’ adapting the concept of jāhiliyyat frees25 Mawdudi from “Westernistic image of world history” (in Marshall‘uncultured,’ Hodgson’s ‘unenlightened,’ coinage) ‘uneducated,’ that presents ‘ignoramus,’ the andWest ‘uninformed.’ as modern The hence nominal superior, form, jahiliyyah,¯ enablingappears him in theto 25 23 The Arabic jāhiliyyah is a nominalization from the root j-h-l. The participle jāhil means ‘ignorant,’ Marshall Qur’anHodgson’s in four references,coinage) all that of which presents caution the the readerWest againstas modern indulgence hence in the superior, respective enabling manifestation him of tojahiliyyah¯ : ‘uncivilized,’ ‘uncultivated,’ ‘uncultured,’ ‘unenlightened,’ ‘uneducated,’ ‘ignoramus,’ and ‘uninformed.’ conjecture (z. ann, Qur’an 3:154), judgement (h. ukm, Qur’an 5:50), female adornment (tabarruj, Qur’an 33:33), and group pride The nominal form, jāhiliyyah, appears in the Qur’an in four references, all of which caution the reader against ( h. amiyyah , Qur’an 48:26). In most instances in the Qur’an, the meaning of the root j-h-l tends to mean ‘ignorance’ in the sense 23 of The lacking Arabic knowledge, j ā hiliyyah information, is a nominalization or wisdom. Mawdudi’s from the discourse root j-h-l on jahiliyyat.¯ The participle(Urdu) is exposited jāhil means under ‘ignorant,’ a revealingindulgence in the respective manifestation of jāhiliyyah: conjecture (ẓann, Qur’an 3:154), judgement (ḥukm, 23 ḥ The Arabicchapter‘uncivilized,’ titlejāhiliyyah “Islam: ‘uncultivated,’ is A Comprehensivea nominalization ‘uncul Culture:tured,’ from The ‘unenlightened,’ the Unislamic root [j-h-lJahil¯ .¯ı ]‘uneducateThe Conception participled,’ of Separation‘ignoramus,’ jāhil means of Religion and ‘ignorant,’ ‘uninformed.’ and Lifeworld Qur’an 5:50), female adornment (tabarruj, Qur’an 33:33), and group pride ( amiyyah, Qur’an 48:26). In most ‘uncivilized,’(dunya¯), and‘uncultivated,’ Its Effects on Our‘uncul Nationaltured,’ Politics”. ‘unenlightened,’ ‘uneducated,’ ‘ignoramus,’ and ‘uninformed.’ instances in the Qur’an, the meaning of the root j-h-l tends to mean ‘ignorance’ in the sense of lacking 24 ForThe Mawdudi’s nominal form, discussion jāhiliyyah, on jahiliyyat¯ appears, see in (Mawdudi the Qur’an 2005 in, pp. four 109–18, references, 379–80). all of which caution the reader against The nominal form, jāhiliyyah, appears in the Qur’an in four references, all of which caution the reader against knowledge, information, or wisdom. Mawdudi’s discourse on jāhiliyyat (Urdu) is exposited under a indulgence in the respective manifestation of jāhiliyyah: conjecture (ẓann, Qur’an 3:154), judgement (ḥukm,revealing chapter title “Islam: A Comprehensive Culture: The Unislamic [Jāhilī] Conception of Separation of indulgence in the respective manifestation of jāhiliyyah: conjecture (ẓann, Qur’an 3:154), judgement (ḥukm, Qur’an 5:50), female adornment (tabarruj, Qur’an 33:33), and group pride (ḥamiyyah, Qur’an 48:26). In mostReligion and Lifeworld (dunyā), and Its Effects on Our National Politics.” Qur’aninstances 5:50), female in the adornment Qur’an, the(tabarruj, meaning Qur’an of the 33:33), root and j-h-l group tends pride to mean (ḥamiyyah, ‘ignorance’ Qur’an in 48:26).the sense In most of lacking 24 For Mawdudi’s discussion on jāhiliyyat, see (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 109–18, 379–80). instancesknowledge, in the Qur’an, information, the meaning or wi sdom.of the rootMawdudi’s j-h-l tends discourse to mean on ‘ignorance’ jāhiliyyat (Urdu)in the senseis exposited of lacking under 25 Hodgsona speaks of a “Westernistic image of world history” that divides the world into three parts: the knowledge,revealing information, chapter title or “Islam:wisdom. A ComprehensiveMawdudi’s discourse Culture: on The jā Unislamichiliyyat (Urdu) [Jāhil ī]is Conception exposited ofunder Separation a Primitivesof (who supposedly had no history), the Orient (who flourished before the West), and the West, revealingReligion chapter and title Lifeworld “Islam: A(duny Comprehensiveā), and Its Effects Culture: on Our The NationalUnislamic Politics.” [Jāhilī] Conception of Separation of Religion24 For and Mawdudi’s Lifeworld discussion (dunyā), and on Itsjāhiliyyat Effects, seeon Our(Mawdudi National 2005, Politics.” pp. 109–18, 379–80). 24 For25 Mawdudi’s Hodgson discussionspeaks of aon “Westernistic jāhiliyyat, see image(Mawdudi of world 2005, history”pp. 109–18, that 379–80). divides the world into three parts: the 25 HodgsonPrimitives speaks (whoof a “Westernistic supposedly had image no ofhi story),world thehistory” Orient that (who divides flourished the world before into the three West), parts: and the West, Primitives (who supposedly had no history), the Orient (who flourished before the West), and the West,

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20 had resulted in a tremendous decline in Muslim morals (akhlāq), culture (teh1E95īb), lifestyle (usūl-i ḥayāt; literally, principles of life), and social organization (nizām-i jamā’at). As far as Mawdudi was concerned, two options presented themselves to the Muslims: (a) either adopt nationalism (vatan̤ parasti̱ ) and its quest for independence from colonial domination, remaining indifferent to Muslim cultural autonomy; or (b) struggle to achieve Muslim autonomy (āzādī) that enables Muslims to recover their lost power. Mawdudi saw the two options as ultimately leading to two different destinations (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 73–75). Indian nationalism without explicit safeguards for Muslim autonomy was detrimental to theReligions future2018 of, 9 ,Islam 355 in the region—in contrast to Khan, for whom the 16 of 20 British were the safeguard for Muslims. Accordingly, faced with the unfolding national revolution, Mawdudi announced his primary objective as the preservation of Islamic identity (tashakhkhus) or the Framing of nationalism as a form of jahiliyyat¯ helps Mawdudi to otherize nationalism as a modern “national type” (Mawdudi’s own coinage) by achieving Muslim religious, cultural, and political manifestation of old, pre-Islamic ignorance, instead of a progressive achievement. Moreover, adapting autonomy, either within or without a national Indian polity (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 10, pp. 194–95). the concept of jahiliyyat¯ frees Mawdudi from “Westernistic image of world history” (in Marshall Nasr underscoresReligions 2018, “identity9, x FOR PEER formation” REVIEW as an abiding objective of Mawdudi’s revivalism, which must 16 of 20 Hodgson’s coinage)25 that presents the West as modern hence superior, enabling him to interpret the assert its contradistinction to both British and the Hindus: “Islamic revivalism therefore entailed a West in Islamic terms, thereby making it possible to demonstrate, at least to the Muslims, the limitations processinterpret of identity the Westformation in Islamic that couldterms, compete thereby making with both it possible traditional to demonstrate, Muslim identity at least and to secular the Muslims, of nationalism. Mawdudi thus observes that the modern jahiliyyat¯ ’s view of religion is that of a private nationalism”the limitations (Nasr 1996, of nationalism. p. 4). Note Mawdudi Nasr’s obse thusrvation observes in seeing that the Mawdud moderni’s jā concernhiliyyat’s with view secular of religion is affair which only addresses man’s relation with God, and whose sole objective is limited to individual nationalismthat of as a privatea competition affair which over identity.only addresses For Ma man’swdudi, relation Islamic with identity God, was and predicated whose sole on objective his is salvation (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 109–10). In stark contrast, Islam is first and foremost an “attitude of vision limitedof Islam to as individual a complete salvation system of (Mawdudi life. 2005, pp. 109–10). In stark contrast, Islam is first and Oneforemost of Mawdudi’s an “attitude general of mind”mind” hermeneutic ( (tartarī¯ıq-iq-i fikr fikrprinciples)) and and an an “outlookwas “outlook to reinterpret on on life” (nuqt the a-yi̤ Qur’anic nazar̤ ) concept((MawdudiMawdudi of 20052005,, p. 109) that together give p. 109) that together give rise to a distinct conduct or lifestyle (tarz-e̤ ‘amal), and a distinct ritual jāhiliyyah in the light of his modernrise interpretation to a distinct conduct of Islam oras a lifestyle system ((tarni z̤ -eām ‘amal).23 In), ordinary and a distinct Muslim ritual practice (madhhab), culture practice (madhhab), culture (tehẕīb), and a civilization (tamaddun) that together constitute a single discourse, jāhiliyyah connotes the(teh pre-islamicz¯ıb), and a cultures civilization of ignorance (tamaddun and) that uncivilized together constitutebehavior. In a singlethis integrated whole (majmu’ah¯ ). integrated whole (majmū’ah).¯ The whole order then places before Muslims a collective ideal (naṣabul sense, Mawdudi asserts Islam Theas a wholesystem order in cont thenradistinction places before to Muslimsall other asystems collective (worldviews, ideal (nas.abul ‘ayn) and a purely spiritual cultures,‘ayn political) and a orders,purely spiritualetc.). In a objective move reminiscent (muntahā-i of naz Iqbal’sar̤ ). The division Islamic of orderthe world not onlyinto theaddresses millats man– objective (muntaha-i¯ na ar). The Islamic order not only addresses man–God relationship, but also of IslamGod and relationship, non-Islam, Mawdudibut also assertsorganizes that man-to the world-man admits interactions, only of andtwo systems:man-to-universe Islam and (k ā’ināt) organizes man-to-man interactions, and man-to-universe (ka’in¯ at¯ ) relationship. The objectives of Islam jāhiliyyatrelationship.. His reasoning The objectivesbeing that ofwith Islam the demandsadvent of that Prophet Muslims Muhammad, as individuals jāhiliyyat and was as aeradicated collective mold demands that Muslims as individuals and as a collective mold their minds in an Islamic cast, and and replacedtheir minds with inIslam an Islamic as the true,cast, universal,and adopt andthose final ideas, divinely-revealed values, and lifestyle religion. that In retain Mawdudi’s its harmony adopt those ideas, values, and lifestyle that retain its harmony with Islam’s worldview and objectives historiography,with Islam’s history worldview witnesses and a objectivesperpetual (Mawdudiconfrontation 2005, between pp. 111–14). truth (Hence,haqq) and the falsehoodautonomy and (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 111–14). Hence, the autonomy and independence that Muslims ought to seek must (bātil̤ ), independenceor Islam (read, that monotheistic Muslims oughtworldview to seek reve mustaled gu toarantee the prophets their control from Adam over their to Muhammad) own religion and guarantee their control over their own religion and culture, and private and public life (Mawdudi 2005, and jāhiliyyatculture, (Ahmadand private 2013, and p. public334). Mawdudi’s life (Mawdudi deployment 2005, pp. of 125–27). jāhiliyyat This approximates objective, however, the Marxist cannot be pp. 125–27). This objective, however, cannot be achieved within the modern paradigm of nationalism idea ofachieved false consciousness within the modernwhich, in paradigm the Islamic of sense, nationalism leads to owing different to its levels very of nature. alienation as regards owing to its very nature. truth, goodness,Absent reality, a religious and basis,one’s observesessential Mawdudi humanity. (as Phrased did Iqbal), differently, nationalism all nonethelesscultures fall must on a rest on Absent a religious basis, observes Mawdudi (as did Iqbal), nationalism nonetheless must spectrumsome between common the twofactor poles strong of pure enough Islam (absoluteto overcome truth, thegoodness, various reality) differences and pure among jāhiliyyat different rest on some common factor strong enough to overcome the various differences among different (absolutecommunities. falsehood, Theevil, Protestantunreality). Reformation On this spec trum,rent the nationalism previously with uneasy Mawdudi conciliation appears reached closer betweento communities. The Protestant Reformation rent the previously uneasy conciliation reached between the the polethe of Roman jāhiliyyat Catholic—an appraisal Church with and which (secular) Iqbal political would concur.authority.24 Noting Unable Nasr’s to reunite reading upon that a“[a]t common Roman Catholic Church and (secular) political authority. Unable to reunite upon a common factor, the heartfactor, of Mawdudi’swhether religious approach or wassecular, the beliefthe Christian that religious world authenticitysplit into multiple was a panacea” nations. The(Nasr natural whether religious or secular, the Christian world split into multiple nations. The natural outcome 1996, p.outcome 54), any ofassociation this development with jāhiliyyat was fornational Mawdudi comp becameetition a thatmark revolved of religious around inauthenticity. four elements— of this development was national competition that revolved around four elements—highlighting Framinghighlighting of nationalism nationalism’s as a formsocial of psychology—national jāhiliyyat helps Mawdudi pride to (otherizeiftikhār), nationalismsolidarity (ashamiyyat a ), modernpreservation manifestation (ta ḥofaffuz old,),̤ pre-andnationalism’sIslamic “aggrandizement” ignorance, social psychology—national instead (istīlā ofo istikba progressiveār) (Mawdudi pride achievement. (iftikh 2005,ar¯ ), p. solidarity Moreover,334). Given (hamiyyat this ), preservation (tah. affu ), adaptingframework, the concept nationalism of jāhiliyyat canand onlyfrees “aggrandizement” give Mawdudi rise to hatrfromed, (ist “Westernistic ¯ılanimosity,a¯ o istikbar¯ and)( imageMawdudi vengea of nce—theworld 2005, p.history” social 334). Givenpathology (in this framework, nationalism Marshallof Hodgson’snationalism. coinage) Taken25 cantothat its only presents logical give rise theconclusion, toWest hatred, as modern animosity,Mawdudi hence andconcludes, superior, vengeance—the theenabling national social him toimpulse pathology of nationalism. Taken metastasizes into imperialism,to its logicalcolonialism, conclusion, and brutal Mawdudi violence, concludes, often of the the national powerful impulse against metastasizes the into imperialism, powerless (Mawdudi 2005, colonialism, p. 345). Mawdudi and brutal thus violence, concludes often that of the “this powerful madness against (junū then) of powerless nation (Mawdudi 2005, p. 345). worship (qaum parastī) is theMawdudi greatest thus curse concludes on the world; that [and] “this madnessthe greatest (jun dangerun¯ ) of for nation human worship culture” (qaum parast¯ı) is the greatest 23 The Arabic jāhiliyyah is a nominalization from the root j-h-l. The participle jāhil means ‘ignorant,’ ‘uncivilized,’(Mawdudi ‘uncultivated,’ 2005, p. 345) ‘unculascurse it turntured,’ ons the humans ‘unenlightened,’ world; into [and] predatory the‘uneducate greatest animalsd,’ danger ‘ignoramus,’ (darindah for human). and This ‘uninformed.’ culture” is, for Mawdudi, (Mawdudi 2005, p. 345) as it turns Thenationalism’s nominal form, real,jāhiliyyah, underlying appearshumans in spirit—the the into Qur’an predatory inspirit four animalsreferences,of jāhiliyyat (darindah all —whichof which). Thiscaution the is,Muslim the for reader Mawdudi, proponents against nationalism’s of real, underlying indulgencesecular nationalismin the respective fail tomanifestationspirit—the understand. spiritof j āhiliyyah of jahiliyyat¯ : conjecture—which (ẓann, the Qur’an Muslim 3:154), proponents judgement of secular(ḥukm, nationalism fail to understand. Qur’an 5:50),Toward female disclosing adornment the (tabarruj, dangersToward Qur’an of disclosing importing 33:33), theand nationalism dangersgroup pride of importing (inḥamiyyah, South nationalismQur’anAsia, Mawdudi 48:26). in In South most turns Asia, his Mawdudi turns his critical instancescritical in lens the againstQur’an, thethe toweringmeaninglens against ofnationalist the the root towering j-h-l figure tends nationalistof toIndian mean socialism,‘ignorance’ figure of JawaharlalIndian in the sense socialism, Nehru, of lacking Jawaharlal who was Nehru, who was one of knowledge,one of Gandhi’s information, close or confidants wiGandhi’ssdom. Mawdudi’s and close went confidants discourseon to become and on went jā hiliyyatthe on firstto (Urdu) becomeprime is mi exposited thenister first of prime underpost-colonial ministera of post-colonial India.26 revealingIndia. 26 chapter Mawdudi title “Islam: notes A Mawdudithat Comprehensive Nehru’s notes first Culture: that mistake Nehru’s The Unislamicwas first to mistake presume [Jāhilī] wasConception all to of presume India of Separation a all single of India of nation a single nation comprising a Religion and Lifeworld (dunyā), and Its Effects on Our National Politics.” comprising a homogeneoushomogeneous unity. Such unity. a presumption Such a presumption conflates, conflates, flattens, flattens, and equalizes and equalizes all the all the myriad differences of 24 For Mawdudi’s discussion on jāhiliyyat, see (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 109–18, 379–80). myriad differences of race,race, language, language, color, color, religi religion,on, and and cultures cultures across across South South Asia. Asia. Mawdudi Mawdudi sees sees Nehru’s second mistake 25 Hodgson speaks of a “Westernistic image of world history” that divides the world into three parts: the PrimitivesNehru’s (who second supposedly mistake hadinin his hisno faith faithhistory), in in Marxist Marxistthe Orient histor historiography (whoiography flourished that that before presumes presumes the West), economic economic and the interest West, as the basis of all politics. Thus, basis of all politics. Thus,the the true true basis basis of difference of difference and divisionand division among among humans humans rests upon rests economics, upon the haves being one economics, the haves beinggroup one and group the have-notsand the have another.-nots Consequently,another. Consequently, religion in religion this scheme in this is rendered inconsequential scheme is rendered inconsequential to social and political development. Mawdudi cautions his readers to beware of Nehru’s aim to establish socialism in India and even eradicate religion. In singling out Nehru, Mawdudi’s25 Hodgson objective speaks is of to a “Westernistic weaponize image Nehru’s of world socialist history” nationalism that divides theagainst world him, into three parts: the Primitives (who and by extension, against thesupposedly whole vision had no of history), secula ther nationalism Orient (who flourished as anti-religion, before the West),and therefore, and the West, anti- which replaced what came before it in advancement, ushering in modernity (Hodgson 1974, pp. 204–5, and note 11). Islamic. Mawdudi goes on26 toThe warn critique his ofMuslim Nehru appearsreaders in that “The democratic Views of the Nationalists”, legislation (holdsMawdudi the 2005 potential, chp. 10, pp. 199–219). to limit religious freedom, as the scope of state’s operation and interference is virtually unlimited. To prove his point, Mawdudi enumerates several instances in which INC imposed Hindu culture on Muslim students in the school system: Muslim students were forced to sing an anthem offensive to which replaced what came before it in advancement, ushering in modernity (Hodgson 1974, pp. 204–5, and note 11). 26 The critique of Nehru appears in “The Views of the Nationalists”, Mawdudi 2005, chp. 10, pp. 199–219.

Religions 2018, 9, 355 17 of 20 to social and political development. Mawdudi cautions his readers to beware of Nehru’s aim to establish socialism in India and even eradicate religion. In singling out Nehru, Mawdudi’s objective is to weaponize Nehru’s socialist nationalism against him, and by extension, against the whole vision of secular nationalism as anti-religion, and therefore, anti-Islamic. Mawdudi goes on to warn his Muslim readers that democratic legislation holds the potential to limit religious freedom, as the scope of state’s operation and interference is virtually unlimited. To prove his point, Mawdudi enumerates several instances in which INC imposed Hindu culture on Muslim students in the school system: Muslim students were forced to sing an anthem offensive to Muslims; greet others with the Hindu salutations; made to wear Hindu attire; and forced to worship Hindu deities (Ahmad 2009, p. 153).27 By citing such examples, Mawdudi built up a forceful case against nationalism as an anti-Islamic ideology threatening to Muslim’s very identity. In the final analysis, Mawdudi concludes that nationalism in its totality is another kind of religion, therefore, in competition with the revealed teachings (sharai’¯ ilahiyyah¯ ) of the prophets (Mawdudi 2005, p. 360). In this statement, Greenfeld’s reading of nationalism and Muslim political theology concur on the point that nationalism in its ideological function approximates religion—and by the dint of this dynamic religion in its ideological mode is bound to clash with nationalism. Weighing in on the South Asian Muslim debate on nationalism, Mawdudi too, like Iqbal, attacks Madani’s articulation of composite nationalism.28 Like Iqbal, Mawdudi too highlights Madani’s conflation of the Arabic qaum as used in the Qur’an with the modern understanding of nation. Mawdudi also notes that the term qaum and its English equivalent ‘nation’ both have their origins in jahiliyyat¯ . He then observes that proponents of jahiliyyat¯ have been unable to transcend the limitations of race, history, tribal affiliation, and the like, when it comes to finding a basis for nationality. Accordingly, the Qur’an never employs the term qaum and other terms of similar semantics (sha’ab [community], qab¯ılah [tribe]) in reference to Muslims (Mawdudi 2005, pp. 379–80). Hence, the conventional terms for ‘nation,’—qaum, qab¯ılah, sha’ab, and so on—cannot be attributed to Muslims. Mawdudi proceeds to reject Madani and Azad’s equation between the Treaty of Medina and modern composite nationalism. The Treaty did not establish a national state inclusive of Muslims and Jews upon the principle of majority rule, a joint legislature, or a common judicial system. At best, the Treaty can be considered a “military alliance” between the Jews and the Muslims for the common defense of the city of Medina. Hence, Madani’s conflation of the Qur’anic and modern terminology is a manifestation of loose thinking that does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. In sum, the crux of Iqbal and Mawdudi’s critique of composite nationalism revolves around two points: (a) the distinctly modern nature of the terms nation, nationality, and nationalism, which bear no real semantic parity with the Qur’anic usage; and (b) the spiritual dynamics of nationalism that lead to devastating spiritual consequences for Islam if the idea were to be adopted by Muslims as an ideological basis for polity. Mawdudi’s critique of nationalism was not limited to intellectual an argument. As any serious ideology, Mawdudi’s ideological formulation of Islam was aimed at initiating a revolutionary movement for the purposes of establishing his authentic Islamic society structured upon the model of the modern nation-state, for which he coined the term “theo-democracy” (a representative government limited by the strictures of Islamic law). Accordingly, Mawdudi launched a revolutionary movement, the Jama’at-i Islam¯ ¯ı (the Islamic Party) in 1941. Given his goal of an authentic Islamic society, Mawdudi went on to oppose the separatist Muslim movement demanding the creation of Pakistan as it was spearheaded not by a religious revolutionary vanguard, but by what Mawdudi saw as secular Muslims, unworthy and unqualified architects of an Islamic state. Hence, until the very birth of Pakistan in 1947, the early Mawdudi remained bitterly opposed to the idea. The founding of Pakistan opened up a new chapter in Mawdudi’s development. After Pakistan’s establishment, Mawdudi moved there

27 Ahmad’s references appear in the context of Mawdudi’s criticism of the Indian National Congress. 28 For Mawdudi’s critique of Madani, see (Mawdudi 2005, chp. 16). Religions 2018, 9, 355 18 of 20 and became entangled with its national politics. At the outset, he considered the Pakistani state to be secular therefore sinful for two main reasons: one, the leadership of the ruling party, the Muslim League, did not constitute righteous leadership (s.ali¯ h. qiya¯d. at); two, the country’s initial constitution was secular. Accordingly, Mawdudi shunned participation in electoral politics in a secular nation as forbidden (Zaman 2015, pp. 412–13). Thereafter, he devoted all his efforts in transforming the Pakistani nation-state into his authentic Islamic state. The nature of Mawdudi’s problem thus shifted from a purely ideological articulation opposing the absolute Other of secular nationalism toward protecting the collective identity of the Muslim community to addressing the power politics of statecraft (e.g., drafting a constitution, legislation, elections, and domestic and war policy) opposing the absolute Other of popular sovereignty toward forging the Islamic identity of the nation-state. If the previous idol to guard against was the Western secular idea of the nation, the new idol were the Muslim people claiming sovereignty. Sovereignty (h. akimiyyah¯ ) later became Mawdudi’s central political problematic in regards to statecraft, and his innovative interpretation of sovereignty contextualized it as a modern political concept. Mawdudi and his Islamic Party’s old purist rhetoric of Islamic authenticity was now couched in terms of sovereignty: absolute sovereignty belongs to God the Law-giver such that vesting sovereignty in any other entity amounted to idolatry (shirk). In Metcalf’s rendering, “to organize social and political life by other principles would be ‘infidelity’, exactly as worship of other than Allah would be infidelity” (Metcalf 2007, p. 288). The state of Pakistan, demanded Mawdudi, must be rooted in the principle of divine sovereignty and align all its legislation according to the dictates of this principle.29 Due partly to his party’s efforts the Objectives Resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 which, among other things, declared sovereignty as God’s prerogative. As Mawdudi saw it, this made his party’s direct participation in electoral politics religiously permissible. In this way, as far as Mawdudi was concerned, the first significant milestone toward the Islamization of Pakistan’s secular nationalism was successfully achieved.

5. Conclusions From the vantage point of modern and colonial knowledge, to equate secular nationalism with idolatry appears a gross exaggeration of diehard fundamentalists. However, in the perspective of Greenfeld’s psychological reading of nationalism as a secular ideology, the Muslim charge of nation as a neo-idol no longer seems far-fetched. As ideologies of order, both nationalism and religion mimic each other’s functions as they are vested with grand meanings, define values and purposes, protect their interests, proselytize, command loyalty, and most importantly, shape identities. Given that Islam has shaped Muslim identities for fourteen centuries, the rise of nationalism in the midst of Muslim communities was bound to be resisted by Muslims like Iqbal and Mawdudi who discerned its ideological functions. Discerned as a secular ideology, nationalism then appears as a rival to Islam, challenging its transcendental vision and competing for Muslims’ loyalty. If egalitarianism constitutes nationalism’s great appeal to the masses, Islam’s deep commitment to spiritual equality of all humans makes nationalism’s offer redundant. Muslims cognizant of and satisfied with the dignity conferred upon them by their religion will find no great appeal in national dignity. However, despite their rejection of secular nationalism, it must be noted that Iqbal and Mawdudi’s interpretation of Islam was influenced by modernity, and more so for Iqbal than for Mawdudi. Among other things, they

29 Mawdudi’s formulation of the problem of sovereignty has been a point of great controversy, discussion, and criticism. One abiding criticism is that Mawdudi conﬂates the pre-modern Muslim understandings of sovereignty and state with the modern, Western manifestations, turning the authenticity of Mawdudi’s formulation suspect; whereas, in contrast, the Muslim tradition displays a spectrum of meaning of sovereignty: judgment, power, authority, worship. For an appraisal of Mawdudi’s idea of sovereignty in relation to pre-modern understanding of the Muslim tradition, see (Zaman 2015). Another notable criticism charges that Mawdudi’s anxiety over eradicating popular sovereignty and his obsession with enforcing divine sovereignty denied the populace the right to legislate, that is, engage in politics; hence, “Mawdudi’s conception of theocracy is anti-political in nature” (Devji 2013). Religions 2018, 9, 355 19 of 20

were willing to adapt the structure of the modern state, espouse limited democracy, acknowledge the beneﬁts of modern science, and utilize modern technology. But what they weren’t willing to do was to surrender their Islamic identity as they understood it. Modernity had to accommodate itself within the ken of their theology, and not the other way around.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Conﬂicts of Interest: The author declares no conﬂict of interest.

References

Ahmad, Irfan. 2009. Genealogy of the Islamic State: Reflections on Maududi’s Political Thought and Islamism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15: S145–62. [CrossRef] Ahmad, Irfan. 2013. Mawdudi, Abu al-A’la (1903–79). In The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Edited by Gerhard Bowering. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 332–35. Ahmed, Aziz. 1967. Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan, 1857–1964. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 186–94. Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20 Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Ansari,possible Zafar only Ishaq. with 1961. the Iqbal perception and Nationalism. that allIqbal human Review 2life. Available is spiritual online: in http://www.allamaiqbal.com/ its origin. Such a publications/journals/review/apr61/5.htm (accessed on 15 October 2018). perception is creative of fresh loyalties without any ceremonials to keep them alive, and Becker, Louise. 2013. The All-India Muslim League, 1906–1947. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. makes it possible for man to emancipate himself from the earth” (Iqbal [1930] 2012, p. 116). Devji, Faisal. 2013. Political Theology and Islamic Studies Symposium: Islamism as Anti-Politics. Political Theology For Iqbal,Network nationalism. August 2. is Available materialistic online: https://politicaltheology.com/political-theology-and-islamic-studies-in that it is “associated with the body and the world of dimensions”symposium-islamism-as-anti-politics/ in its relation to its geographical (accessed [and, on let 15 us October add, linguistic 2018). and racial] factors (Majeed 2009,Dharampal-Frick, pp. 78–79). “Earth-rootedness” Gita, Ali Usman Qasmi, pulls humans and Katia down Rostetter, and pegs eds. them 2010. to theRevisioning world of Iqbal gross. Heidelberg: matter, which dividesDraupadi humanity Verlag. along earthly concerns. For humanity to unite together, nothing less than theEsposito, infinite John spiritual L., ed. ideal 1955. Thewill Oxford do. A Encyclopedia corollary ofthe the Modern spiritual Islamic ideal World is. the Oxford: spiritual Oxford equality University of Press,all humansvol. which 3, p. 71.determines the “psycho-logical foundation of human unity,” that is the unity of humanFaruqi, spiritual Ziya-ul-Hasan. origins, 1963. whichThe Deobandin turn Schooldetermines and the the Demand spiritual for Pakistan “worth. New of York:the individual Asia Publishing as such.” House. HereinGellner, lies Ernest. the foundational 2008. Nations difference and Nationalism between, 2nd ed.Iqbal’s Ithaca: anthropology Cornell University and secular Press. nationalism. Iqbal’s spiritualGreenfeld, anthropology Liah. 2006. Nationalism locates the and basis the Mind:for the Essays universal on Modern dignity Culture of all. London: human Oneworld. beings without regard to Greenfeld,earthly factors. Liah. 2016. SpiritualAdvanced universality Introduction Tothen Nationalism leads to. Cheltenham:a universal Edward vision Elgar.of society and politics, Griffiths, Percival J. 1946. The British in India. London: Robert Hale. whereas nationalism can never offer dignity to all humanity due to its particularity, nor can it truly Hardy, Peter. 1971. Partners in Freedom and True Muslims: The Political Thought of Some Muslim Scholars in British attain universality as universal nationalism is oxymoronic. Ali Qasmi thus aptly labels Iqbal’s vision India 1912–1947. Lund: Studentlitteratur. a “spiritual democracy encapsulating the whole world” (Dharampal-Frick et al. 2010, pp. 27–28), Hayes, Carlton J. H. 1926. Nationalism as Religion. In Essays on Nationalism. New York: Macmillan. Available while Masud describes Iqbal’s vision as a “framework for the theology of modernity focused on the online: https://www.panarchy.org/hayes/nationalism.html (accessed on 15 October 2018). autonomy of self” (Masud 2014). In Iqbal’s words, “Islam does not aim at the moral reformation of Hodgson, Marshall G. S. 1974. The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and the individualHistory in alone; a World it also Civilization aims at. Chicago: a gradual Chicago but fundamental University Press, revolution vol. 3. in the social life of mankind, whichIqbal, should Muhammad. altogether 2012. changeThe Reconstruction its national of Religiousand racial Thought viewpoint in Islam .and Edited create by M.in Saeedits place Sheikh. a purely With an humanintroduction consciousness” by Javed (Iqbal Majeed. 1930) Stanford: as opposed Stanford to a Universitynational consciousness. Press. First published In other 1930. words, Islam is inherentlyIqbal, Muhammad. supranational 1930. Sirand Muhammad nationalism Iqbal’s must 1930 not Presidentialbe allowed Address to arrest to its the supranational 25th Session of potential. the All-India Taken Muslimas a premise, League, Iqbal’s Allahabad. spiritual December anthropology 29. Available logically online: projects http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/ a political theology as its necessarypritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html consequence. (accessed on 15 October 2018). Iqbal,Iqbal Muhammad. was not 1973.against Islam a healthy and Nationalism. form of Available patriotism online: in http://www.koranselskab.dk/profiler/iqbal/the sense of one’s affection for one’s homeland.nationalism.htm He held this (accessed sense of on patriotism 8 August 2018).as incumbent on every Muslim as expressed in a famous MuslimIqbal, proverb: Muhammad. ‘love n.d.Nationalismof one’s nation [ vatan̤ ]iyyat]. is part Callof faith.’ of the So Marchingmuch so that Bell one [Bang-e should Dara. be willing Available to lay downonline: one’s http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/poetry/urdu/bang/translation/part07/10.htm life for one’s homeland. However, nationalism that Iqbal here criticizes is (accessed one that on claims 15the October nation 2018).as “a principle of human society and as such, it is a political concept” (Iqbal 1973). ToJuergensmeyer, assert nationalism Mark. as 2010. a political The Global concept Rise of is Religious to underscore Nationalism. its ideologicalAustralian Journal dimension. of International Thus, as Affairs a political64: principle 262–273. [orCrossRef an ideology,] nationalism becomes the foundation for organizing the whole of publicLakshmi, life that Aishwarya. eventually 2007. affects Land, the Event, private Empire: sphere Colonial, including Aesthetics spirituality, and the and Indian in Iqbal’s Mutiny perspective, of 1857. Ph.D. a changedissertation, in spirituality University is a change of Chicago, in a Muslim’s Chicago, IL,essential USA. identity. In other words, where nationalism becomes the organizing principle of collective life, religion must necessarily withdraw within the narrow scope of privacy, and cut off from the totality of life, withers away and dies. In contrast, Iqbal asserts that Islam is “an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity … a social structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal” (Iqbal 1930). This is because in “Islam God and the universe, spirit and matter, church and state, are organic to each other” (Iqbal 1930). Nationalism, in contrast, “suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam” (Iqbal [1930] 2012, p. 123). To reject nationalism’s religious/secular, private/public, and spirituality/politics dualisms amounts to rejecting secularism. In the Islamic sense, “[a]ll that is secular is, therefore, sacred in the roots of its being,” Iqbal proclaims. If nationalism is “essentially a secular form of consciousness,” as Greenfeld noted, then it is antithetical to Islam as conceived by Iqbal. Hence, when “Islam will be reduced to an ethical idea with indifference to its social order as an inevitable consequence,” the eventual outcome will be “irreligiousness.” It is due to nationalism’s extension in both private and public, and its accompanying effects on religiosity, that critics like Iqbal see nationalism as competing with Islamic ideals and loyalty (Ansari 1961).15

Religions 2018, 9, 355 20 of 20

Madani, Hussain Ahmad. 2005. Composite Nationalism and Islam. Translated by Mohammad Anwer Hussain, and Hasan Imam. New Delhi: Manohar. First published 1938. Majeed, Javed. 2009. Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, Aesthetics and Postcolonialism. New Delhi: Routledge. Malik, Hafeez. 1982. Preface. In Political Proﬁle of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Documentary Record. Edited and prefaced by Hafeez Malik. Islamabad: Institute of Islamic History, Culture and Civilization, pp. xi–xiv. Masud, Muhammad Khalid. 2014. Islam and Modernity in South Asia. In Being Muslim in South Asia: Diversity and Daily Life. Edited by Jeffrey Robin and Sen Ronojoy. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Available online: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198092063.001.0001/acprof- 9780198092063-chapter-1 (accessed on 15 October 2018). Mawdudi, Sayyid Abu’l A’laa. 2005. Tehr¯ık-i Azadi-yi¯ Hind aur Musalman¯ . Edited by Khurshid Ahmad. Lahore: Islamic Publications, vol. 1. Metcalf, Barbara. 2007. Imagining Muslim Futures: Debates over State and Society at the End of the Raj. Historical Research 80: 286–98. [CrossRef] Mohomed, Carimo. 2014. Islam as the National Identity for the Formation of Pakistan: The Political Thought of Muhammad Iqbal and Abu’l A’laa Mawdudi. História 33: 465–85. [CrossRef] Moses, H. Vincent. 1975. Nationalism and the Kingdom of God according to Hans Kohn and Carlton J. H. Hayes. Journal of Church and State 17: 259–74. [CrossRef] Mushir-ul-Haqq. 1967. Religion and Politics in Muslim India (1857–1947). Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. Narang, Gopi Chand. 1972. Ghalib and the Rebellion of 1857. Indian Literature 15: 5–20. Available online: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bu.edu/stable/23329794 (accessed on 15 October 2018). Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza. 1996. Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revival. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Osman, Fathi. 2003. Mawdudi’s Contribution to the Development of Modern Islamic Thinking in the Arabic-Speaking World. The Muslim World 93: 465–85. [CrossRef] Özkirimli, Umut. 2000. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave. Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husain. 1985. The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (610–1947): A Brief Historical Analysis. Dehgi: Renaissance. Raja, Masood Ashraf. 2010. Constructing Pakistan. Foundational Texts and the Rise of Muslim National Identity. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, Anthony D. 1988. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Smith, Anthony D. 2003. Chosen Peoples: The Sacred Sources of National Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swatos, William H., Jr., and Kevin J. Christiano. 2000. Secularization Theory: The Course of a Concept. In The Secularization Debate. Edited by William H. Swatos Jr. and Daniel V. A. Olson. New York: Roman and Littleﬁeld, pp. 1–20. Zaman, Muhammad. 2015. The Sovereignty of God in Modern Islamic Thought. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 25: 389–418. Available online: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/docview/1704346066? accountid=9676 (accessed on 15 October 2018). [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).