The incident of Maulana Islahi’s joining the Jama’at-e-Islami is of immense significance. Maulana states that it was an accident. Yet, from 1941 to 1958, he remained an active member of the Jamaʿat. During this period, he mostly fulfilled the responsibilities of the Naʾib Amir (Deputy Leader) of the party. Seventeen years of his youth he devoted to the Jamaʿat. On the surface, this appears quite strange—seventeen years of one’s life, and that too of one’s youth, spent as the result of an “accident.” Maulana spoke extensively about this phase of his life. He especially recorded his position on this subject. He also commented on it in various interviews. In light of those recollections, which he had specifically recorded for his biography, we shall examine this episode from three perspectives. This will make evident why he calls it an “accident” and why he adopts an almost apologetic tone regarding it.

Criticism of Maulana Maududi and His Agreement

This concerns the period of al-Islah (1938–1939). Maulana Sayyid Abu al-A‘la Maududi had, in his journal Tarjuman al-Qur’an, taken up the issue of nationality in India. Let it be remembered, this was the time when the world had become engulfed in the Second World War. The Congress had emerged as a nationwide political force and had begun demanding independence from the British. Within this demand, Muslims were rapidly splitting into two factions. Some believed they ought to support the Congress, while others advised that Muslims, as a distinct community, should preserve their identity and unite first on the platform of the Muslim League. Commenting on this situation, Maulana Islahi said:

Before the formation of the Jama’at-e-Islami, when Maulana Maududi was publishing his journal from Hyderabad, he began to criticize Maulana Husayn Ahmad Madani’s theory of composite nationalism. In the beginning, I agreed with this criticism and was also impressed by Maududi’s style… When Maududi wrote, the educated reader would certainly be impressed. But soon he began to write in support of the Muslim League’s viewpoint—to the extent that, carried away, he wrote something to the effect that: ‘On one side are those who are called ʿulamaʾ, and their condition is that they promote composite nationalism. On the other side is one servant of God who is calling towards “kunu ʿibad Allah” (Be servants of God)’—referring to the Quaid-e-Aʿẓam! When he wrote this, I was deeply displeased. In response, I wrote an article… In fact, all my writings of that period were about Maulana Maududi, but this article gained more public attention. The gist of it was: the effort you are making against composite nationalism is admirable, and I appreciate it. But the words you are attributing to the Quaid-e-Aʿẓam neither suit him nor befit you to say. Mr. Jinnah is by no means calling to ‘kunu ʿibad Allah’ (be servants of God). He is inviting: ‘If you are a Muslim, then join the Muslim League.’ If you are educated, you must certainly recognize the difference between the two… and others also perceived this difference.

However, this sparked a debate between Tarjuman al-Qur’an and al-Islah. Through the debate, it became clear that Maududi was standing on weak grounds. In fact, my criticism was also agreed upon by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi and Maulana Manẓoor Nu’mani… I had written that if you say composite nationalism is disbelief (kufr), I have no objection. But when you say that Mr. Jinnah also says the same thing, you are utterly wrong. He is not inviting people to the religion of God, nor calling them to the servitude of God. He has no such indication, nor intention. Rather, he is simply calling Muslims, on the basis of ethnic solidarity, to unite on a political platform. This may be wrong or right, but it is not a religious call. This was not something that could be opposed for long. The people who supported me were also among Maududi’s own associates. They explained the matter to him. As a result, he changed his view. He wrote me a letter in very courteous language and clarified that he understood things the same way I did. After this, he wrote those articles which were later included in the third volume of his book Siyasi Kashmakash. In that, you can see that he wrote exactly what I was trying to explain to him, only in a different tone and style.

The Role of Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani

Further advancing this account, Maulana Islahi says:

Later, when the Jama’at-e-Islami was about to be established, Maulana Manzoor Nu‘mani came to me and said, ‘Look, now reconciliation has been made between you and Maududi. Now if a party is formed on the lines you had suggested, would you join it?’ I replied, ‘Maulana, I am not the type to go on joining parties. God has created me for another purpose. I want to complete and translate the books of Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi. Perhaps here (at Madrasah al-Islah) I may get the opportunity to do that. However, if a party is formed on the lines you’ve mentioned, my prayers and sympathies will be with it—nothing more. I cannot promise participation.’

Despite this stance of mine, Maulana Manzoor Nu‘mani persisted. He tried to persuade me, saying, ‘Do what you wish, but at least meet Maududi once… You understand? That’s what he said to me!’

Meeting with Maulana Maududi in Lahore

Maulana Islahi narrates that Maulana Manzoor Nu‘mani dragged him to Lahore—meaning he went reluctantly. Upon arrival, they discovered that it was in fact a formal gathering, attended by a considerable number of people. This gathering took place shortly before the founding convention of the Jamaʿat in August 1941. The main details of the gathering are as follows, in the words of Maulana Islahi:

In it, Maududi read out the first portion of his tafsir. He had begun that work. People gave their views—I do not know what they said. But I was asked for mine. I said, ‘Maulana, you should not do this. You should prepare individuals… Did you hear that? I clearly said: do not do this. There is a need to prepare people. I will write the tafsir.’ This displeased him. But I stated: ‘You should not write the tafsir.’ Later, I was asked to speak. I candidly said: ‘The work you are planning is a most blessed effort. But it requires many stages of preparation. It demands great readiness.’

What Maulana meant was: forming a party to fulfill the obligations of religion is a noble goal—but in his view, the required groundwork for it was still lacking. This was Maulana Islahi’s first in-depth encounter with Maulana Maududi.

After the gathering, Maulana Nu‘mani asked him what impression he got of Maududi. On this occasion, Maulana was reluctant to offer an opinion. His own words:

When he asked, I turned my face one way. When he asked from that side, I turned the other way. He persisted a lot, so I said it. The sentence I uttered, he later revealed at the time when I had defended Maududi against the criticisms of the ʿulamaʾ. And Maulana Nu‘mani, objecting to me in his journal, wrote that I had compared Maududi to (Ghulam Ahmad) Pervez. So now listen: if I did compare Maududi to Pervez, it was to the Pervez of that time—not the later one. In those days, his articles were good and reformative. They were published in Maʿarif (edited by Maulana Manzoor Nu‘mani), in my own journal (al-Islah), and in other magazines. What I meant was: he wrote like an intellectual—not like a scholar—just good writing, that’s all.

Anyway, after this, Maulana Nu‘mani departed for Bareilly and I returned to Aʿẓamgarh. A few days later, a formal announcement was made for a gathering to establish the Jama’at-e-Islami. I was invited. I did not go. But the gathering took place. The Jamaʿat was founded. It was announced that such-and-such individuals had participated. My name was also included among them. When this was published in the newspapers, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi also read it. He summoned me and asked how my name got included when I didn’t attend. I said, ‘Well, you can see for yourself—it just appeared.’ He suggested issuing a denial, but I refused. Perhaps Maulana Maududi and Maulana Nu‘mani had included my name out of trust, thinking I would not object. In this way, my name ended up among the founding members, and I became a central member of the Jama’at-e-Islami—even though I never formally joined.

The Matter of Fifty Thousand Rupees

When Maulana Islahi was declared a member of the Jama’at-e-Islami, al-Islaḥ had already been discontinued, and after a brief hiatus, Islah had begun to be published. The discontinuation of al-Islah was not due to lack of resources but due to disagreements over the administration of the madrasah. Maulana hints:

I have always worked independently. These people conspired and had the journal shut down. They thought the work would not continue in this way. But for me, running the journal using personal resources was no issue at all.

It appears Maulana meant he restarted Iṣlah on a personal basis, but it was discontinued again due to wartime paper shortages. He then narrates:

After that, the late Dr. Habibullah wrote me a letter saying that he was depositing fifty thousand rupees in my name in a bank in Aʿẓamgarh. He said, ‘When the bank sends you the paperwork, please sign it.’ I replied that I could not take on such a heavy responsibility. ‘You are placing too great a burden upon me. Instead, please form a trust.’ He responded that this would not be appropriate. ‘I will not form a trust. I do not want anyone to trouble you even in the slightest, but they are going to trouble you a great deal. That is why there is no need for a trust. You may use these funds for whatever religious work you wish to do.’ In this manner, he transferred the funds into my name. And now the situation was this: I was a member of the Jama’at-e-Islami; the journal had been discontinued; and the conditions in the madrasah had become unpleasant for me, although—with God as my witness—I had no personal conflict with anyone. In this situation, I received a message from Maulana Maududi inviting me to come to him.