Talk:Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Stop making changes to this page. its not gonna make any difference.

Contents

[edit] Primary discussions

Need to research the way he wrote the name himself. I am pretty sure Sayyid Maulana ... is not it. Most probably Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi--iFaqeer 21:54, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I will change in text to Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi. Thanks! Alberuni 22:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. But being an Indian and then a Pakistani, he most probably spelt it Syed Abul Ala Maududi. I will research that further.--iFaqeer 01:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I took the spelling from the Jamaat-e-Islami website, assuming they would know best, although I did mistakenly leave the apostrophe off "A'la": "Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi." I would start a new correct page and redirect but changing all the links to this page is too cumbersome! What do you think? Alberuni 02:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just did some more digging. Yes, the Jamaat spells it that way today. Which is what prevents me from moving the article right away. Though a search on Amazon turns up Syed, Sayyid, Sayed in things others wrote about him. I will keep looking. Or, if I get a chance, check with Professor Khurshid Ahmad himself or in something written by Prof. Khurshid—the chance of my meeting the Professor is remote for a while. (I think the Professor would be one of the most authoritative scholars on the Maulana one could find.)
Secondly, did you put in the title "Shaikh Maududi", Alberuni? I have 'never heard him referred to that way. In South Asia (India, Pakistan), it is almost always Maulana Maududi. But then, I don't hang out with devotees off his outside Pakistan—who would be the folks likely to refer to him in that manner.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I edited the "Shaikh" into Maududi's name. I defer to you and think you are right. "Maulana Maududi" is the most common form of address. I think, for accuracy, this article should be moved to "Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi", though. Thanks. --Alberuni 01:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you are going to move it, I would militate strongly for finding out how he himself preferred spelling it. My guess is that it will be either Syed Abul Ala Maududi or Syed Abul A'la Maududi.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Salaam, Shalom & Peace,

I think that it is important to understnad that although Maududi's teachings may have influennced some of the extremist minorities of the Muslim population, you cannot blame him for it. His teachings were moderate in their approach and all he called for was a movement for the propagation of Islam. This is known as al-Harakah al-Islamiyyah- the Islamic Movement.

It would be unfair to blame Isa (PBUH) aka Jesus Chirst or Muhammed (PBUH) for the Crusades that took place in the Middle Ages. Many atrocities took place, some of which we cannot even envisage. Although the Christians and Muslims were both doing what they felt was a religious duty, no one can justifiably claim that Jesus or Muhammed preached what the Crusaders were practising.

Please take this into consideration when writing articles about anyone. They may preach one thing, yet these teachings can be distorted and made to be a menace to society at large.

If you would like to reply to my comment, then please do so here as I will be checking in regularly.


[edit] Warning

A Jamaati has waged its own brand of 'holy war' against the neutral policies of the WIKIPEDIA...with changing IDs the activist, rather say warier is changing the face of this and relating article…I have gathered information about the user and further investigations are going on…I warn the user and the group to refrain from damaging the articles and let information with it truest face come to the surface for the global community. They are active especially in the Islamic and topics on terrorism etc. You can observe their history and language in some main topics--for example:

[edit] Bad English, Bad Propaganda

This page is written by a non-native English speaker and Islamic partisan who warns "Stop making changes to this page. its not gonna make any difference."

I guess jihad and the Caliphate extends to Wikipedia as well. No other view is to be tolerated, certainly not a neutral one.

Please talk about you objections to the neutrality of this article, not to your views about the user. gren グレン 16:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As I said, a non-native English speaker -- perhaps, Grenavitar, you might be more comfortable commenting in your own language.

[edit] =====

Maududi and Qutb are "leading Muslim philosopher[s] of the 20th century"? Very crude fiction. No one except al-Qaeda members and wannabes pays any attention to either of them.

That's not true, Qutb can be very interesting. gren グレン 18:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Really? How?

who told you that, they are accepted by all

[edit] Quotes

Why are they good quotes (other than they seem violent)? why are they given no context? Why are they not sourced? Why aren't their quotes about social justice? Quotes are not whatever we want, they are used to represent and explain a worldview. gren グレン 18:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Militancy

It seems a user named Yahya01 is continuing to keep on editing this page to mention militancy despite the insistence of the majority to leave it as it was, and a user named Siddiqui is rightfully reverting these changes. Yahya is, however, correct in the fact that Maulana Maududi has been an inspiration to many Islamist militants (even if Maududi himself did not espouse this ideology, any analysis of his texts and any scholar wioth sound knowledge of political history of the subcontinent would confirm this). Therefore it is wrong not to mention these comments about militancy. However, these issues are all dealt with in the criticisms section. Nevertheless, I have followed up Yahya's ostensible insistence on the mention of militancy in the introduction and inserted a sentence about this. I hope this will satisfy Yahya. WIth regards other edits made my Yahya, I see no reason why the sentence "one of the most influential Muslim theologians of the 20th century" should be removed. While Yahya, as well as myself, may not be fans of the Maulana, there is no denying the fact that he is one of the most influential and important Muslim scholars of the 20th century - love him or hate him. Also, Jamaat-e-Islami is a Islamic political party, this is the nature of teh Jamaat there is consensus amongst almost everyone by this description. While the evidence suggests some militant ties, these are unconfirmed and disputable - and even so, that has no bearing on the nature of the Jamaat as a political party. Jamaat-e-Islami is not a professedly militant organisation, like Sipah-i-Sahaba or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi etc. Its militant ties are discussed in the Jamaat-e-Islami article, but it was founded by Maududi strictly as a professed political party. Therefore, Yahya's description of the Jamaat is strictly incorrect, inaccurate and wholly biased. Also, Yahya's decision to omit the mention of political and social movements inspired by Maududi is without basis - sans doute, Maududi did inspire several political and social movements, but not militant movements. Later on in the history of Jamaat-e-Islami, it began to support Hezb-e-Islami in Afghanistan - but that has nothing to do with Maududi, as Hezb-e-Islami was founded separately from the Jamaat and was inspired by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the desire to expel the Soviets. Also, Yahya's decision to call Maududi and Qutb 'leading Muslim militants' is also completely incorrect. Qutb was an important Islamic scholar who, although espousing violent action at times, was no militant and did not participate in militant activities and the same applies for Maududi - no proof exists to the contrary. Also, I would like to inform Yahya that Maududi was a direct descendent of the prophet Muhammad and there is an established lineage tree which anys serious researcher or scholar can readily find - no dispute exists about Maududi's lineage. Therefore, in conclusion, I hope Yahya you are satisfied with my refutation of your edits which are baseless, biased and incorrect. Nevertheless, I take your point about militancy, which is good of you to have raised and I have taken this view on board and made a relevent edit. (Tanzeel 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

You either don't know Jamaat or are a Jamaati and deliberately trying to mislead everyone. All the militancy facts are proven and are well documented in Pakistani newspapers, starting from Maudoodi's 1953 violent agitation to killing of innocent Bengalis (via Al-Badr & Al-Shams) and so on.
I am more averse to Jamati politics than you could ever imagine. I am in fact Bengali and I am proud of the language movement. Nevertheless I do know Jamaat very well and I am only being objective. The claim that Maududi called for the killing of innocent Bengalis in 1953 is completely ridiculous- perhaps you would care to provide proof for this bold allegation? However, Maududi did ardently oppose the Bengali language movement and did support the riots to be put down very strongly. Tanzeel 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

No ongoing discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] books...

All of the works have their own pages. Some deserve their own pages, and have plenty of info. Others, simply have ONE SENTENCE, and should be speedy deleted. I've done some of them, but i can't simply nominate all of them.--AeomMai 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop targetting Muslim articles for deletion. Siddiqui 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the matter with you? I am targeting DB EMPTY articles.Notice how I didnt tag ALL of the books beacuse some have info.--AeomMai 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Any book by Mawdudi is going to be notable. You can arguably delete it because it's a sub-stub but it's debatable that even the text XXX is a book by Mawdudi makes it notable in my opinion. It does appear that many of them were created just so that they could be used to link to the full text... a kind of non-commercial idea advertising... but that's what a lot of book articles are on Wikipedia. In any case... it all seems a little futile. gren グレン 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and added it to all of the books... don't see this as an attempt to keep the books... if you were planning on requesting deletion still do... I was just doing this for the future since I figure some day all of these books will at least have stubs. It is rather pathetic that most of the books don't even have information about original publication year... what language it was originally published in... etc... gren グレン 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right...The articles as of now are worthlewss. It would have been easier to have the book's description on this page, and then, when theres at the very least, a paragraph on them, seperate them into articles. The format is just stupid right now.--AeomMai 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than going to all this effort to delete them, perhaps it will be a more beneficial investment of such time to actually research these books and expand on them, even if it's just a little bit. Tanzeel 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the book articles should be deleted as articles where they are effectively empty. Where they contain sufficient information to be notable articles they should remain. An encyclopaedia does not contain placeholders. The system is quite clear. Expand them or they should go. Arguing that other empty articles set a precedent is not valid. Empty articles should be flagged and deleted or expanded by a content expert. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I flagged them, however, the wikipedia consensus says they should stay, so apparently place holder are valid. It went to such an extent that a certain user claimed I flagged them because he believes i am part of a certain religion.--AeomMai 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the books that he wrote before pakistan was made?--AeomMai 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/sources

{{POV}}: "monumental analysis, a revolutionary clarion, call for freedom, self-serving European interpretations, prolific writings, life of piety..." That's hagiography, not NPOV. {{sources}}: At least the author(s) of this apology for Islamism should be mentioned. --tickle me 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Further POV and Resources

No discussion on Maududi should be considered complete without the POV of the Ahmadis/Qadianis, the religious minority still being persecuted by followers of the demagogue.

The court that sentenced Maududi to death was not a military one -- the judgement delivered by the Justices Munir and Kayani is still considered to be a landmark decision in Pakistan and other countries where the law of the land may be influenced by the dominant religious group. Maududi was pardoned by the military dictator Ayub Khan.

http://uttorshuri.net/various_authors/Munir-Report_1953.pdf

DISCLAIMER: this contributor is NOT an Ahmadi --- in fact, he is not religious at all.Ikramuddi 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extremism

Maududi is not considered universally by both Muslims and non-Muslims to be "extreme". Maududi is regarded by both Muslims and non-Muslims to be an important and influential scholar who inspired many Muslim revivalist groups, mostly Islamist in tendency but not extremist and certainly mainstream. Jamaat-e-Islami's branches in countries like Bangladesh, India, the UK (UKIM) etc. are all considered mainstream moderate Muslim organisations. Nevertheless, on the otherhand, many extremist organisations do have origins in Maududi's politicised Islamic thought, but that in no way means Maududi is responsible for this and his thought cannot be considered "extremist". Therefore, I have changed it back to "revivalist" rather than "extremist", but have added a mention of extremism. Tanzeel 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mawdudi was a fucking retard. He is a heretic and definitely not among the mainstream. He did not help revive Islam, but helped to destroying it.-- 71.102.163.7 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/y/Talk%7ESayyid_Abul_Ala_Maududi_0471.html"