Islamist questioning and Colonialism: towards an understanding of the Islamist oeuvre

Abstract
This paper revisits the narratives of two South Asian “Islamists” to explore what their questions and critiques offer for a discussion on Colonialism and the Islamist oeuvre. Departing from resilient biases in scholarship that dismiss the need to engage Islamist expressions, I focus on a realm of Islamist self-understandings.
This paper highlights key facets of Muhammad Iqbal”s and Abul Ala Maududi”s questions of Colonialism and their psychological implications, and uncovers their metaphors and reconstructions that operate as technologies of critique.
I also emphasize the urgency to engage these Islamists in light of the inadequacies of present scholarship on this topic, and the diverse translation and appropriation of their questions. This study bears implications for the understanding of Islamist consciousness and the broader rubric of Muslim intellectualism.

Introduction

In August 2006 the “”Who”s Who” of the world Islamist movement” met in Kuala Lumpur.1 This congregation operated as an arena for questioning the creation of the Third World/Islamic World as a space for Western/First World/Judeo-Christian violence and Muslim/Eastern slavishness.2 In my interviews with members of a participating organisation, the Jamaat-e-Islami (ji) Pakistan, I was informed that such congregations dealt less with realities such as the Israeli “occupation” of Lebanon than with the psyche upon which such realities were founded.3 The ji”s founder, Abul Ala Maududi (1903 – 1979), and the reputed Syair-e-Mashriq (Poet of the East) Muhammad Iqbal (1877 – 1938) influenced a significant number of participants, including the organiser, the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (pas). As such, there is some value to a ji spokesman”s post facto comments on how these two South Asian Islamists” critiques discursively dominate such congregations. This paper examines the questions of these two Islamists that “laid the basis of anti-imperialism for diverse actors from the ji, pas and the Palestinian Hamas to Shia bodies such as the Hezbollah”,4 rather than dismissing the need to engage the narratives of Islamists that some scholars have been guilty of. The paper is divided into three sections: the first lays out the parameters of this study, highlights its discursive approach and locates Iqbal”s and Maududi”s questions of Colonialism.
The second focuses on the content and key concerns of their critiques, and uncovers what they challenged. The conclusion emphasises the urgent need to engage these Islamists in light of the inadequacies of present scholarship on this topic, and the diverse translation and appropriation of their questions.

A discursive understanding of Islamists and [C]olonialism

O my body, make of me always a man who questions!5

This paper adopts an approach sensitive to an Islamist critique of a totalitarian discourse I term “Colonialism”, rather than the simplistic real manifestations of colonialism. I draw an analytical divide between [C]olonialism and [c]olonialism; the latter has implied “real” military to economic structures, and been typologised into direct/indirect, formal/informal and even good/bad colonialism in scholarship.6 I endeavour here not to systematise/homogenise diverse colonialisms into a meta-historical entity, but rather to be attentive to an Islamist metaphor for the relation of power/control and knowledge/culture.7 I do not employ discourse to denote Colonialism and Islamist expression as linguistic realms; instead, I approach discourse as always imbricating linguistic/textual and non- linguistic/contextual elements.8 In acknowledging significant deconstruction of terms like “Islamist”, this work uses the term “Islamists” problematically.9 This is a discursive device that approaches narratives as always encompassing (and as such, problematising the dichotomy between) Islamic and political elements as opposed to searching for the individual behind the Islamist.
In locating Islamist critiques within the totalitarian discourse of Colonialism, this paper risks criticism for subsuming the humanist subject of resistance in linguistics and the “over-political”.10

The discursive method and focus on the content of narratives departs from categorising Islamists as a “mechanical response to [colonial] structural pressures”.
This paper remains informed by Roxanne Euben”s criticism of the latter approach as one that negates the content of narratives for rationalist analyses in modernisation theory, structural-functionalism, class analysis and rational actor theory.11 Similarly, like Euben, the paper does not approach Islamist questions as an ideology, ie in the Marxist sense of a reality behind discourse, detaching Islamists from self- understandings.12 This focus on content has been limited within literature on late colonial (post-1857) Indian Islam as a “slight religion,” ie as a reaction to bourgeois economic needs in colonialism,13 a visible, colonial Hindu majority,14 and the demand for a separate nation-state.15 The approach here is more concerned with the translation of economic realities, Hindus, state and nation in Islamist narratives, rather than these colonial realities per se.
These narratives created the Hindu majority as a threat16 and also as dhimmis,17 and reconstructed the Muslim community as a “nation”.18 Issues beyond the scope of study in this work include Iqbal”s reconceptualisation of the nation spiritually as a millat (religious community), developing a complex critique of nationalism, and Maududi”s re-visioning of the state as God”s vice-regent in opposition to secular sovereignty.19

The conclusion”s emphasis on engaging the Islamist oeuvre does not merely illustrate Islamist normative commitments to “Islam”, but also criticises the way approaches locating the receptivity of ideas within real colonial contexts fail to understand why “Islam” (referring to Islamist reconstructions of Islam) is appealing in such narratives.20 One of the findings of this paper is that “Islam” is significant in its unpacking of the psyche upon which specific colonial realities are founded. Simultaneously juxtaposing Fanon with these Islamists accounts for the broader psychological critiques that emanate from their works. These findings serve as a resource to understand Islamists (and even Fanon), first, beyond reduction to specific colonies and realities.
Second, the complexity of “Islam” in narratives opposes the notion of a meta-narrative of Islamist behaviour stipulated in “orthodox” texts.21 Like Fanon, Iqbal and Maududi “rarely historicize the colonial experience [allowing] no master narrative [nationalism, socialism or even orthodox Islam] or realist perspective  background of social and historical facts [to subsume] the problems of the individual or collective psyche”.22

This paper laments that, while there has been more recent explication or appreciation of what Fanon challenged,23 scholarship on the South Asian Islamists has largely failed to acknowledge the content, let alone the oeuvre, of Islamist questioning.
Literature on the South Asian Khilafat movement (1919 – 24), for example, has been dominated by the “master narrative [of nationalism] or realist perspective [of (anti)colonialism]”, ignoring the broader psychological implications of Islamists like Muhammad Ali.24 The subsequent section is particularly concerned with the content of Islamist works that are not easily captured by the Manichaeism of East/West and West/Islam. These critiques are not idealistic ones of subsuming colonial violence in linguistics but rather ones involving the “ultimate violence” of Colonialism.25 The following sections celebrate these violent questions, in opposition to the prudish approaches of condemning the mujahideen of Algerian (Fanon) or South Asian (Iqbal and Maududi) descent.

Colonialism as a totalitarian discourse

Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. (Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth)26

Europe made me a Muslim. (Iqbal, Kulliyat-e Makatib-e Iqbal)27

Juxtaposing Fanon with Iqbal and Maududi elucidates the Islamist critique of Colonial totalitarianism, ie its “ultimate violence” through creative technologies rather than real, repressive structures.28 These Islamists, I argue, preceded and went further than Fanon in unpacking Colonial processes of creating the very spaces and bodies for control, and occupying Colonial desire/lens/experience.29 These Islamist critiques are more concerned with this simultaneous discursive constitution of elite/coloniser and subaltern/colonised than with rescuing the latter from repressive structures.30 Furthermore, these narratives bear larger epistemological implications for an academy preoccupied with typologising forms of colonialism and colonies, implicitly as such privileging the coloniser by ignoring “his” co-creation in Colonialism.31 This work attempts to draw upon works like Ashis Nandy”s that redefine “resistance” in a narritival de-privileging of the “White Sahib” into a co-victim of Colonialism.32

The paper remains mindful of seeming moments (of privileging the coloniser) that impede this flow of questions, for example in Iqbal”s depiction of the East, or the Muslim self above, as a “dazzle of the West  edifice constructed by builders there” and Fanon”s “settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence”.33 However, it remains more attentive to Iqbal”s sympathies with the West and Fanon”s subsequent assertion that the “settler owes the fact of his very existence  to the colonial system”.34 Iqbal laments the Eastern Nations”blinded by slavery and imitation  [and the West] which itself has one foot in the grave” simultaneously.35 Concurrently I acknowledge the metaphysical implications of Fanon”s and the Islamists” fears of detachment from a supposed native originality and “Islam” respectively, and their carvings of a “culturally alien [“Western”] consciousness”.36 Having problematised these narratives, the paper appreciates what these Islamists challenged through questioning and critique over adopting them as unproblematic “great theorists”, “universal intellectuals” or conveyors of the “Word of God”.

Maududi”s complications, such as West vs Islam for example, are read here as complex critiques of a neurotic condition that has engulfed both Islam and the West, and Colonial subject-positioning rather than as textbook Manichaeism. The eclecticism of Islamists” reconstruction of Islam makes their works important texts in unpacking the polemical categories of East/Islam and West, or religion and politics.37 As such, this work does not simply dismiss Islamists, like Fanon has been dismissed, for allegedly presupposing a metaphysical self before Colonialism and committing to the “subject” and/or “subjected knowledge”.38 On the contrary, I am concerned here with how notions of “Islam” and the “self” function as technologies of critique and questioning; the concluding section highlights how this critique has been re-presented. This is in line with Fanon”s and Homi Bhabha”s polemical presupposition that “the Negro is not. Any more than the white man”, and the paper endeavours to “expose an utterly naked declivity where an authentic upheaval can be born”.39 The Islamist oeuvre, encompassing the questions of Iqbal and Maududi are the select “authentic upheavals” of this study.

Juxtaposing Friedrich Nietzsche”s genealogy of the master/slave relationship as one of moralities illustrates Islamist critiques of Colonial perpetuity.40 Similarly this juxtaposition is not an attempt to conceal how these Islamists” critique itself is impeded by their largely anti-hermeneutic stance (in foundational truth- claims), by denials of their own interpretations as interpretation or perspective, and how they conveniently reference an “Islam” they intellectualise as beyond intellectual mastery.41 Differing over the liberality of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), these Islamists drew a divide between “Islam” and sharia, and fiqh that allowed them to critique earlier/current Islam and fiqh that created and/or sustained a slavish mentality/morality.42 Indeed, Maududi exclaimed that the term “Muslim” had come to signify “mark of degradation, humiliation, gross backwardness, and utter powerlessness  [Muslims practising Islam] do not really know what the terms “Muslim” and “Islam” really mean”.43

Unlike Bhabha”s lament over Fanon”s “premature postmodernism”,44 I appreciate and am sensitive to how Islamist truths problematise and question. Similarly I uncover Iqbal”s undying critique, for example in an interrogative text like Javid Nama which is replete with questions that are never fully answered,45 and in his conceptualisation of multiple “topical tafsirs”46 rather than a single Tafsir. Like Nietzsche”s metaphorising of a struggle between a “master” and “slave” morality, Islamist truths uncover how Rome (read East/Islam) has been subdued by Judea (read West/Christianisation/neo-Platonism) through “slavish mentality”.47 In probing the occurrence of slavishness in spite of their reconstructed Islam, the rest of this paper examines how Islamists preceded Fanon in unravelling Colonialism”s operation through individual neurosis, ie “absolute depersonalisation” and “epidermalisation of inferiority”.

Questions of psyche

This paper is concerned with the lesser acknowledged questions of psyche in Islamist narratives, and highlights the significance of these questions in a discursive ambit that I term the “Islamist oeuvre”. Drawing parallels with Fanon throughout explicates Colonialism”s “ultimate violence” in individual neurosis.48 An Islamist critique of “depersonalisation” from “Islam” and the “self”, and of the epidermalisation of slavishness uncovers power and Colonial processes subjectively and culturally. The method of this paper and its redefinition of power through “cultural” terms are not original but merely Islamist and “Third Worldist” ones of stretching materialist analysis to incorporate subjective realms like “religion”.49 Like Fanon”s and Nietzsche”s lament of the colonised”s “epidermalisation of inferiority” and victory of “slave morality” respectively, Islamists have unraveled Colonial embeddedness in individual neurosis over a utilitarian relationship of collaboration, premised on the coloniser”s (material) privilege.50 Iqbal”s and Maududi”s abhorrence of the “half- Westernised, educated Muslims” and “Europeanised Indians, Anglo- Indians and Anglo-Muhammadans”, preceded Fanon”s identification of the “nationalist bourgeoisie” as subjective realms of Colonial perpetuity.51

nausea  pity  of the cultural domain, of every kind of “Europe” on this earth.52

I will take nothing from Europe except a warning!53

The aforementioned discursive understanding of Colonialism negates the need that has arisen in scholarship to categorize Islamist critiques as being posed against an “internal foe” (supposed Muslim brethren)54 or “external other” (Western colonisers).55 This work is attentive to how Islamists simultaneously de-privilege the coloniser and colonised; in method this departs from (mis)readings of supposed Third Worldist privileging of the coloniser in the “process of production” and metropolitan positioning.56 The following section is not simply an exclusive study of Muslim/Eastern neurosis, but also an account of Islamist narratives about coloniser “depersonalisation” through subjective processes of “mummification” and “rotting”.57 Maududi, as elaborated in the following section, studies the coloniser”s creation in, and “compulsion” by Colonialism to impose his “godliness”.58

The location of Islamist narratives in anti-colonial movements or public “oppositional style”59 has largely ignored how these works bear larger psychological concerns for the politics of resistance. For example, Islamists unravelled Colonial perpetuity in seeming anti-Colonialism and how resistance occurred in Colonial limits.60 The following sections elaborate how Islamists like Iqbal preceded more recent postcolonial critiques of supposed sites of resistance such as nationalism as a technology of Colonial perpetuity.61 Here, Islamists unpack Colonialism”s “ultimate violence” in its totalitarian psychological “occupation” of Colonial life, evading specific colonial realities that could be resisted through anti- colonialism. Iqbal and Maududi metaphorically note how failing such psychological questioning, resistance merely loosens one “band” for the coloniser”s fashioning of “new chains/branches”.62 In a later Colonial setting, Fanon replayed these questions in uncovering even the “black soul [as a site of resistance as] a white man”s artifact”.63

Before proceeding to directly translate questions, it is imperative to understand the discursive premises of the Islamist oeuvre. Here, like Fanon, I argue that these Islamists were averse to their questions being framed through a simplistic “master narrative” of orthodox Islam and “realist perspective” of submitting to political realities, both viewed as promoting slavishness. It is, however, unfortunate that translating these Islamist critiques has been impeded by a scholarship preoccupied with “fixing” South Asian Islamic expression either into an Islamic “high-culture” providing political stipulation,64 or alternatively South Asian – Islamic realities.65 Such approaches remain limited in terms of comprehending the Islamist psyche wherein a “true Islam” was being reconstructed (in Iqbal”s and Maududi”s terms), or revived “locally” (a term I use problematically) as an “authentic upheaval”.66

There have been works that have examined the discursive contexts of South Asian – Muslim narratives. These range from Dietrich Reetz”s recent application of “discourse analysis” to the “public sphere” of “religious groups” in late colonial India,67 and literature on the processes of the Indian Muslim “imagined community”,68 to works on the impact of print, for example in “pamphlet wars”.69 It has also been well noted that studies on the “public sphere” and the “scriptural revolution” have been arguably limited by a disproportionate focus on “high Islam”; alternatively, instrumentalist accounts have neglected the normative value of self- understandings.70 However, the emphasis on “debates”, “discourse”, “reconstruction” and “imagination” is encouraging in its dealing with diverse narratives such as Iqbal”s nala-e-jungs71 (slogans-of-war), Maududi”s khutubat or congregational sermons,72 modernist and militant, and Sufi journals over hegemonic issues such as “high-politics”, “great men” and legal – constitutional debates. Like Talal Asad”s notion of “religion” itself being a modern construct and not something existing prior to discourse,73 I am concerned (in the section on the content of Islamist critiques particularly) with a post-1857 “Islam” and Islamist consciousness.74 I liberally subsume colonial realities into Islamist questions to avoid the alternative subsuming of these questions into colonial realities.

Why the Islamist and why “Islam”?

The conclusion will note how scholarship has failed to examine the content of Islamist questions not captured by inadequate rubrics like the “world Islamist movement”, and how a seemingly trans-local Islamist oeuvre operates through “Islam” being a technology of critique. Adopting Islamist technologies of questioning such as “vision”, “Islam” and the “self” is, in Nietzsche”s words, a reading of Colonialism “as if with new eyes”.75 The significance of the Islamist oeuvre is evident in this very method of questioning. This paper studies how these critiques, refusing to be limited by realism or the colonialism of late colonial India circa.1857 – 1940s, addressed the aforementioned questions of psyche, Colonial occupation and “ultimate violence”. I highlight the urgency of engaging these Islamist for what they challenge because of the Islamist oeuvre”s “threatening” refusal to be limited by post/neo- colonialism.

It must be noted here that, while addressing Islamist questions of psyche, the appropriation of the West as a psychological category in pre-colonial 18th century Indian Muslim narratives76, an issue beyond the scope of this work, deserves significant study. Furthermore, like every polemic, the paper is limited by its selection of certain Islamist narratives over others. This paper focuses on Iqbal”s and Maududi”s questions of psyche rather than on the debates within the late colonial Indian Muslim intelligentsia, the former arguably being a much-neglected site of study.

Christianity describes God as love  Islam as power.77

In spite of not dealing with linguistic styles, some of the “awkwardness of tone” in Islamist narratives like Iqbal”s did not stem from a difficulty of aligning Islam or the self to power as has been suggested,78 but from the complexity the narratives faced in detaching “Islam” from “politics”. This paper implicitly suggests that Fanon”s imbrication of the “clinic” and the “political” were preceded and bettered by an “Islam” that always encompassed the “political” in the Islamist oeuvre. This paper unravels how “Islam”, “God” and “morality” were to Iqbal and Maududi political questions rather than ontological and/or theological issues.79 This accounts for my employment of the term “Islamist” to categorise the “Indian Muslims” or “human subjects” who, in their narratives, knowingly and/or unknowingly, politicise Islam and Islamicise politics. The aforementioned technologies of critique uncover Colonial perpetuity in how religion has been detached from the political and vice versa, a detachment that resulted in degenerate lives of slavish morality.80 Through ideals of “real [over simply material] progress” or “Islam”, these Islamist critiques of religion and politics de-privilege the West, declaring its “failure” as a result of its lack of “vision” (see below).81

Contrary to the Islamist politics of questioning, Barbara Metcalf categorises “Deoband-type” Islamists as “apolitical” because of their interpretation of Colonial threats as pertaining to Islam.82 I contend this supposed apolitical-ness by understanding how Islamist concerns over communal neurosis, “moralities”, “idolatries” and the “blotting out [of] Islam”83 were “political”. Unlike works that reify a Manichaeism of morality/political and Islam/West, this paper remains sensitive to Islamist questions of how moralities, secular epistemologies and even Islam sustain Colonialism.

The content of Islamist questions and their psychological implications

individual”s breathing is an observed, an occupied breathing.84

This section examines the content of key Islamist questions of Colonialism as a totalitarian discourse. I study how Islamist metaphors such as vision, and reconstructions of Islam and the self operate as technologies of questioning Colonial “occupation”. Furthermore, this section explores the “larger” Islamist psychological critique of Colonial perpetuity in depersonalisation and epidermalisation. Juxtaposing Nietzsche”s genealogy of “weakness being lied into meritorious” with Islamist critique elucidates how Colonialism was represented as moral/religious in a slavish mentality/morality.85 Finally, this section locates key facets of Islamist questions marking the Islamist oeuvre studied subsequently that require further scholarly engagement.

The content of the Islamist questions

Revisiting the content of Islamist narratives unravels Colonialism as a project that operates through psychological processes, and as a neurotic project of occupation. Colonialism here is approached through the polemical premise of Islamist narratives, particularly Iqbal”s and Maududi”s. This reading of Colonialism through Islamist neurosis (elaborated below) departs from instrumentalist scholarship that locates Indian Muslim consciousness structurally in “real” colonial categories, for instance legal classifications and census.86 While scholarship has invaluably dealt with colonial Indian Muslim disempowerment and the construction of Islamic consciousness, it has largely failed to define power subjectively as one founded in Islamist psyche.

Studies that have differed from Metcalf”s reduction of Islamists as apolitical have also largely focused on the political realities of colonialism rather than Islamist critiques of the psyche upon which these realities were founded.87 Similarly, scholarship on the late colonial Indian-Muslim “public sphere” has largely failed to account for how even supposedly apolitical narratives furthered these psychological critiques. The inherent difficulties of detaching the political from Islam are evident in the works of Iqbal, Maududi and even self-referenced apolitical journals.88 The fatwa89 for example, notwithstanding Metcalf”s representation of it as simply religious (implying apolitical) and realistically “contextual”90 was a site to question the neurotic basis of Colonialism. As such, the resumption of waqf (endowment) lands,91 anti-Khilafat-ism92 and collaboration93 were not simply colonial processes but rather Colonial ones that Islamists criticised through fatwas.

While the aforementioned instrumentalist accounts are significant in dealing with colonial constructions, there is a need to engage with what Islamists challenged in Colonialism over colonialism.
For example, Maududi”s questioning of colonial legality was not directed against repressive structures but rather against the psyche upon which colonial realities were founded.94 Preceding Fanon”s notion of Colonial perpetuity in neurosis and more recent post-structural understandings of power as a cultural/subjective realm, these critiques unpacked a Colonialism that operated by making life an “object of control” over its repressive disciplinary structures.95

The content of diverse Islamist narratives (from fatwas, khutbas and nala-e-jungs to tafsirs) challenges a psychological basis of Colonialism that imbricated all realms of Colonial life. These range from blatantly political sites of colonial governance96 and economics97 to seemingly apolitical sites like appearances,98 educational institutions, students and curriculum,99 Mughal/British architecture,100 medicine,101 food,102 English language,103 and even homes and “neo-Western mothers and babies”.104 Maududi”s various khutbas on the Aligarh Muslim University to mothers, and Muhammad Ali”s fatwas on defending Mughal architecture, for example, were not simply about these banal issues, but actually challenged the psychological bases of colonial realities and/or policies.

Islamist metaphors

eyes cannot endure the strain of looking.105

This section studies how Islamists approached Colonialism through metaphors like Iqbal”s notion of eyes bereft of vision, and located Colonial perpetuity in its seeming inescapability. These were neither critiques of “master narratives” of race/color and specific ideologies/epistemologies, nor were they “realist perspectives” on colonisation/regionalism.106 Rather, the use of metaphors explicated how they were questions of psyche concerning individual neurosis.

It has been largely accepted that Iqbal and Maududi located Colonial foundations in an Eastern dependency on Western ideologies and epistemologies (from nationalism to feminism). Such views, however, have approached Islamists though a Manichaeism privileging hegemonic Western forms of knowledge. Similarly, these views have ignored how Iqbal”s and Maududi”s narratives challenged the psychological bases of Colonialism rather than any specific epistemologies. Interestingly, as elaborated below and noted in the preceding section, even Islam (as opposed to “Islam”) is challenged for sustaining Colonialism. I select the metaphor of vision to access Islamist critiques of the “ultimate violence” of Colonialism, ie its seeming inescapability, to paraphrase Iqbal, in eyes that cannot endure the strain of resisting.107

It is not in the least a piece of anachronism if Muhammad Iqbal looked to Rumi in quest of inspiration.108

Iqbal”s and Maududi”s concerns about the colonisation of the East/Muslim World were matched by their sympathies with the coloniser”s lack of “vision”.109 Their questions unpacked the coloniser”s Colonially-created “essence” through a metaphor of Darwinism first in the “unwarranted modern assumption”, in Iqbal”s words, that man”s “present” psychological condition was the final stage in biological evolution.110 Second, Iqbal”s and Maududi”s critiques challenged the constitution of “psyche” as made up of apish desires and a materialist struggle for existence.111 Iqbal”s contrast of “modern evolution” (that bore limited hope for the future) with the “theory of evolution in the world of Islam” in the Sufi, Jalal-ud-din Rumi”s, concept of evolution that bore “vision” (read as hope and enthusiasm for the future) shows how the Allama”s questions were not directed against narratives like Darwinism or evolution per se, but against the “larger” psychological bases of Colonialism that affected human consciousness.112

Iqbal”s metaphor of vision serves as an important resource for understanding Colonialism as a frame for both the coloniser and colonised. For example, he located Colonial entrenchment not simply in an Eastern dependency on Western “tunes” but rather in a “larger” psyche of resistance being foreclosed by a lack of vision.113 The latter was evident in Iqbal”s questioning of Marxism”s resistance to colonialism (read nationalism, capitalism and imperialism), which he lamented as remaining entrapped in Colonial limits.114 Iqbal”s and Maududi”s115 critiques as such were not concerned with “master narratives” like Marxism and capitalism per se, but rather with the aforementioned reduction of human consciousness to an apish, materialistic existence without vision. Marxism”s materialism and perpetuity of a demarcation between religion and politics, which opposed the reconstructions of Islam and the self elaborated below, reduced man to economic determinism.116 These questions were directed more specifically at the Colonial psyche defining existential issues as materialistic “bread and butter” ones, and intellectually sustaining the “finality degenerate contemporary secular, materialistic” of structures.117

Preceding Fanon”s clinical approaches, Iqbal and Maududi addressed the “malady” of psyche as a complex exercise of power in depriving man of vision. In Bandagi Namah, Iqbal used metaphors of ishq (love), “meaning” and “soul” to unsettle a Colonial complaisance preserved through a slavish obsession with “ilm” (rationality), “form” and “body” exclusively.118 Such works were more concerned with the “malady” than with the mere “admonitions” or “symptoms” of Colonialism, exemplified by capitalist exploitation, aggressive nationalism or tribalisation, war, dictatorship, science”s effect of “wholesale suicide”.119

Europe  greatest hindrance in the way of man”s ethical advancement.120

Iqbal”s blatant critique of the West was not a Manichean Islamist resort but an unpacking of a Colonialism that created the coloniser (Europe) as a co-victim and operated through subjective power.121 Through his metaphors Iqbal questions the Colonial processes wherein the lion/falcon lived like a wolf/mouse in a materialistic struggle for existence, and Colonial eyes saw bee-stings/evil/death as honey/good/life respectively.122 Iqbal”s metaphor of vision is not concerned with South Asian or Punjabi colonial realities but rather with neurotic processes of Colonial perpetuity through the epidermalising of “joy-less”, “light-less”, “hopeless”eyes.123 The metaphor of vision, exchanged casually with “Islam” and the “self” in Iqbal”s and Maududi”s narratives, served as a technology of Islamist questioning. These were eyes that Iqbal and Maududi characterised as a “larger” psychological condition of not merely living a Colonial life but also moralising it, as studied below.

In Islamist narratives real capitalist structures did not function simply through material/utilitarian relationships such as collaboration, but rather through an individual neurosis of the colonised becoming “raw materials”.124 Preceding Fanon,125 these Islamists critiqued in their metaphors an “absolute depersonalisation” of the East/Muslims and an epidermalisation of slavishness. Like Nietzsche”s genealogy of a “master morality”, Iqbal”s and Maududi”s genealogies of the “Prophet”s solitude” and “original community/morality” respectively were techniques of questioning Colonial depersonalisation from “authenticity”.126 However, Iqbal”s and Maududi”s genealogies did indeed reconstruct the Prophetic experience and true community as accessible ideals.

I do not approach the aforementioned Islamists as simply evoking a “return to Islam” but as critics using metaphors to unpack the colonised epidermalisation of inferiority in relation to an already inferior coloniser; their own utility of the concept of “return” is linked to a reconstruction of Islam.127 For instance, employing “Islam” as a technique of questioning de-privileges the seemingly hegemonic Western subject in narratives, calling upon the West to develop positive/Eastern foundations to replace its own degenerate life.128 This was particularly evident in these Islamists” regular proposals for the West to adopt “Islam” as a system.129

It is worth highlighting how Islamists redefined power in subjective and cultural terms by unraveling Colonial embeddedness in how eyes saw the qatil (murderer) as marbi (healer).130 Colonial occupation here encompassed a “spell”,131″intoxication”132 and “fish- hook/net”,133 wherein resistance was foreclosed. This redefinition of power was also captured in Maududi”s reconstruction of the Quranic concept of jahiliyyah to characterise the Colonial processes I refer to through a Eurocentric metaphor (Colonialism), instead of being merely representative of pre-Islamic ignorance. Interestingly, the use of Quranic concepts itself revealed how Islamists like Maududi were not simply speaking in terms of an orthodox Islam, as he was attacked for being heretical in reconstructing jahiliyyah.134 In Islam aur Jahiliyyat, and as nascent ideas in an earlier work al- Jihad fil-Islam, Maududi questioned Colonial perpetuity through uncovering jahili processes of individual neurosis that were not captured by pre-Islamic or post-Revelation, and pre-colonial, colonial or postcolonial contexts. These works deal with the depersonalisation of Muslims from knowledge/power, a jahili (read Colonial) “occupation”, and ultimately a slavish morality foreclosing vision in jihad (read resistance).135 The aforementioned Islamist questions were complex genealogies of a Colonial condition wherein the colonised (and even co-colonised coloniser) was ignorant of Colonial processes, and how Colonialism shaped its very resistance, consequently entrenching Colonial control.136

Reconstructing Islam as a technology of questioning

A discussion on the content of Islamist questions has to be attentive to its “larger” psychological critique, ie locating Colonial foundations in a slavish mentality/morality. Before proceeding to examine how Colonialism was sustained through moralising processes, it is worth highlighting how a reconstructed Islam (as a “system”) was employed as a technology of questioning.

Specific reconstructions of Islam, like Muhammad Ali”s Quranic pro- Khilafat Karachi Resolution,137 Abul Hasan Naqshbandi”s “nizam-i- Islam”,138 Khwaja Hasan Nizami”s “Da-i-Islam”,139 Ahmad Raza”s self- sufficiency “programme”,140 Muhammad Ilyas”s nizam within tabligh,141 Ghulam Ahmed Parwez”s “Quranism” and Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi”s notion of amal as ibadat142 have been studied in literature. At times, however, the latent psychological critiques of specific narratives on the reconstruction of Islam have been ignored. In privileging Iqbal”s and Maududi”s re-visioning of Islam as a polity rather than a theology or a simple ontology, and tawhid (unity of God) as a living societal practice, I examine their “Islams” as techniques of unpacking Colonialism in individual neurosis.143 This encompasses an unpacking of a Colonial slavish mentality/morality of depersonalisation from “Islam”, and an epidermalisation of inferiority in “theophobia”, ie demarcating the spheres of religion and politics.144

“Islams” are not read here as anachronisms – indeed Iqbal even refers to his “reconstruction” as a “new Islam”.145 On the contrary, Iqbal and Maududi bypassed a “master narrative” of the slavish, vision-less Islam by speaking of “Islam”, and challenging the “realist perspectives” of subsuming Islam into current political realities, a notion that made the ideal “Islam” inaccessible.146 The critical content of these narratives is ignored in literature that simply locates being Muslim/Western as theological or ontological essences in the Islamist psyche. This is perhaps most aptly explicated in how Iqbal and Maududi linked Islam, in its monastic and Magian forms (discussed below) to a neurosis of becoming”Western”.

The critique of the slavish epidermalisation of a Western political ideology in the East (nationalism) is evident in Iqbal”s, and even Muhammad Ali”s reconstruction of Islam as a “nizam” (polity-in- itself).147 Tracing nationalism (read as the definition of polity around territory) to the Reformation and the Enlightenment, ie Western history, Iqbal critiques the absolute depersonalisation of the East/Muslims in appropriating “foreign” polities.148 Scholarship has framed the Allama”s questioning in Manichean terms by presupposing Iqbal”s contention of an alien/Western ideational hegemony rather than its larger psychological basis.149 Here, I argue that Iqbal employed “Islam [as a polity]” to represent opposing “polities” as “idolatry”, ultimately questioning Colonial perpetuity in the Eastern/Islamic “idolising” of material entities and “ideologies”.150 As the Allama noted, “what was to be demolished  [by Islam has become the] very principle of its political community”.151 Similarly Maududi attacked “settler colonialism” in Palestine as one of a Jewish slave mentality of “material bliss  regarding the promised land of Palestine as the paradise” over colonial realities.152

Beyond its apologetics, Iqbal”s and Maududi”s reconstruction of Islam as a truly human consciousness was itself a complex critique of the creation of subjects in Colonialism. These Islamists critiqued the “narcotics” that created the coloniser”s other-ness, his qawmi (racist) rejection of the universal Kaaba and jamiyat aadam (human community), and that made colonisers impose upon national or racial “barbarians” founded in psyche.153 Similarly, re- visioning Islam as signification of human agency,154 these Islamists criticised the “slavish mentality” that moralised a loss of power by representing colonisers as rabs or ilahs (gods), in varying “religious” to “secular” (nation/class/party/dictatorship) manifestations.155 These reconstructions of Islam also unravelled Colonial foundations in the malady of representing Colonial life as godly/idolistic.156 Like Nietzsche”s genealogy of the regularly reproduced ascetic priest, “Islam” questioned the psyche that regularly “enchained [man] in the slavery of many a false god”.157

Colonialism”s psychological bases in “religion” and “morality”

Islam is not a mere dogma, nor a collection of some religious functions and rituals, but a detailed programme and a comprehensive scheme for the whole human life  [it is] to mutilate Islam by limiting it to religious cores and rituals.158

This section juxtaposes Nietzsche with the narratives of Iqbal and Maududi to explicate Colonialism”s foundations in religion and morality. Islamist critique unpacked a “mysterious machine of salvation in suffering” wherein the coloniser/colonised”s slavish mentalities/moralities sustained Colonialism by accruing from it a moral meaning.159 Iqbal”s critique of the Christian apolitical conception of God (noted in the preceding section) was furthered in Islamist posing of “Islam [as polity]” to question Christianity as a realm of other-worldliness readily accommodating foreign political creeds.160 Particularly discerning in these narratives was an early engagement of how “religion” has been created as a separate sphere of human expression through processes such as Greek philosophy, Christianity and a post-Enlightenment dichotomy of faith and politics.
Maududi regularly highlighted for example that the malady lay in how “Islam” had been “mutilated”.161

Representing “Islam”, wherein the ideal/textual and real/political were complementary, as a technique of questioning, Iqbal and Maududi traced Colonial entrenchment to a “Christianisation” of Islam.
Maududi noted that Christianity had failed to remedy the larger malady thanks to its inherent lack of a “system” or “social creed”; indeed, he argued that Christianity itself operated as a tool of Colonial perpetuity by promoting an other-worldly conception of “salvation”.162 Similarly Iqbal highlighted the Christianisation of Islam in a Sufism that had suppressed the action-orientation and self-affirmation of “Islam”.163 These I argue were not simply Manichean “Anti-Christ” critiques or Islamist anti-Sufism but rather questions of psyche revealing a moral basis to tolerating/sustaining Colonialism. Indeed, some commentators have noted that Iqbal was developing a Nietzschean neo-Sufism through “purging” contemporary, “impure” Islam/Sufism of its mortification of a “will to power”, and invalidation of the value of resistance/struggle.164

Preceding more recent scholarship on subaltern psychological forms of power which predated and were modified under colonial structures,165 the Islamist narratives uncovered a Colonialism operating through diverse bases from Christian/Greek ethics to Islamic scholastic sophistry.166 With “Islam” as the method of critique, Iqbal identified Colonialism as “poverty of the Koran” with its bases in neo-Platonic Greek philosophy which was “interested chiefly in theory”.167 Iqbal”s and Maududi”s questions dealt with Colonial foundations in moralities/religiosities and epistemologies that promoted a detachment from the political and, as such, allowed/sustained Colonial subjugation. In metaphors like Nietzsche”s on the “herd mentality”,168 Iqbal traces how “tigers” had been conquered by “sheep” like Plato and Sufis through their appropriation of a slavish morality.169 These questions were more concerned with the psyche upon which these realities were founded than on the “realist perspectives” of colonial hegemony through shrines and sajdanashins that scholarship has addressed.170 Indeed, Iqbal criticised the Platonic perception of the world as “myth” that led Sufis to being murda-dilan (dead-hearts), providing Islamic meaning and foreclosing resistance to Colonialism.171

Iqbal and Maududi also reconstructed the self as a technology of questioning Colonialism. It is pertinent to note that the “Muslim self” was not a simple, unitary metaphysical subject in these works. Instead, the “self” as “sign of God [read “power”]”, as a “centre of latent power”,172 or khilafah (human vice-regency for God)173 was a site to critique what Maududi terms a “monastic ideal  [where man] forgets [his] role as vice-regent  thrown into dirt and filth”.174 On the one hand, questioning the “monastic ideal” unpacked an epidermalisation of the Eastern/Muslim self as “dust”.175 This, Maududi argued, had developed from the “mutilation” of Islam into a “religion” of privatised practices instead of a sphere of political (vice-regent) assertion.176 On the other hand, it unraveled Colonial foundations in a moral suppression of the self.
The un-dying critique in Iqbal lies in his reconstruction of Khudi (the “self”) as that which “truly exist[s] which can say “I am”  the degree of the intuition of “I-amness””.177 Here, he admits to be only questioning a Colonial narcissism that destructs khudi as a metaphysical force through its “over-organising”occupation.178 Iqbal critiques the Islamic slavish appropriation of a neo-Platonic Christian, un-“Islamic” suppression of “ego”, ie contemporary Sufism.179 Against a narrative of this vision-less Islam, Iqbal recreated “every atom of Divine energy, however low in the scale of existence  [as] an ego”.180 Furthering Nietzsche”s genealogies, Iqbal”s rewrites the “Quranic legend of the Fall [of Man]” as a creation of a “self” and “free will [to choose God/Not]”.181 This re-reading of the legend critiqued the Christian monasticism of suppressing “ego”, wherein “sin” and “guilt” functioned as techniques of Colonial control.182

While scholarship and Islamic entities (individuals and bodies) have appropriated these Islamists” condemnations of the Ahmadiyyas, they have largely ignored how the former located Colonial perpetuity in an Ahmadiyya slavish morality rather than simply being theologically opposed to Ahmadiyyas.183 Furthering a critique of Colonial perpetuity resonant of Nietzsche”s attack on the slavish idea of redemption through Christ, Iqbal employed khudi as a technology of questioning the Ahmadiyya Magian suppression of “inductive intellect”.184 This intellect, he argued, had been borne in the finality of Prophethood and a consciousness of being non-reliant on a messiah for salvation.185 For Iqbal both contemporary Sufism and Ahmadism sustained Colonialism morally/theologically: Sufism negated resistance, and Magianism suppressed self-intellect in Ahmadiyyas.
The latter provided Colonialism with a revelational basis through limiting the “Islamic” ideals of self-expectancy and self-assertion by anticipating the coming of a messiah, so that “slaves” were “made [to] accept their political environment as final” on “the basis of divine authority”.186

These critiques were also diverse reconstructions of Prophethood.
This was evident in how Iqbal and Maududi both referred to Prophethood as the marker of “Islam” as a system, and as an accessible ideal that could be revived “locally”.187 Colonialism”s “theological” embeddedness, according to Maududi, lay in the suppression of a post-Prophetic individual Muslim intellect/opportunity/responsibility to revive the Prophetic system.188 In opposition to “Quvat-e-Islam[Islam-e-Power]” that spearheaded struggle/resistance, he lamented that “the slogan of Islam  [leads] simple masses  anywhere, may it be Qadianism Communism or Fascism”.189

Conclusion

This paper has studied the discursive content of Iqbal”s and Maududi”s key questions. In conclusion, I emphasise the urgency for scholars to engage with what these Islamists” questions challenged.
I have elsewhere carved an intellectual space for a post-national consciousness embedded in Islamist narratives of a larger Muslim World that has become detached from “true Islam” and, in particular, noted how the drive for intellectualism by Islamists such as Iqbal and Maududi became a significant, and common, point of interaction with Islamists from Southeast Asia.190 In this paper I remain concerned with how reading the works of oft-quoted “experts” on Islamists often underlines an utter neglect of the need to engage the works of Islamists, let alone engage Islamist intertextuality and the discursive or psychological implications of narratives.191

The earlier sections have respectively studied the Islamist critique of Colonialism as a totalitarian discourse and highlighted how Islamist technologies of questioning unpacked Colonial foundations within individual neurosis. This Conclusion emphasises the need to explore the Islamist oeuvre. This oeuvre is neither a homogenous condition, nor a meta-narrative providing Islamist stipulation. Rather, it is a metaphor capturing the diverse ambit of Islamist questioning. As a spokesman of the ji Department of Foreign Affairs explains: “when Islamists meet all over, they challenge the foundations of violent phenomena through metaphors of Maulana Maududi and Allama Iqbal”.192

The study of Islamist metaphors discussed above is relevant in light of how Iqbal”s and Maududi”s reconstructions of Islam, the self and Quranic concepts such as jahiliyyah and tauhid – and interestingly Iqbal and Maududi themselves – have been appropriated as sites to question the Colonial psyche.193

Fanon and Nietzsche have not been juxtaposed with Islamists in this paper to make the latter exclusively accessible through their narratives, nor to represent select Islamists as postmoderns (by discounting their anti-hermeneutic foundationalism) or Third Worldists (in discounting their “Islams”).194 One problematic category, Islamist, is challenging enough for a single paper.
Indeed, the need to engage the Islamist oeuvre is more pressing in light of the way Iqbal and Maududi have been reified in metanarratives such as “Pakistan” and, more recently, “terrorism” respectively. Wearing Iqbal as a “talisman” in Pakistan and reading Maududi”s al-Jihad fil-Islam as a textbook of “terror”195 subsumes their critique of a Colonial psyche premised on creating “idols” such as nationalism, and on a totalitarian “occupation” co-opting the very techniques of resistance respectively.
Drawing parallels between Fanon and these Islamists has merely been an attempt to balance the views of an academy more keen recently to link a psychological decolonisation to Fanon instead of the latter”s earlier questioning.196 Similarly, this paper implies that, while the “madman from the West”197 has been tolerated and celebrated, the Islamist oeuvre has not been intellectualised. This is evident in a secular academy where even scholars of counter-Orientalist orientation have often dismissed the non-secular foundations of Islamist orientation and the possibility of non-secular intellectualism.198

Preceding Fanon and Nandy,199 Iqbal and Maududi developed the concept of a Colony as “state-of-mind/consciousness” beyond the confines of physical space. The foreclosing of Islamist critiques in realist perspectives has reduced the former to being involuntary rejoinders to colonial pressures, locating the receptiveness of ideas within the real colonial context. Scholarship”s neglect of such critiques has reduced Islamists to, in Euben”s words, “irrational rational actor[s]”, ie actors rational enough to gravitate to an ideology as a result of structural pressures like urbanisation, disenfranchisement, industrialization and unemployment, yet irrational in adopting “Islam” as their chosen ideology.200 Here “Islam” merely emerges as a “vague authentic choice” under colonialism rather than a rubric of questioning accessible through the content of Islamist narratives.

Such literature has blatantly ignored how Iqbal”s and Maududi”s Islamist critique was not concerned with rational aspects but with the “larger” psyche upon which colonial realities were founded. For example, scholarly attention to post-1857 Indian Muslim political debates (mentioned above) has largely subsumed these in the discursive parameters of real colonial space. While this may have at times reduced these narratives to being “irrational rational” Islamist questions within rational – material pressures, this method also ignores how the Islamist oeuvre in content and appropriation did not simply operate “locally”. The focus on content edges a re- reading of diverse Islamist narratives beyond specific contexts; this is evident in the way the works of Iqbal and Maududi did not simply encompass a supposed peripheral consciousness of appealing to South Asian Muslims but spoke of reviving the larger Islamic World.201 Furthermore, the emphasis on “content” addresses Colonialism rather than episodic structural conditions of colonialism, and even postcolonialism or neocolonialism.

Engagement of the Islamist oeuvre has been impeded by the way Islam has been “constituted within a polarized system of binary classifications  [such as] fanaticism, irrationalist traditionalism, atemporality” in scholarship.202 My study of “Islam” as a technology of questioning distances itself from scholarship that simply assesses the choice of “Islam” in Islamist protest narratives as an “anachronistic” one, or through a West/Islam Manichaeism to engage Islamist self-understandings of “Islam”.203 Furthermore, engaging Islamists in general has been more recently complicated by the scholarly fear of subsuming a real “Islamist threat” into theory/linguistics, and a perception of engaging with it as equivalent to exonerating Islamist pathology and violence.204 While I focus on an “Islamist threat” accessible through the content of Islamist questions, the “threat” in scholarship has been one regularly reproduced through diverse methods from Orientalist hermeneutics to a positivist data fetish.205 It is unfortunae that even literature questioning this discursive construction of an “Islamist threat” has frequently failed to adopt Islamist questions as valid sites of critique, leaving Islamists yet unintelligible.206

Even the impetus to engage Islamists has been impeded at times by its taming of Islamist questions. Maududi”s questions, for example, have been tamed into a democratic, liberal activist- intellectualism.207 Iqbal has been dominantly (mis)recognised as a “modernist”; his technology of questioning, khudi, has regularly been reduced to a signification of his supposed “enlightened”, “liberal” credentials.208 In fact, during my interview with Javid Iqbal, he inaccurately represented Allama Iqbal”s critique of “power detached from din (faith)” and “din without politics” as “the worst poison” and “tyranny” respectively,209 as evidence of Iqbal being secularist and modernist par excellence.

Euben”s seminal text locates a commonality of concerns between the Islamist Weltanschauung and Western critiques of modernity in a “dialogic model”.210 While attentive to discursive content, her attempt at “making [Islamists like Qutb and Maududi] intelligible” ignores at times the peculiarity of “Islam” as a technology of questioning.211 The emphasis on “authentic upheavals” in this paper refutes the need to place Islamists within a realm of comparative political theory and to compare them with seemingly “universal intellectuals”. Evocations of Nietzsche and Fanon in the narrative function merely as excuses to explore the Islamist psyche rather than as comparative searches for commonality. Interestingly select South Asian Islamists contended the notion of multicultural “dialogue” itself as a realm for privileging Western theorists, ignoring the distinct politics and “pathology” of Islamist questioning, and also, as a facet of a “defeatist psyche” or “inferiority complex” that approached “Islam” on Western terms, inadvertently making it a mere “religion” or derivative of Western ideologies/epistemologies.212 I have emphasised uncovering an Islamist oeuvre of critique accessible in its supposed pathology rather than taming. In fact, there is an urgent need for scholarship to engage narratives such as Iqbal”s poem “Jihad” and Maududi”s “jihad-manual” as extreme “authentic upheavals” of “death” and “violence” within a totalitarian Colonial “occupation”.213

The need to engage the Islamist oeuvre for its “threat” is marked not simply by Iqbal”s and Maududi”s appropriation in a specific Islamist congregation; indeed, this work is not a tracing of their precise spatial or personal influences. In highlighting how this oeuvre operates through translation and appropriation in Colonies, I am not attempting to locate a larger structure of “Islamism” technically linking diverse Islamists or indulging in inadequate labels such as the aforementioned “world Islamist movement”. On the contrary, this is only an emphasis on a seemingly common Colonial condition accessible through Islamist questions. The Islamist oeuvre is one wherein Iqbal, for example, appropriates Rumi to unravel Colonial foundations in a vision-less psyche (as noted above), and contemporary Southeast Asian Islamists interact with and appropriate Iqbal”s and Maududi”s re-visioning of Islam as a technology of critique. The Islamist oeuvre is not simply an issue of local receptivity but rather a “common” Coloniality. There is an interesting tension between the “local” and the “trans-local” in this oeuvre, wherein reconstructions of “Islam” (from “vision” and “system” to “human”) and re-readings of God to the self have been translated by diverse Islamists, and “Islam” has been revived “locally”.

This study bears larger implications for re-centering the study of Islam to its supposed peripheries, ie South and Southeast Asia. The Islamists I examine are important interlocutors of Islam and not voices from the periphery: Iqbal called for the “eyes to revive Iran and Arabia”, and Maududi declared that the “Indian subcontinent [was ideal] for the establishment of a Darul Islam on the pattern of Madinah”.214 Unfortunately, the project of a “trans-local” Colonial experience and “local” translations of “Islam” has been subdued in a seeming scholarly privileging of an Arab core in labels such as Wahhabism and al-Qaida-ism. Coloniality as narrated by Iqbal and Maududi is an ethic that not merely drives the regular production of print material, but also determines ideational linkages and an ongoing trend of ziyarah between the “regions” of Islam. This study is, therefore, a humble attempt to facilitate engagement of Islamist questions; hopefully, a realisation of their “threat” may excite some scholars.

Notes
I am indebted to John Sidel, John Chalcraft and Falak Sufi for discussing an earlier draft of this article, and to IS Sevea for select texts and for collaborating elsewhere with me on Muhammad Iqbal”s critiques.

1 Cited in an alarmist commentary that neglects the content of Islamist “roundtables”. “Israel, Lebanon and the rise of the Islamists”, idssCommentaries 88/2006, Singapore: idss, 2006.

2 I am grateful to ji members for a series of conversations and interviews in July/August 2006 and April/May and July 2007. In particular, Mian Maqsood Ahmad, Ayub Munir and Muhammad Ilyas Ansari in Lahore provided valuable insights into the content of such “resistance”.

3 This paper draws inspiration from Roxanne Euben”s engagement of Sayyid Qutb”s critique as one concerned with “not just the institutional and historical reality  but the epistemology and worldview upon which it is founded”. R Euben, Enemy in the Mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Limits of Modern Rationalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999, p 85.

4 Interview with Munir, April 2007.

5 Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, London: Pluto, 1986, p 232.

6 Udo Krautwurst, “What is settler colonialism? An anthropological meditation on Frantz Fanon”s “Concerning violence””, History and Anthropology, 14 (1), 2003, pp 59 – 60.

7 Nicholas Dirks, “Introduction: colonialism and culture”, in Dirks (ed), Colonialism and Culture, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1992, pp 11 – 12.

8 Cited in Krautwurst, “What is settler colonialism?”, p 69.

9 See Armando Salvatore, Islam and the Political Discourse of Modernity, Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 1997.

10 Edward Said, for example, criticises post-structural methods that remove the space for “truth” to resist “power”. See Harold Weiss, “The genealogy of justice and the justice of genealogy: Chomsky and Said vs Foucault and Bové”, Philosophy Today, 33 (1), 1989, pp 73 – 94.

11 Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, pp 20 – 23.

12 See Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. Also, Euben notes how “better understandings  attend to the inherent power of ideas themselves and hence, the relevance of political actors” normative commitments to explanation”. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, pp 24 – 25.

13 See WC Smith, “The historical development in Islam of the concept of Islam as an historical development”, in B Lewis & PM Holt (eds), Historians of the Middle East, London: Oxford University Press, 1962, p 48.

14 See KA Nizami, On Islamic History and Culture, Delhi: Idarah-i- Adabiyat-i Delli, 1995.

15 See Aziz Ahmad, Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan 1857 – 1964, London: Oxford University Press, 1967; Aziz Ahmad & GE von Grunebaum (eds), Muslim Self-statement in India and Pakistan 1857 – 1968, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970; and Hafeez Malik, Iqbal, Poet- philosopher of Pakistan, New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.

16 Yoginder Sikand, The Origins and Development of the Tablighi Jama”at, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2002, pp 22 – 23.

17 AAA Fyzee, A Modern Approach to Islam, London: Asia Publishing House, 1963.

18 Ameer Ali, The Right Honourable Syed Ameer Ali – Political Writings, ed Shan Muhammad, New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House, 1989, p 190; and Khuda Bukhsh, Contributions to the History of Islamic Civilisation, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1929, pp 43 –  44.

19 Muhammad Iqbal, The Secrets of the Self, translation of Asrar-i Khudi by RA Nicholson, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1950, p 77; and Abul Ala Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1969, pp 193 – 319.

20 The concept “Islam” that I use throughout this paper refers to Islamist self-referenced reconstructions of Islam. In a similar fashion, this paper refers to Islamist representations of the self as “self”. Euben highlights this need to “show why such ideas should take a specifically Islamic form”. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, p 157.

21 See William Roff, “Introduction”, in Roff (ed), Islam and the Political Economy of Meaning: Comparative Studies of Muslim Discourse, London: Croom Helm, 1987, pp 1 – 10.

22 Homi Bhabha, “Foreword”, in Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, pp xii – xiii.

23 Ibid; Nigel Gibson, Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003; and AC Alessandrini (ed), Frantz Fanon: Critical Perspectives, New York: Routledge, 1999.

24 See Gail Minault, The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilisation in India, New York: Columbia University Press, 1982; SR Bakshi, Documents of Muslim Politics: A Study of the Khilafat Movement, Delhi: Criterion, 1989; and MN Qureshi, Pan-Islam in British Indian Politics: A Study of the Khilafat Movement 1918 – 1924, Leiden: Brill, 1999.

25 Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: The Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988, p 3.

26 F Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press, 1963, p 81.

27 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e Makatib-e Iqbal, Cited in IS Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse, re-interpreting Islam: Muhammad Iqbal on the nation and its development”, unpublished dissertation, p 67.

28 For an application of Foucauldian emphases to Empire and the “colonial order of things” respectively, see M. Hardt & A. Negri, Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000; and AL Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault”s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.

29 These Islamists preceded recognised scholarship in locating “subjugation” as the simultaneous creation of coloniser/colonised. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth; Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks; Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1965; Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1967; and JP Sartre, Colonialism and Neo-colonialism, London: Routledge, 2001.

30 Dirks, “Introduction”, p 14.

31 Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, p xxvi.

32 Nandy, The Intimate Enemy, p xv; Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 32; and Bhabha “Foreword”, p xiv.

33 DJ Matthews, Iqbal: A Selection of the Urdu Verse, London: University of London, 1993, pp 132 – 133; and Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, p 28.

34 Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, p 28.

35 Matthews, Iqbal, pp 136 – 137.

36 Bhabha, “Foreword”, p xviii. See also Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, pp 37 – 39; Abul al-Ala Maududi, West vs Islam, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1992; and M Iqbal, Javid Namah, trans AJ Arberry, London: Allen and Unwin, 1966, pp 56 – 57.

37 Javed Majeed, “Putting God in His place: Bradley, McTaggart, and Muhammad Iqbal”, Journal of Islamic Studies, 4 (2), 1993, p 210.

38 See David Scott, Refashioning Futures: Criticism after Postcoloniality, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

39 Bhabha, “Foreword”, p ix.

40 Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, trans Walter Kaufmann & RJ Hollingdale, New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

41 Euben highlights in Qutb”s texts an aversion to Islam becoming a “subject for intellectual mastery” and “denial that his own interpretation of Islam is an act of interpretation”. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, pp 78 – 87.

42 Ibid.

43 Cited respectively from Abul al-Ala Maududi, Witness to the Truth, trans Khurram Murad, Leicester: Islamic Foundation, on-line version; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 223.

44 Alessandrini, Frantz Fanon, p 6.

45 Majeed, “Putting God in His place”, p 211.

46 JJG Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden: Brill, 1980, pp 13 – 14.

47 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 53; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 256.

48 Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 30.

49 See ibid, p 134; Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, pp 38, 237; Nandy, The Intimate Enemy; and S von Popp, Muhammad Iqbal”s Romanticism of Power: A Post-structural Approach to this Persian Lyrical Poetry, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2004.

50 Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks; and Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals.

51 Muhammad Iqbal, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, ed AR Tariq, Lahore: Sh Ghulam Ali and Sons, 1973, pp 204 – 205; Iqbal, The Mystery of Selflessness: A Philosophical Poem, English translation of Rumuz-Bekhudi by AJ Arberry, London: John Murray, 1953, p 221; Maududi, West vs Islam, p 172; Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth; and Fanon, Black Skin White Masks.

52 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 122.

53 Iqbal, Javid Nama, p 63.

54 See Barbara Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband 1860 – 1900, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982, p 279.

55 See Dietrich Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere – Religious Groups in India 1900 – 1947, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006.

56 Renate Zahar, Frantz Fanon: Colonialism and Alienation, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974, pp 21 – 24.

57 Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, p 148.

58 Abul al-Ala Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1969, p 124.

59 Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 230.

60 Nandy, The Intimate Enemy, p xii; Iqbal, Speeches and Statements, pp 52 – 53; Iqbal, The Mystery of Selflessness, p 221; Abul al-Ala Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, Lahore: Daftar-i-Tarjuman al-Quran, 1927, p 45; and Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 30.

61 See Dirks, “Introduction”, p 15.

62 Muhammad Iqbal, Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, ed SA Vahid, Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1964, p 62; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 34. Such critiques are represented by Islamists such as Ali Shariati, Marxism and Other Western Fallacies: An Islamic Critique, Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press, 1980, p 317.

63 Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, p 16.

64 See Farzana Shaikh, “Muslims and political representation in colonial India: the making of Pakistan”, Modern Asian Studies, 20 (3), 1986, p 539; and Francis Robinson, Islam and Muslim History in South Asia, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 5 – 6.

65 See Imtiaz Ahmad & Helmut Reifeld (eds), Lived Islam in South Asia: Adaptation, Accommodation, and Conflict, New Delhi: Social Science Press, 2004; and V Das, “For a folk-theology and theological anthropology of Islam”, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 18 (2), 1984, pp 293 – 300.

66 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam; Maududi, Let us be Muslims, Leicester: Islamic Foundation, 2002; Iqbal, Javid Namah; and Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2003.

67 Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, pp 16 – 19.

68 M. Pernau, “The Delhi Urdu Akhbar between Persian Akhbarat and English newspapers”, Annual of Urdu Studies, 18, 2003, pp 105 – 131; and Ayesha Jalal, Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam since 1850, London: Oxford University Press, 2001, p 48.

69 Francis Robinson, Separatism among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces” Muslims, 1860 – 1923, London: Cambridge University Press, 1974, pp 80 – 82.

70 Elizabeth Sirriyeh, Sufis and anti-Sufis: The Defence, Rethinking and Rejection of Sufism in the Modern World, London: Curzon Press, 1999, pp ix – x.

71 Chastising the “dogma of Art for the sake of Art”, Iqbal referred to his poetry as revolutionary critique, a “song-of-war” in Iqbal Namah. See Muhammad Iqbal, Stray Reflections: A Notebook of Allama Iqbal, ed Javid Iqbal, Lahore: Sh Ghulam Ali, 1961, p 148. For an explanation of nala-e-jung, see IS Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse, re-interpreting Islam: Muhammad Iqbal on the nation and its development”, p 88.

72 Abul al-Ala Maududi, Fundamentals of Islam, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 2002; and Maududi, Let us be Muslims.

73 Talal Asad, “The construction of religion as an anthropological category”, in Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

74 For further references, see Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 175; Barbara Metcalf, Islamic Contestations: Essays on Muslims in India and Pakistan, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp 15 –  16; and Sikand, The Origins and Development of the Tablighi Jama”at, pp 43 – 44.

75 I juxtapose Nietzsche”s genealogies with these Islamist narratives to uncover Colonial perpetuity in the “taming”, “weariness” and “shame in man”, ensuring the living of a degenerate life. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, pp 43 – 44, 67, 85.

76 See Gulfishan Khan, Indian-Muslim Perception of the West during the Eighteenth Century, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp xi – xiv.

77 Iqbal, Stray Reflections, p 30.

78 Majeed, “Putting God in His place”, p 232.

79 Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 123, 166; and Iqbal, Stray Reflections, p 30.

80 Iqbal, Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, pp 162 – 163; Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, pp 150 – 155; and Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 88 – 89.

81 As Euben notes, Qutb”s critiques further a notion that the “Enlightenment worldview has proven incapable of promoting real progress, that is, moral progress”. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, p 58.

82 Metcalf, Islamic Contestations, pp 5 – 6.

83 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, Lahore: Ilm-o-Irfan Publishers, 2002, p 264; and Iqbal, Gulshan-I Raz Jadid (New Rose Garden of Mystery) and Bandagi Namah (Book of Servitude), trans MH Hussain, Lahore: Sh Muhammad Ashraf, 1969, pp 57 – 60.

84 Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 65.

85 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 47.

86 See Jalal, Self and Sovereignty, pp 140 – 141; and Kenneth Jones, “Religious identity and the Indian census”, in NG Barrier (ed), The Census of British India: New Perspectives, Delhi: Manohar, 1981, pp 83 – 85.

87 See Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, pp 177 – 178.

88 While relevant, it is beyond the scope of this paper to engage “modernist” journals like Tahzib al-Akhlaq, Asar-e-Jadid, Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College Magazine and Islamic Culture, Sufi journals like Risala-i anwar al-Sufiyya, and “apolitical”, “fascist” journals such as Tazkirah and Al-Islah.

89 Between 1911 and 1951 about 150 000 fatawa (religious decrees) were pronounced by the Department of Ifta in Deoband. See Farhat Tabassum, Deoband Ulema”s Movement for the Freedom of India, New Delhi: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in association with Manak Publications, 2006.

90 Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, pp 5 – 6.

91 Ameer Ali, The Right Honourable Syed Ameer Ali, pp 69 – 70, 86.

92 In the Khilafat campaign, Muhammad Ali procured fatawi from 500 ulama in support of the Karachi Resolution. Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse”, pp 68 – 69.

93 See Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 191; and David Gilmartin, Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan, London: IB Tauris, 1988, p 64.

94 Maududi, Let us be Muslims, p 21.

95 See Hardt & Negri, Empire; and Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire.

96 See Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, pp 177 – 178.

97 See Muhammad Iqbal, Ilm-i Iqtisad, Karachi: Iqbal Academy, 1961.

98 See Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating Sufi Shaykh, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998, p 179; and Metcalf, Islamic Contestations, p 175.

99 See Maududi, West vs Islam; Metcalf, Islamic Contestations, p 36, 175; and GMD Sufi, Al-Minhaj: Being the Evolution of Curriculum in the Muslim Educational Institutions of India, Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1977.

100 See Muhammad Ali, My Life, A Fragment: An Autobiographical Sketch of Maulana Mohamed Ali, ed Mushirul Hasan, Delhi: Manohar, 1999, p 89; and Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 213.

101 See Claudia Liebeskind, “Arguing science: Unani Tibb, hakims and biomedicine in India, 1900 – 50”, in Waltraud Ernst (ed), Plural Medicine, Tradition and Modernity, 1800 – 2000, New York: Routledge, 2002, pp 58 – 75; and Metcalf, Islamic Contestations, pp 151 – 172.

102 Metcalf, Islamic Contestations, p 153.

103 See Claudia Liebeskind, Piety on its Knees: Three Sufi Traditions in South Asia in Modern Times, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p 239.

104 Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 196 – 197.

105 See Iqbal”s narrative, “Punjab ke Pirzadon Se” in the Kulliyat-e- Iqbal.

106 Iqbal, Javid Namah, pp 55 – 59; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 11.

107 See Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 58; Maududi West vs Islam, p 34; and Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 30 – 33.

108 Syed Hussein Alatas, “Regeneration of Islamic Societies”, Progressive Islam, 1 (2), 1954, p 1.

109 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 57; and Maududi West vs Islam, p 80.

110 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 121.

111 Ibid, p 120; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 80.

112 Iqbal is commonly referred to as “the Allama”, an honorific with reference to religious scholar. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, pp 120 – 122, 186 – 187.

113 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 58.

114 Ibid, pp 57 – 67; Iqbal, Speeches and Statements, pp 163 – 164; and Iqbal, Letters and Writings of Iqbal, ed BA Dar, Karachi: Iqbal Academy, 1967, p 80.

115 Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 288 – 289.

116 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 137; and Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 8 – 9.

117 Maududi abhorred Colonial bourgeois sensibilities of materialistic existence, and Iqbal criticised philosophers like GW Hegel for intellectually sustaining capitalism. See Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 288 – 289; and Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 111.

118 Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, pp 57 – 60. In a retort to “sectional” approaches that were preoccupied with sense-perception and relegated the “heart” to being a “mysterious special faculty”, the Allama stressed that “in the interests of securing a complete vision of Reality  sense-perception must be supplemented by the perception of what the Quran describes as “Fuad” or “Qalb”, ie heart”, see Reconstruction of Religious Thought, pp 15 – 16. For a discussion of the dynamic character of ishq in Iqbal”s poetry, see Annemarie Schimmel, “Iqbal”s Persian poetry”, in Ehsan Yarshater (ed), Persian Literature, Columbia, NY: Persian Heritage Foundation, State University of New York Press, 1988, p 427.

119 Preceding post-structural accounts, Islamist questions blatantly refuted the promise of Enlightenment, unlike dominant Western political thought still “grappling” with its supposed un-fulfilment. See Maududi, West vs Islam, p 13, 61 – 73; Iqbal, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p 203; and Iqbal, The Mystery of Selflessness, p 23.

120 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 179.

121 Ibid, p 123.

122 Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, p 51; and Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 68.

123 Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, pp 53 – 60.

124 The reference to “raw materials” draws from Iqbal”s and Maududi”s complex critiques of how the East/Muslims have become subjects in consciousness and sustain the “systems” that colonise. See Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 62; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 251 – 258.

125 See Fanon, Toward the African Revolution: Political Essays, trans Haakon Chevalier, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967, pp 51 –  53.

126 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 61; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 36.

127 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 62; Maududi, West vs Islam, p 294; and Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 1 – 2.

128 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 67; Iqbal, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, pp 163 – 164; and Annemarie Schimmel, Gabriel”s Wing: A Study into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Leiden: Brill, 1963, pp 79 – 83.

129 Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 33, 76.

130 Cited from Iqbal Nama, in Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse”, p 71.

131 Iqbal, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, pp 204 – 205; and Iqbal, The Mystery of Selflessness, p 221.

132 Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 55.

133 Ibid; and Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, p 49.

134 See Maududi, Islam and Ignorance, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1976. Maududi challenged the “realist” conception of jahiliyyah that confines it to the pre-Islamic historical period of “ignorance”. Interestingly his reconstruction of the Quranic concept was criticised as being bida and un-Islamic by some Deobandis.

135 For an interesting appropriation and development of Maududi”s critiques in Islam and Ignorance, see Syed Qutb, Milestone, Singapore: Himpunan Belia Islam, 1960s. Maududi was preoccupied with a “defeatist psyche” that led Muslim intellectuals to represent jihad as defensive. Maudidi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, p 9.

136 Maududi, West vs Islam, p 34; Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 30 – 33; and Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 58.

137 Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse”, p 67. Muhammad Ali asserted that Islam was political in totality in a fatwa.

138 See Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, pp 203 – 204. This emphasised the role of politicised ulama and intellectuals.

139 See Sikand, The Origins and Development of the Tablighi Jama”at, pp 51 – 52. This comprised a diverse division of labour and “popular Islam”.

140 See Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, pp 207 – 208. This was conceived within a pro-Khilafat fatwa.

141 See Metcalf, Islamic Revival, p 176. The Tabligh Jamaat was conceived as a “movement” towards shaping ummah with a “system”.

142 See Malik, “Regionalism or personality cult? Allama Mashriqi and the Tehreek-i-Khaksar in pre-1947 Punjab”, in I Talbot & G Singh (eds), Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; and Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 135. Parwez and Mashriqi believed the Quran and prayer were about “systems” respectively.

143 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 134 – 138; Maududi, Tafhim al- Qur”an, Lahore: Islamic Publications, 2003, pp 121 – 123; and Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 147.

144 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 134 – 138; Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 14 – 24; and Maududi, Let us be Muslims, pp 105, 124.

145 Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, pp 59 – 60.

146 Ameer Ali and Khuda Buksh were characteristic of Indian Muslim intellectuals who argued that Islam had evolved according to political realities. See Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam – A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam with a Life of the Prophet, Delhi: Low Price Publishers, 2002, pp 286 – 287; and Khuda Buksh, Essays – Indian and Islamic, London, 1912, p 25. For a critique of such “realism”, refer to Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 36 – 38; and Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought, pp 80 – 82.

147 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, pp 494 – 495; and Muhammad Ali, My Life, a Fragment, p 150.

148 Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought, p 163; Iqbal, Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, pp 162 – 163; and Iqbal, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p 5.

149 Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse”, p 44.

150 Iqbal, The Mystery of Selflessness, p 85; and SH Ahmad, Iqbal – His Political Ideas at a Crossroads: A Commentary on Unpublished Letters to Professor Thompson, Aligarh: Printwell Publications, 1979, p 36.

151 Iqbal, Persian Psalms, translation of Zabur-i-Ajam by AJ Arberry, London/Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1948/1949, pp 26 – 27.

152 Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 157 – 158.

153 See Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, pp 57 – 58, 264; Iqbal, The Secrets of the Self, p 77; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 64.

154 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam; and Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, pp 49 – 60.

155 Maududi, West vs Islam, p 256; Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 124 – 135; and Iqbal, Javid Namah, pp 61 – 62.

156 Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, pp 124 – 129; and Maududi, A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam, Lahore: Islamic Publications Limited, 1972, pp 8 – 10. For Iqbal”s in-depth but less examined explication, refer to Bandagi Namah, pp 57 – 58.

157 Cited in Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p 128. See also Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 117.

158 Cited in Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 294 – 298.

159 Quotation from Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 7.

160 Interestingly Iqbal criticised Christianity per se as “monastic” and “other-worldly” even in its early obedience to a Roman political system, pointing to the lack of an ideal like “Islam”, while Maududi noted this Christian “monasticism” as a later corrupting influence. See Iqbal, Reconstruction, pp 155,166; and Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p 170.

161 Maududi, West vs Islam, p 294 – 298.

162 Ibid, pp 82 – 87.

163 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, pp 3, 9 – 10.

164 Ali Audah, “Muhammad Iqbal: Sebuah Pengantar”, in Ali Audah, Taufiq Ismail & Goenawan Mohammad (eds), Membangun Kembali Pikiran Agama dalam Islam, Djakarta: Tintamas, 1966; and Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 63.

165 Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Postcoloniality and the artifice of history: who speaks for “Indian” pasts?”, in Ranajit Guha (ed), A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986 – 1995, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

166 Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 40 – 43; and Maududi, A Short History of the Revivalist Movement, pp 63 – 68. In an interesting explication of Qutb”s critique of “scholastic sophistry”, Euben highlights that the Islamist, like Karl Marx, linked “theorising” to being an expression of dominant interests. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, p 78.

167 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 131; and Iqbal, Javid Namah, pp 67 – 68. For Maududi”s critique of a philosophical basis for privatising Islam, see Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 36 – 38.

168 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 36.

169 Iqbal, The Secrets of the Self, pp 32 – 34.

170 See Gilmartin, Empire and Islam, pp 46 – 52; and Reetz, Islam in the Public Sphere, p 212.

171 Popp, Muhammad Iqbal”s Romanticism of Power, p 76; and Iqbal, The Secrets of the Self, p 52. These questions were not exclusive to supposed reformists/modernists but were also posed by Sufis of diverse silsilas who questioned, for example, Ahmad Raza”s declaration of “na-jaiz mukhalafat[illegitimate resistance]”. See Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet, p 179.

172 Iqbal, Stray Reflections, p 139; Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 58; Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, p 57; Iqbal, Islam as an Ethical and Political Ideal, lecture delivered in 1908, ed SY Hashimy, Lahore: Orientalia, nd.

173 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 20 – 22, 89 – 90; and Maudidi, Let us be Muslims, p 4.

174 Maududi, A Short History of the Revivalist Movement, p 15.

175 Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, pp 7 – 9; and Iqbal, Javid Namah, p 55.

176 Maududi, West vs Islam, pp 184 – 185, 297; and Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p 133.

177 Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 151.

178 Ibid, pp 56, 151.

179 Ibid, pp 84 – 85.

180 Ibid, p 151, emphasis added.

181 Ibid, p 72.

182 Ibid, pp 84 – 85; Iqbal, Bandagi Namah, p 59; and Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, p 92.

183 For a refreshing explication of Iqbal”s critique of Ahmadiyya”theology”, see Sevea, “Contesting Western political discourse”. For a diverse appropriation of Iqbal”s critiques of the Ahmadiyyas within Southeast Asian journals, refer to Alatas, Progressive Islam; and Genuine Islam: Organ of the All Malaya Muslim Missionary Society, Singapore: All Malaya Muslim Missionary Society, 1936 – 1940s. Particularly refer to the reprints of Iqbal”s “Islam and Ahmadism” in Genuine Islam.

184 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, pp 65 – 66; and Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p 126.

185 Iqbal, “Islam and Ahmadism [Part I]”, Genuine Islam, May, 1936, p 9. See also Iqbal, Speeches and Statements, p 94.

186 Iqbal, “Islam and Ahmadism [Part II]”, Genuine Islam, June/July, 1936, p 46 – 47. See also Iqbal, Speeches and Statements, p 128.

187 Iqbal, Reconstruction of Religious Thought, p 166; Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p 129; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 309.

188 Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, p 44; and RD Lee, Overcoming Tradition and Modernity: The Search for Islamic Authenticity, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, p 106.

189 Cited respectively from Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, pp 41 – 42, 78; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 195.

190 Terenjit Sevea, “Islamist intellectual space: “True Islam” and the Ummah in the East”, in RM Feener & T Sevea (eds), Ummah in the East: Studies in Muslim South and Southeast Asia, forthcoming.

191 Interview with Rohan Gunaratna conducted by the author, Singapore, February 2004.

192 Interview with Ayub Munir, 2007.

193 For an explication of Southeast Asian “contact” with the narratives of Iqbal and Maududi within journals such as Progressive Islam, see Sevea “Islamist intellectual space”. Also see A Ionova, “Muhammad Iqbal and Social Thought in South-East Asia”, in AR Malik (ed), The Work of Muhammad Iqbal: Articles by Soviet Scholars, Lahore: People”s Publishing House, 1983; Kamal Hassan, “The influence of Mawdd”s thought on Muslims in Southeast Asia”, The Muslim World, 93 (3 – 4), pp 429 – 464; HM Marzuki, “Preface”, in Maududi, Islam Dan Kemajuan Moden, Selangor: Ikatan Studi Islam, ukm, 1984; Mustafa Ramadhan, “Dari Penerbit”, in Maududi, Islam Masa Kini, Kuala Lumpur: Noordeen, 1982, pp 3 – 5; and Abdullah Suhaili, “Preface”, in Maududi, Riba, Djakarta: Hudaya, 1970.

194 Euben, while adopting post-structural techniques, remains aware of the problems of engaging Islamists as postmoderns. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, p 146. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi”s seminal work sensitively locates “Third Worldist” concerns within Islamist narratives. Abu- Rabi, Intellectual Origins of Islamic Resurgence in the Modern Arab World, Albany, NJ: State University of New York Press, 1966.

195 Cited from Schimmel”s quote on Iqbal”s deification, Gabriel”s Wing, p 377. More recently Maududi has been marked as the terrorist precedent of Sayyid Qutb and al-Qaeda. Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al- Qaeda: A Global Network of Terror, New York: Berkley Books, 2003, p 86; and Fred Halliday, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, London: IB Tauris, 1996, pp 1 – 10.

196 See RJC Young, Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, p 274; and Krautwurst, “What is settler colonialism?”.

197 See Iqbal, Stray Reflections, p 54; and Iqbal, Javid Namah.

198 Said claimed that the “true intellectual is a secular being”. Said, Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures, London: Vintage, 1994, p 120.

199 Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 83; and Nandy, The Intimate Enemy, pp 1 – 2.

200 As Euben notes, this denotes an “actor apparently rational enough to gravitate towards an ideology that is effective and therefore an appealing vehicle for essentially pathological reactionary sentiment”. Islamist thought, she argues, is reduced to being “irrelevant to properly scientific explanations” in scholarship on “structural pressures”. Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, pp 23 – 24.

201 Sevea, “Islamist intellectual space”, p 72.

202 Aziz al-Azmeh, Islams and Modernities, London: Verso, 1993, p 24.

203 Youssef Choueiri, Islamic Fundamentalism, Washington, DC: Pinter, p xx; Lewis, “The revolt of Islam”; and Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.

204 Judith Butler criticises this post-911 “realism”, “Explanation and exoneration, or what we can hear”, Social Text 72, 20 (3), 2002, pp 177 – 188. The author was exposed to such reification of “threats” in an interview with the oft-quoted terrorism expert, Rohan Gunaratna, 2004.

205 KE Wolff, “New new Orientalism: political Islam and social movement theory”, in AS Moussalli (ed), Islamic Fundamentalism: Myths and Realities, Reading: Ithaca Press, 1998, p 49; and Said, Orientalism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, p 212.

206 See James Der Derian, “In terrorem: before and after 9/11”, in Kim Booth & Tim Dunne (eds), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future World Order, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; and Jean Baudrillard, The Spirit of Terrorism and Other Essays, trans Chris Turner, London: Verso, 2003.

207 SVR Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

208 Interview with Javid Iqbal conducted by the author, Lahore, July 2006.

209 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, pp 465, 513.

210 Euben, Enemy in the Mirror, p 123.

211 Ibid; and Euben, “Killing (for) politics: jihad, martyrdom, and political action”, Political Theory, 30 (1), 2002, pp 4 – 35.

212 See Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam, p 9; Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p 119; and HK Sherwani, “The place of oriental thought in the field of political science”, Islamic Culture, 2, 1928, pp 398 – 413.

213 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, p 490; and Maududi, al-Jihad fil-Islam. Also, see Fanon, Studies in a Dying Colonialism, p 27.

214 Iqbal, Kulliyat-e-Iqbal, pp 530 – 531; and Maududi, West vs Islam, p 309.