A Comparative Study of the Theory of State by Hassan al-Banna and Maududi

This article presents a comparative analysis of the state theories in the thoughts of Hassan al-Banna and Abul A'la Maududi, two prominent thinkers of the Islamic world in the 20^th century who sought to redefine the role of religion in the political structure and offer solutions to postcolonial challenges and modernity. The primary objective of the research is to identify the commonalities and differences in their views on the foundations, structure, and functions of the Islamic state. The main hypothesis is that Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, presents a more hierarchical and centralized theory of the Islamic state, while Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, proposes a more consultative and participatory approach. To test this hypothesis, content analysis and
a comparative theoretical framework are employed to reveal deeper similarities and differences by carefully examining the texts of both thinkers and the historical-cultural contexts that influenced them.
The findings of the research indicate that both theories consider Islamic Sharia as the primary source of legislation and administering the society, emphasizing the necessity of
a just government to combat corruption and implement religious rulings. Both believe
that ultimate sovereignty belongs to God and that the state is merely a tool for realizing religious objectives. However, there are fundamental differences in the organization of power. Influenced by the political conditions in Egypt and the need to resist Western colonialism, Hassan al-Banna presents a centralized image of the Islamic state, where the ruler acts under the supervision of the "Ahl al-Ḥall wa-l-ʿAqd" (people of decision and contract), and the principle of Da'wah (invitation) serves as the core of the state. He emphasizes the importance of Islamic brotherhood beyond national and ethnic identities, viewing the state as a mission-oriented institution responsible for educating society and reviving Islamic values. In contrast, Maududi proposes the concept of theodemocracy, a system where ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, but the implementation of laws and management of affairs is carried out through a council of Muslims. He stresses the broad participation of Muslims in decision-making, though subject to the condition of conformity with Sharia.
In the comparative section, the article highlights several other key differences:
1) View on Democracy: Maududi considers Western democracies to be authoritarian and suggests a system under the supervision of Sharia, while al-Banna focuses more on transparency and accountability in political processes.
2) Non-Muslim Participation: Maududi asserts that non-Muslims do not have the right to participate in the Islamic government, whereas al-Banna ignores this issue.
3) Electoral Structure: Maududi believes that no individual can nominate themselves for governmental responsibilities, while al-Banna emphasizes councils and accountability.
In the field of political science, this research contributes to a better understanding of contemporary Islamist movements and demonstrates how Islam, as a dynamic intellectual system, can adapt to modern challenges such as democracy, human rights, and social justice. In policymaking, a precise understanding of the theories of these two thinkers can be valuable for politicians and diplomats in their interactions with Islamic movements. Ultimately, the results of the research highlight that the theoretical differences between
al-Banna and Maududi not only reflect the diversity in Islamic thought but also offer models for the adaptability of political systems in Islamic societies. This analysis further shows that Islam, based on its general principles and jurisprudential foundations, has vast capacities to address the needs of the times and contemporary challenges. Therefore, understanding these differences can contribute to the reform of political and social processes in Islamic societies and provide solutions for engaging with modern issues.