Abstract

This paper offers a comprehensive examination of Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s conceptualization of the Islamic state, analyzing its theoretical foundations, logical coherence, and practical implications within the framework of Pakistan’s constitutional system. Maududi’s vision rooted in divine sovereignty (Hakimiyyat e Ala), consultative governance (Shura), and the higher objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al Sharia) presents a structured alternative to secular democracy, one that claims to reconcile divine authority with rational governance. However, despite Pakistan’s constitutional provisions that ostensibly align with Maududi’s principles such as the Objectives Resolution (Article 2A) and the repugnancy clause (Article 227) the country’s legal and political realities reveal significant gaps between theory and practice. Through a critical analysis of Pakistan’s legislative processes and judicial enforcement, this study highlights the contradictions that arise when an Islamic theoretical model is imposed on a modern state structure. Key case studies such as the Federal Shariat Court’s rulings on Riba (interest) and the controversial enforcement of Hudud Ordinances under Zia ul Haq demonstrate how political expediency, institutional weaknesses, and socioeconomic factors have hindered the consistent application of Sharia. Maududi himself emphasized preconditions for Islamic penal laws, including economic justice and public moral preparedness, yet Pakistan’s implementation has often disregarded these safeguards, leading to legal inconsistencies and human rights concerns. The paper argues that while Maududi’s framework provides a philosophically robust model for Islamic governance, its practical execution in Pakistan has been undermined by structural flaws, selective Islamization, and a lack of systematic reform. To bridge this gap, the study proposes institutional reforms, such as strengthening the Federal Shariat Court’s authority and adopting a Maqasid based legislative review process. Ultimately, this research contributes to broader debates on the compatibility of Islamic political theory with contemporary constitutionalism, offering insights for policy makers and scholars engaged in Islamization and legal reform in Muslim majority states.