Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Ideological Role in Afghanistan's Political History: A
Critical Review of Islamic Awakening and Opposition to Arab Monarchies
Introduction This research paper presents an in-depth analysis of the
ideological foundations of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's political thought, particularly
focusing on the influences of Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi and Hassan
al-Banna. The paper aims to demonstrate that Hekmatyar's political struggle was
not merely Afghan nationalism or regional power aspiration, but possessed a
distinct ideological identity that aligned with global Islamic movements.
Simultaneously, the paper explains why monarchical Arab states like Saudi Arabia
feared figures like Hekmatyar and what measures they took against them. Part 1:
The Formation of Hekmatyar's Ideological Journey 1. Early Education and
Intellectual Influences Gulbuddin Hekmatyar studied engineering at Kabul
University, but religious and ideological teachings played a key role in shaping
his political thought. By the 1970s when he joined the Islamic Society of
Afghanistan, two major intellectual movements were at their peak in the Muslim
world: - Muslim Brotherhood: Influenced by Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), this
movement starting from Egypt had spread throughout the Arab world. Its central
slogan was "Islam is the solution" and it advocated for establishing a
comprehensive Islamic system of governance. - Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan: Under
the leadership of Maulana Maududi (1903-1979), this movement struggled to
establish an Islamic state in the subcontinent. Maududi's works
"Khilafat-o-Malookiyat" (Caliphate and Kingship), "Islamic State," and
"Tafhim-ul-Quran" had profound impact across the Muslim world. 2. Synthesis of
Maududi and al-Banna's Ideologies Hekmatyar's political thought was deeply
influenced by both Maududi and al-Banna: a) Concept of Islamic State Maududi
clarified in his book "Islamic State" that Islamic government is not pure
theocracy but "Islamic democracy" where sovereignty belongs only to Allah, but
governance is chosen through public consultation. Similarly, Hassan al-Banna
emphasized "consultative system" in the Muslim Brotherhood's manifesto.
Hekmatyar's speeches and writings repeatedly used terms like "Islamic democracy"
and "consultative system." b) Anti-Imperialism Both Maududi and al-Banna
strongly opposed colonial powers. While Maududi waged intellectual jihad against
British colonialism through his writings, al-Banna led practical struggle
against British influence in Egypt. Hekmatyar viewed jihad against Soviet
colonialism as an extension of this tradition. c) Comprehensive Islamic
Revolution The Muslim Brotherhood's slogan was: "Allah is our objective, the
Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, jihad is our way, and
martyrdom is our greatest desire." Jamaat-e-Islami also advocated establishing
an "Islamic revolution." Hekmatyar aimed not merely to liberate Afghanistan from
Soviet forces but to make it a cradle of "Islamic revolution." d) Global Islamic
Brotherhood (Ummah Wahidah) Hekmatyar made no distinction between Arab and
non-Arab mujahideen. His organization "Hezb-e-Islami" included Arabs, Afghans,
Pakistanis, and other Muslims working together—an approach aligned with
Maududi's concept of "Ummah Wahidah" and al-Banna's vision of "global Muslim
Brotherhood." Part 2: Arab Monarchies' Fear: Ideological and Practical
Foundations 1. Ideological Vulnerability of Monarchial Systems Saudi Arabia and
Gulf states based on monarchial systems viewed figures like Hekmatyar as serious
threats to their existence for several reasons: a) Maududi's Critical Review in
"Khilafat-o-Malookiyat" Maududi analyzed in his famous book the critical turning
point in Islamic history where the Rashidun Caliphate system transformed into
monarchy. He declared monarchy incompatible with Islamic governance: "The system
established after the Rightly Guided Caliphs was not actually the Islamic system
established by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)." Saudi Arabia's political foundation was
based on this very "monarchy" that Maududi criticized. Hekmatyar's intellectual
association with Maududi created concerns among Saudi rulers that if his style
of Islamic government established in Afghanistan, it would raise questions in
Saudi citizens' minds. b) Al-Banna's Attack on Monarchial System Hassan al-Banna
also took clear stance against Egypt's monarchy: "We do not believe in any
system of governance established without people's consent." This very position
initially led Saudi Arabia to establish relations with the Muslim Brotherhood,
but when they perceived Brotherhood's ideology as threatening their monarchial
system, their attitude changed. c) Fear of Democratic Islamic Model Hekmatyar
proposed a model of Islamic government based on elections and
consultation—fundamentally different from the hereditary rule of Saudi Arabia's
"Al Saud" family. Saudi leadership feared that if such government succeeded in
Afghanistan, it would become a dangerous precedent against monarchial systems
throughout the Arab world. Part 3: The 1992 Crisis: Outcome of Ideological
Warfare When the Soviet-backed Najibullah government collapsed, Afghanistan
faced political transition. By then, Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami was the most
organized and powerful group. However, both Saudi Arabia and America made every
effort to prevent Hekmatyar from coming to power. Historical documents and
reliable sources (like Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars") indicate that Saudi
intelligence and CIA played key roles in making Sibghatullah Mojaddidi interim
president. Mojaddidi was a Sufi elder without clear ideological identity—neither
supporter of Maududi/al-Banna's thought nor possessing clear political vision.
His selection essentially filled an "ideological vacuum" where negotiations
could accommodate Saudi and American interests. Part 4: Taliban's Rise as
Alternative to Hekmatyar's Ideological Model When Taliban emerged in 1994, their
ideological structure differed significantly: - Deobandi jurisprudential
tradition rather than political movements like Jamaat-e-Islami or Muslim
Brotherhood - Non-political religious identity with agenda limited to "peace and
implementation of sharia laws" - Simple traditional Islamic concept far from
modern political institutions like parliament, elections, and democratic
processes The Taliban model was "safer" for Saudi Arabia because: - It didn't
conflict with monarchy (Amir al-Mu'minin system was essentially a type of
monarchy) - No democratic processes threatened Saudi monarchial system -
Taliban's isolation made them more dependent on Saudi Arabia Part 5: Conclusion
and Lessons Afghanistan's modern history witnessed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar not
merely as military commander or politician but as figure with distinct
ideological identity. His political thought was deeply influenced by Maududi and
al-Banna's teachings emphasizing Islamic democracy, consultative system, and
popular sovereignty. Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies' fear of Hekmatyar
wasn't merely military or political threat but deep ideological concern. They
feared that if Maududi-al-Banna based Islamic democratic system succeeded in
Afghanistan, it would become powerful precedent against monarchial systems
throughout Arab world. Afghanistan's history teaches that when foreign powers
intervene in a country's internal politics, they do so primarily to protect
their immediate interests, not for that country's long-term betterment.
Hekmatyar's struggle and Saudi reaction reminds us that real conflict in Muslim
world isn't about power and resources but ideologies and values.
