Please understand that I am not using the word liberal in the connotation that it has acquired in current Pakistani discourse. I am quite flabbergasted that a well read person such as yourself believes that Jinnah fits in with the profile of these other leaders. Maudidi was a vehement critic of Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. If they truly came from the same mould, Maudidi would not have accused Jinnah of creating a secular or a non religious state.
He recanted his negative views. People can be wrong too you know. Quaid was once the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Maulana Maududi also produced the most nationalistic and loyal scholars in the form of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Dr. Israr Ahmad.
He gave Pakistan a new purpose after partition, to instill Islam in every level in Pakistan.
Try to look beyond liberal media which tries to paint him as a caricature. He was a complex and scholarly personality, who had the interests of Muslims at heart.
Please explain why Maudidi is disparaging Jinnah and Pakistan Movement, if they were all cut from the same cloth, and wanted to establish the same sort of government as each other. Did Maudidi misunderstand Jinnah's motives? There is a clear contradiction there of some sort. What is it?
They were both modernists. It is a broad category. These are Islamic scholars and politicians who views that traditional role of ulema as negative.
EDIT: I want to clarify further that I believe Jinnah and this other group of "Liberal Muslims" as being democratic in essence, and wanting to establish a democratic state for Muslims of the subcontinent. The main gripe that some of the Ulama had against him was his insistence on this mattter, whilst they believed in a theocratic state where the Ulama had the final say in all political and religious matters, something akin to the Mullah rule in Iran. Maudidi was of the latter group, hence his opposition.
As Maulana Maududi believed, the ulema were corrupt and had lost focus. So no, he did not solely speak for ulema like JUH.
All Pakistanis wanted a theocratic state, but we had no qualms with it coming in the form of a democracy with a constitution. I mean Pakistan is formed on the basis of Islam and Muslim identity.
The disconnect some people have is trying to push a narrative that Quaid was not religious, no, he was a deeply devout Muslim who also knew the best way to fight for the rights and aspirations of Muslims.
All the values which he pushed, such as protection for minorities and women, were Islamic. Regression is what led some Indian ulema to reject him.
Maulana Maududi had difficulties with the concept of nationhood and Islam. He also worried about the Mslims left behind in India. All differences were made moot when partition violence started, then he himself had to flee mobs.
And yet India declares jinnah as some Islamist maniac who dismembered a secular nation to please Islamist designs... Nope. Hindustan is Hindustan, a unique phenomenon, secular when advertising itself but religiously against jinnah and his madrassa state whenever discussing Pakistan over a dinner table. I've been party to these discussions so I'm aware of the dichotomy of personalities India suffers with.
Quaid e Azam set the nation on the right path, which is moderation and modernity, much the same way as Prophet Muhammad saws had done.
In his time also, Prophet Muhammad saws was viewed as radical for advocating rights of the poor, slaves, women, and orphans. Makkans derided him constantly for believing in equality.
