Interview: Waris Mazhari on the Ulema and Inter-Sectarian Rivalries

Waris Mazhari, a leading Islamic scholar, is the editor of the New Delhi-based Tarjuman- i Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Old Boys' Association of the Deoband Madrasa.In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he talks about the problems that mark inter-sectarian relations among the Indian Muslim ulema.

YS: The Quran and Hadith places much stress on the unity of Muslims. How, then, do you explain the fact of fierce sectarian disputes among the different groups or sects of Muslims today?
WM: This has mainly to the fact that Islam, which, unlike say a religion like Hinduism, has a comprehensive framework of law or shariah that is all-comprehensive. Shariah contains certain norms or criteria to decide between right and wrong. From this emerge the concepts of shirk (associationism), bidah (innovation), haram (forbidden), halal (permissible), maroof (good) and munkar (evil). And since the shariah can only express itself through human efforts and understood through the use of human reflection, the result of which is called fiqh, there is ample room for differences between the different sects on numerous matters. These are then quickly pounced upon by sectarian maulvis, who readily use them to denounce as deviants or even as kafirs those who interpret the shariah even marginally different from them. The same is true in the case of the Jews, who also have a similar concept of religiously-inspired law, which believing Jews are expected to follow.

On the other hand, even though almost all the Hindu scriptures ordain division based on caste, Hinduism does not have this concept of a well-defined shariah. A Hindu can deny God and still be a Hindu. He can worship in a Muslim shrine and still be a Hindu. He will not be transgressing any shariah rule if he does so, and hence the scope for sectarianism of this sort is greatly reduced as different forms of worship are allowed for and are considered as legitimate.

YS: Madrasas, it is alleged, play a crucial role in fanning inter-sectarian disputes among Muslims. Having studied at some of India's leading madrasas, do you agree with this?
WM: Unfortunately, this is certainly true. Sectarian divisions and conflicts, be they between Shias and Sunnis or between the different groups among the Sunnis, such as the Barelvis, the Deobandis and the Ahl-e Hadith, are a major hurdle to the social, educational and political progress of the Muslim community as a whole. I think it is linked essentially to the economic and other vested interests of sections of the maulvis, who claim to be the representatives of Islam and the Muslims on the basis of their insistence that their own sect alone is true while all the other Muslim sects are false.

There are some liberal, progressive and independent-minded ulema in all the different sects who want to promote intra-sectarian unity and dialogue, but since their interests are linked to their own sects they cannot do anything practical. If they say or do anything that is construed as going against their particular sect, they are subject to boycott or expelled. So, they keep their views to themselves and their close confidants, being afraid to speak out in public against other maulvis who are hell-bent on stoking the flames of intra-Muslim rivalries.

Almost every madrasa in India is associated with one or the other sect. Generally speaking, the way these madrasas understand and present Islam is heavily influenced by their particular sectarian affiliation. This is also reflected in the teaching and publishing activity of the ulema of the madrasas. In many madrasas, students are taught to engage in munazara or polemical debates to denounce the other Muslim sects as aberrant or even as apostates. And so, from an early age, madrasa students are brought up to believe that other Muslim sects are not properly Muslim enough, to put it charitably.

YS: Do you think that inter-sectarian rivalries promoted by certain sections of the maulvis associated with the madrasas have been on the decrease in recent years? Or, contrarily, is it become more intense?
WM: The latter, I am afraid. Sectarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has been given further impetus by various maulvis in the years after 1947, especially in the last two or three decades. Before 19th century, the Deobandis, the Barelvis and the Ahl-e Hadith were merely different trends, not full-blown sects as they today are.

In fact, sectarian rivalry has taken such a turn today that many maulvis make their differences an issue of belief (iman) and infidelity (kufr), truth (haq) and falsehood (batil), claiming that only those who follow their sect are true Muslims and that the others are virtually or wholly disbelievers ( kafirs).

In the past there were a lot of cross-overs and shared ground between the different trends that have now emerged as separate and mutually-opposed sects. So, for instance, the Deobandis, Barlevis and Ahl-e Hadith all claim to be inheritors of the legacy of Shah Waliullah and his family's Islamic revival movement in the Indian sub continent.arelvis and the Deobandis are both Hanafis and both like, Shah Waliullah, recognize Sufism. Yet, now the two groups are considered fierce opponents.

The late Qari Muhammad Tayyeb, the former head of the Deoband madrasa, for instance, believed that there was no harm in attending the urs or annual celebrations at Sufi shrines, because they provide Sufis a chance to get together, and he felt that unlawful customs associated with the urs, which many Deobandis condemn, were not because of the urs itself. But some later Deobandis went ahead and condemned participation in the urs celebrations altogether. Similarly, Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, one of the sheikhs of the founders of the Deoband madrasa, wrote a book titled "Haft Masla" ('Seven Issues'), where he supported certain popular customs and beliefs, like urs, mehfil-e sima or Sufi musical assemblies and so on that are normally associated with the Barelvis, but today these very beliefs and practices are routinely critiqued by many Deobandis in their tirade against the Barelvis.

Or, take the case of Shia-Deobandi relations. Some, though by no means all, Deobandi ulema, particularly in Pakistan, wrongly denounce the Shias as kafirs. The great eighteenth century Indian scholars Shah Waliullah and his son Shah Abdul Aziz, who are held in great respect by the Deobandis, did not condemn the Shias as kafirs, although they believed that they had strayed from the true path. Maulana Qasim Nanotvi, the founder of the Deoband madrasa, wrote a book on Shia but he did not charge them with infidelity A. leading Deobandi cleric, the late Chief Mufti of Deoband, Maulana Mahmud ul-Hasan, was of the same opinion. But today, you have some Deobandis who band Shias as kafirs, although, I must add, most of them, at least in India, do not hold this extreme opinion.So, the point I am making is that earlier there were ideological differences between different groups of ulema, but at least within the broader Sunni fold, these were in the form of tendencies or trends, rather than as separate sects, as they later transformed into. A host of political factors and, of course, the vested interests of some sections of the ulema intervened and widened the gap between these tendencies, so much so that today they see each other as inveterate rivals.

A lot of literature has been written by sectarian polemicists to further widen these divisions. Often, small issues of difference are taken by these people and magnified all out of proportion in order to widen sectarian divisions and thereby stress each sect's claim of being the only authentic Muslim sect.

Take, for instance, numerous ideologues of the Ahl-e-Hadith, who argue that the other Muslims, who abide by the principle of taqlid, or following the guidance of one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, or who might perform some Sufi rituals that was not common in the early Islamic era, are committing a grievous sin similar to shirk or associating others with God. Some of them go so far as to denounce other Muslims as kafirs. The Deobandis, being thus attacked by the Ahl-e Hadith, reacted with their own defenses and by denouncing the Ahl-e Hadith as troublemakers. To add to these wranglings, because the Deobandis and Ahl-e Hadith both critiqued various popular customs prevalent among the Indian Muslims, advocates of the cults of the Sufis reacted by going on the offensive, and, led by their chief ideologue, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, they emerged as a new sect, the Barelvis, in the early twentieth century.

YS: In many cases, relatively minor issues related to the external form of performing certain rituals become the focus of intense inter-sectarian dispute among the ulema of different sects. Why is this?
WM: To understand this you will have to go back to the period of the early Muslims. There were differences even among many sahaba, companions of the Prophet, and their followers, on a lot of matters. But unlike many maulvis today, they tolerated these differences and did not use them to denounce those who differed from them as deviant. On some occasions, the Prophet Muhammad said or did something which he did not say or do other times. In several matters, the Prophet's method varied. Hence, different sahaba narrated different reports based on what they had seen, and these were considered as equally valid. But today, literalist groups like the Ahl-e Hadith go to the extent of arguing that only that report about the Prophet is valid which is according to their thought and belief. So, they claim, one who does not read the opening verse of the Quran or Surah al-Fateha during their prayers while standing behind the Imam or does not lift up his hands before bending down (ruku) is deviant and should be condemned. Such a narrow-minded approach is really awful. It is a significant departure from the tolerance displayed by the sahaba.

The early Muslim scholars also recognized that differences are acceptable in mujtahid fi masail, those issues in which ijtihad, or the creative application of human reason, can be applied. Although they stressed that their own position on such matters was better (afzal) and that other positions were less favorable (ghair afzal ), they did not engage in takfir or condemning those who differed from them as kafirs or deviants.

Today, we need to emulate the model of the early Muslims, who exhibited a generous tolerance on matters on which they differed, and not, as is often the case today, descending to branding those who differ from them as heretics.

YS: Some argue that foreign funds provided to some sectarian groups have further escalated the problem of Muslim sectarianism in India. What do you have to say about this?
WM: Yes, this has happened, particularly from the 1980s onwards. Funding from Saudi Arabia and certain other Gulf states has benefited largely the Ahl-e Hadith, who claim before the Saudi Salafi or Wahhabi ulema that they are loyal to them and that there is no difference at all between them, although this was not the case with the early Ahl-e Hadith movement. This has enabled them to get huge funding from the Saudis, to build their own madrasas and mosques, publish their literature and organize big conferences. So, you will find that almost all the big Ahl-e Hadith madrasas in India were established in or after the 1980s, and most of them, not through local community funds, but, instead, through money from the Gulf.

Using the lavish funds that they got from abroad, Ahl-e Hadith polemicists began publishing literature defaming the Deobandis and the Barelvis as virtual heretics. In turn, these groups responded with similar literature against the Ahl-e Hadith. Then, some Deobandis, seeing that the Ahl-e Hadith were getting easy money from the Gulf, also tried to come closer to the Saudi Salafis. They began claiming that they, too, had a soft corner for Wahhabism, hoping that this would also win them financial support from the Saudis. And this led to further conflicts between them and the Ahl-e Hadith, as both started competing for Saudi patronage.

However, in recent years some positive changes have been taking place. In the face of growing attacks on madrasas and other Muslim institutions and the ever-looming challenge of right-wing Hindu forces, some ulema from the different sects are increasingly coming together on the same platforms to voice the concerns of Muslims as a whole, and not just of those who belong to their own sects. You could call that a positive fall-out of a negative development.

YS: Some Muslim writers blame a 'foreign hand' for internal sectarian strife among Muslims. Do you agree with this thesis?
WM: This sort of thinking represents the insular mentality of a community that is suffering from a sense of defeat and loss. When a community reaches this level, it seeks to blame others for all its ills. Instead of looking within and introspecting to see where it has gone wrong, it talks of 'conspiracy theories' and 'a hidden hand', blaming others for its own internal problems. Such a way of thinking must change. We must recognize that we Muslims are ourselves primarily responsible for sectarian strife. True, others might take advantage of this strife for their own vested interests, as America is doing with regard to the Shias and the Sunnis in Iraq, but that should not cause us to forget that the root cause is largely internal.

YS: Are there any institutions in India that are working for promoting dialogue among the ulema of the different Muslim sects?
WM: No, unfortunately not, although this is really vital. The situation is so bad that one never even hears, for instance, of a Barelvi delegation visiting a Deobandi madrasa or Ahl-e-Hadith students taking up study in a Barelvi madrasa or vice versa, although all three of them claim to be Sunnis. Even now the medieval tradition of munazara or polemics continues, either in the form of actual public debates or through scurrilous polemical literature. These debates and diatribes have not served any constructive purpose. Instead of seeking to understand others, as should be the purpose, these debates aim only to score points over the other groups, to find fault with and denounce them. So, they have only further stoked the rivalries between the different groups. The gravity of the situation can be gauged by the fact that there is hardly any literature available on the need for and the methods of promoting genuine dialogue and understanding among the different Muslim sects. Few functions or programmes on this subject have ever been organized.

YS: Given this, how do you think dialogue between the ulema of the different sects could be promoted?
WM: There has to be a realization that today dialogue, not confrontation, is the way out, at the international level, between different religions and communities and also between the different Muslim sects. In order to proceed with dialogue, representatives of all the various sects must first meet, not for debate, but, rather, to explain their own positions without denouncing the others. They should identify the issues that they share in common as well as those that they differ on. On the latter, they should agree to disagree, and they must focus on the former in the larger interests of the entire Muslim community. Further, they can also dialogue on issues of common concern to all Muslims, say, for instance, on poverty, illiteracy, marginalisation, victimization by communal forces and so on.

YS: But who, do you think, can actually take the initiative?
WM: I think that 'modern' educated Muslims, who, typically, stay away from such issues to do with the ulema, must intervene and take the lead in setting up organizations to promote inter-sectarian unity and dialogue between the different sects. In this, they must work with open-minded and progressive ulema, especially those who have also had a benefit of university education and are not rigidly circumscribed by sectarian boundaries.

If these organizations are floated and controlled by the traditional ulema they are not likely to be very successful, as, inevitably, they would not be able to go beyond their sectarian biases and prejudices. So, although they must be close to the ulema of the madrasas, they should not get fully assimilated into them. Organisations like the Jamaat-e Islami and the Institute of Objective, Studies, New Delhi, can play an important role here. They are not controlled or dominated by the ulema, but, at the same time, have good links with them, and they also have some representatives from among them. Another thing: the organisations must not be dependent on the general public for their finances, as then they will not be able to say or do anything that goes against the sectarian prejudices that remain dominant among the public. Rather, they should have their own financial resources so as to be largely self-sustaining.