Contents of the February 2008 Issue

Interview: Athar Afzal (Ahl-e Hadith Madrasa Graduate)
Interview: Arshad Amanullah (Ahl-e Hadith Madrasa Graduate)
Interview: Zubair Hudawi (Graduate of a Sunni Madrasa in Kerala)
Interview: Naseem ur-Rahman Falahi (Graduate of the Jamiat ul-Falah, Azamgarh)
Interview: Maqbool Ahmad Siraj (Editor, "Islamic Voice", Bangalore)
Interview: Zafarul Islam Khan (Editor, "Milli Gazette", New Delhi
Interview: Asghar Ali Engineer (Director, Institute of Islamic Studies, Bombay)
Interview: Waris Mazhari (2) (Editor, Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, New Delhi)
Interview: Tariq Rasheed Firangi Mahali (Leading Alim, originally from Lucknow)
Interview: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (Editor, Al-Risala, New Delhi)
New Models of Islamic Education in Kerala

Athar Afzal is a graduate of the Jamia Salafia, Varanasi, the apex madrasa of the Ahl-e Hadith in India. He completed his doctoral studies from the Department of Arabic at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, his thesis being on the role of madrasas in the state of Uttar Pradesh in promoting Arabic and Islamic studies.

(Interviewed by Yoginder Sikand)

Q: Could you tell us something about your educational background?

A: I am from the town of Maunath Bhanjan, in eastern Uttar Pradesh, which is a major centre of Islamic learning. There are scores of important madrasas in the town. Most of them are associated with the Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith schools of thought. I did my initial training at the Jamia Aliya Arabia in Maunath Bhanjan, which is one of the oldest Ahl-i Hadith madrasas in India. It was set up in 1868 by Maulana Faizullah Maui, one of the pioneers of the Ahl-i Hadith movement. I studied in this madrasa for fourteen years, after which I enrolled at the Jamia Salafia, Varanasi, where I studied for two more years. After that I joined the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, where I did my graduation, post-graduation, M.Phil. and then Ph.D from the Arabic Department.

Q: Having received both a madrasa as well as university training, how do you see the sort of education that you received at the madrasa?

A: I think that, on the whole, madrasas are averse to looking at or interpreting Islam in a new, more relevant way. With notable exceptions, they are characterised by a nostalgic hankering after the past, which leads to a certain narrow mindedness. Their way of understanding Islam does not take into account the social context in which we live today. In the Ahl-e Hadith case, with which I am most familiar, there is also a marked tendency to accept the views of Saudi scholars as normative and to impose their legal opinions, in the form of fatwas, on Muslims living in India. This, to my mind, is wrong. In matters of worship the rules do not change across space and time, but in some other social affairs they can, so fatwas on the latter sort of issues that might be appropriate in the Saudi context may not be so in the Indian case. So, for instance, a Saudi mufti may declare that it is wrong to have close relations with people of other faiths, but in India, where Muslims live along with other people, this is ridiculous. Fatwas are specific to time and place, and a fatwa given somewhere at a certain point in time may not be applicable in a totally different context.

This aversion to change and openness is also reflected in the fact that madrasas in general focus overwhelmingly on medieval jurisprudence. They teach their students almost nothing about contemporary social issues, although numerous Islamic scholars, most notably those associated with the Delhi-based Islamic Fiqh Academy, have written extensively on these matters. The books of the Academy are not, however, taught in any madrasa as far as I know. I think, in a sense, this reflects the erroneous assumption of a rigid separation between religious and secular knowledge, which was absent in the early Islamic period.

Q: What measures of reform would you suggest for the madrasas to adopt?

A: It is not that madrasas have been totally immune to change. They have been changing over time, although the pace and scope of these changes may not be as spectacular as some of us would wish. When we talk about reforming the madrasas we must keep in mind their actual goals and purpose. They are meant to train religious specialists and so reforms must be such that can help the madrasas better fulfill their purpose. This is why I feel that the demand that is often made that madrasas should incorporate detailed teaching of Science and Mathematics in their curriculum misses the point completely. I think that rather than the ‘hard’ sciences, we should be thinking in terms of incorporating the social sciences into the curriculum, along with basic Maths and English. Teaching social sciences in the madrasas is important in order that the students can go on to interpret Islam in a socially and contextually relevant manner. You cannot provide meaningful legal opinions or fatwas if you have no idea of the social realities of the country, of which the madrasa students, by and large, know little. A good grounding in the social sciences is necessary in order to develop new perspectives on the principles of jurisprudence to come up with relevant jurisprudential responses to a range of contemporary issues. For this the students should know about current affairs, about the developments in the country and the world at large.

Some madrasas have tried to do this but this has not really taken off. For instance, some years ago the Jamia Salafia arranged for professors from the Jamia Millia Islamia and the Aligarh Muslim University to visit the madrasa and speak to the students on a range of issues of contemporary concern. The students really benefited from the programme, but, sadly, this was discontinued due to opposition by some teachers.

I also feel that madrasas should familiarise their students with the writings of modern Islamic scholars and Quranic commentators, including liberal and progressive Muslim thinkers. As of now, most madrasas teach only the commentaries of early and medieval scholars, whose understanding was influenced by their own times. We, however, need new interpretations of the faith that reflect the circumstances of contemporary India. To illustrate the importance of this let me refer to the debates on dar ul-harb or ‘the abode of war’ and dar ul-islam, ‘the abode of Islam’ that goes back to the classical commentators and which is still taught in most madrasas, although these notions are not Quranic at all. Today, there is no dar ul-harb or dar ul-islam and so it is simply meaningless to teach all this.

Q: What about including English in the madrasa curriculum?

A: I think this is really essential. In addition, I think Hindi and the local regional language also must be taught. Some madrasas now teach English, but the standard of teaching leaves much to be desired. And then there are numerous ulema who fiercely oppose the teaching of English in the madrasas, claiming that this would lead the students astray! This is also why they oppose the idea of madrasa graduates joining universities. I think this argument is wrong. I know of scores of madrasa graduates now studying in universities who are still committed and practising Muslims. I also know of scores of students in the madrasas who routinely skip their prayers. The point I want to make is that this notion that modern or English education will cause the students to abandon Islam is completely erroneous.

Further, I think that if the ulema knew English they would be in a far better position to tell others about Islam, to clear their misunderstandings and to present the faith in a more relevant manner before the general public.

Q: How do you look at the response of the ulema to demands for gender equality now being voiced by a growing number of Muslim women?

A: I think that equality of the genders is mandated by the Quran. I believe that women have as much right to study or work as men do. My own elder sister is a post-graduate and teaches in a government school, and I think there is nothing wrong with that at all. It is fine by me if men and women work together provided they both dress modestly and preserve their dignity. You cannot lock up women in their homes and expect society to progress. Women’s rights can be protected not by men or male ulema alone but by educated women themselves. This is why I believe that women should study Islam for themselves and why we should have many more women Islamic scholars than we now do.

Male scholars or activists alone cannot ensure gender equality. We need women to be equal partners in this project. Men will keep talking about how they are committed to women’s rights, but much of this is simply hot air. Take the case of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, which claims to be the leading Muslim organisation in the country. The Board could have taken up the issue of social reform in a major way, but it has not, and it is hardly visible at the grassroots. It could have mobilised public opinion against caste discrimination, dowry, denial of inheritance rights to women or arbitrary divorce, but it has not done so. One reason is that it is male-dominated, and the few women on the Board do not have much say.

Q: In recent years a number of Indian Ahl-e Hadith scholars have penned scores of books denouncing various other Muslim groups as virtual heretics. How do you look at this?

A: This is not a recent phenomenon. In fact hurling of fatwas of deviation or apostasy has been a fairly frequent occurrence for centuries. In every Muslim sect there are some who believe that other Muslims are infidels and that they alone represent true Islam. Many Ahl-i Hadith scholars also feel that way, but there are several others who do not. The latter believe that their way of understanding Islam is right but they do not condemn others as kafirs.

I think the early 1960s mark a major point of departure in inter-sectarian relations among Muslims in India. Before this, Ahl-e Hadith scholars, while insisting that theirs was the ‘true’ Islam, refrained from branding other Muslim groups in derogatory terms. But from the 1960s onwards there was a gradual change, with some Ahl-e Hadith scholars, like some rival Deobandi and Barelvi writers, penning books denouncing other Muslim groups as virtually outside the pale of Islam. This owes, in part, to the growing Saudi influence on the Ahl-i Hadith, as growing numbers of Ahl-i Hadith scholars now began studying in Saudi universities, where they were taught a very narrow, literalist form of Islam. So, some of them now go to the extent of claiming that the Hanafis, who form the majority of the Indian Muslims, are not Muslims at all! This is, to my mind, ridiculous. I mean, some Hanafi practices may not be in accordance with the Quran or the Prophetic traditions as the Ahl-i Hadith understands them, but this does not mean that you can condemn all Hanafis as non-Muslims. Likewise, the claims put forward by some Deobandi writers that the Ahl-e Hadith is ‘un-Islamic’ is equally distressing. One Deobandi leader even went to the extent of declaring the Ahl-e Hadith as the biggest source of strife in the world. Often, such attacks take the form of personal attacks and abuse.

I think these inter-sectarian conflicts are often simply tussles for power and authority among sections of the ulema. This is like rival political parties who rake up controversial issues to garner mass support and present themselves as the legitimate representatives of the community. On the other hand, some of the ulema who are engaged in this sort of polemics might be motivated by a sincere conviction that they alone represent ‘true’ Islam and who feel that others, too, must follow their way. But the methods that they use are wrong. The Quran tells us to speak to others with kindness and wisdom, not to shout others down or abuse them.

Sadly, the culture of reasoned dialogue is missing in the madrasas. Students are trained to deliver fiery speeches in order to ‘prove’ the ‘falsity’ of other Muslim sects or other religions. Sermons in mosques often take the form of loud, passion-filled harangues. To my mind, this owes something to the intellectual arrogance of many ulema, who presume that they alone have the right to speak and that they know everything and so they don’t think twice before vehemently denouncing those who think differently. Compare this with the practice of the Prophet. Once, a Bedouin entered the mosque and began urinating inside. When the Prophet’s companions saw this they were enraged, but the Prophet asked them to restrain themselves. He asked his companions to wash the spot where the man had urinated, and then gently spoke to the man, telling him that he should not have relieved himself in the mosque. This is a small illustration of how we should relate to people who disagree with us, be they Muslims of other sects or people of other faiths.

Of course we cannot do away with our differences, but we must learn how to live together despite them. The ulema of the different sects will continue to differ, but they should learn to dialogue with each other, rather than condemn others as kafirs. The problem arises when these differences are dragged out into the public arena and the ulema of the different sects seek to mobilise public opinion behind them. In many cases, there is a simple economic factor behind this. The more vociferous you appear to be in the defence of your sect the more money you can rake in from your supporters and the greater the champion of Islam you appear to them to be!

Q: Are you suggesting that there have been no efforts to promote inter-sectarian dialogue among the ulema at all?

A: No, there have been such efforts, but they have not really taken off. For instance, after the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the ensuing widespread killing of Muslims across India, the Jamia Salafia organised a meeting of ulema of different sects, where it was decided that they should all work together on issues of common concern. This unity lasted for only a short time, however, and was later wound up. I think such efforts are so short-lived because of personality clashes, vested interests, lack of modern education and the absence of a culture of tolerance among the ulema and also because many ulema understand Islam from a very narrowly-defined sectarian perspective.

Q: What do you feel about the way in which the ulema relate to other religions and their adherents?

A: The ulema believe that Islam is God’s chosen religion and most of them are convinced that it is the only way to salvation. Many of them also believe that all other religions have lost their relevance after the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. That said, there are differing views on how Muslims should relate to people of other faiths. There are some who regard non-Muslims in a very negative light and who suggest that Muslims should have as little as possible to do with them. Then, there are others, among whom I include myself, who believe that Muslims should befriend people of other faiths, based on the recognition of our common humanity. This is important, not only for its own sake, but also because it is our duty as Muslims to tell others about Islam, which can only happen when our relations with them are cordial. Of course, as the Quran says, there is no compulsion in religion, and God alone guides whom He wills.

This said, I must admit that barring a very few exceptions, the ulema are not engaged in any sort of inter-faith dialogue work, although this is really crucial. They are simply not intellectually equipped for this task. Some ulema invite non-Muslims to the functions that they organise in the madrasas, and they use this occasion to tell them about Islam. For instance, the rector of the Jamia Salafia, where I studied, Dr. Muqtada Hasan Azhari, invited numerous non-Muslims, including the Dalai Lama, to visit the madrasa and speak to the students. He also used to attend inter-faith dialogue meetings in Varanasi. All this is valuable, of course, although I must admit that people like Dr. Azhari are the exception, rather than the rule.

Q: What do you feel about the approach that is adopted in teaching other religions in the madrasas?

A: Very few madrasas actually teach their students anything about other religions. At the Jamia Salafiya we learnt something about Christianity and Judaism, but nothing at all about Hinduism. Most ulema know as little about Hinduism as most Hindu priests know about Islam, and on both sides this is mixed with tremendous misunderstanding and prejudice. This is unfortunate, since we in India live alongside with Hindus and have been doing so for centuries. Also, the teaching of Christianity and Judaism leaves much to be desired. We are not taught to study them as their adherents understand them. Rather, we study them simply in order to refute them, which means we bring our own preconceived notions and prejudices into play. We are guilty of the same sin that we accuse the Christian missionaries and Orientalists of when they study or write about Islam. I think madrasas should invite Hindu, Christian and other scholars to speak to the students about their own religions so that the students can understand these religions as their adherents themselves do.

Q: How have your years at the Jawaharlal Nehru University influenced your own way of thinking about Islam?

A: I think these years have been really valuable. They have helped me broaden my own way of looking at the world, which, in turn, has forced me to reshape my own understanding of Islam. For instance, while I was in the madrasa I had no Hindu acquaintances, but now at the university I have many Hindu friends. We live together and there is no problem, and that has made me realise how similar we all are in so many respects. My Hindu friends have helped me remove many misunderstandings about Hinduism, and I think I have also helped to clear some of their prejudices against Islam. There is no better way of dialogue than personal friendships. Many of my Hindu friends tell me that through me they have learnt to see a different Islam, one that is liberal and accommodative, not conflictual or narrow-minded. Of course, my own approach is not liked by some Muslims, who accuse me of being a communist just because I sympathise with the Left’s commitment to social justice and communal harmony, although I am also a practising Muslim.

Q: What do you think should be the agenda that the Muslim community in India should be setting for itself?

A: I think we need to be talking about modern education, inter-community or inter-religious dialogue, human rights and gender justice much more seriously than we actually are. We also need to join hands with democratic elements in other communities to struggle against religious chauvinism and fascism that appears in different guises. Of course we must speak out against Hindu fascist groups, but we will have no moral authority to do so if we do not also condemn with equal vigour similar groups that come in a ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’ garb.

Q: How do you react to the charge of madrasas being used as ‘factories of terror’?

A: I can speak only about the Indian madrasas as they are the only ones I have knowledge of. I think that this claim of Indian madrasas churning out terrorists is completely incorrect and that there is simply no evidence to back up this assertion. This said, I must also state that several madrasas are indeed in promoting a sort of extremism, but this is not directed against the Indian state or the Hindus but, rather, against rival Muslim sects.

Q: The militant Islamist Lashkar-e Tayyeba, which is associated with the Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, is engaged in the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. How do you, as an Ahl-e Hadith scholar, see the agenda of the Lashkar?

A: I have no hesitation in saying that the Lashkar-e Tayyeba is a terrorist organisation, and its claim that it is engaged in an Islamic jihad against India is complete nonsense. I mean, how can we possibly convince others of our claim that Islam is a peaceful religion when terrorist groups like the Lashkar resort to killing innocent people in the name of Islam? The very logic of the two-nation theory on which India was partitioned, of the Hindus and the Muslims of India being two antagonistic ‘nations’, which groups like the Lashkar propound, is ridiculous, and I am opposed to any further partition of India. Imagine what sort of message goes out to Hindus when some Muslims in Kashmir or wherever demand that because a certain region has a Muslim majority it can no longer remain with India. This is simply intolerable. We Hindus and Muslims have to learn to live with each other peacefully, for there is no other way. We have to counter groups like the Lashkar that speak the language of hatred. We have to find a third way between Bush and Osama. We are neither for blind Westernisation or capitulation to Western imperialism and nor are we for the mindless hatred against non-Muslims that some self-styled Islamists propagate.

I can understand the anger of many Muslims against America, for what America is today doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, but I don’t buy the argument that many radical Islamists make that America is by definition anti-Islam. America’s policies are determined by its perceptions of its own interests, not by any inherent hatred of Islam. This is why the Americans have long enjoyed a very cosy relationship with some countries that claim to be ‘Islamic’ states. There are no permanent friends of foes in politics, only permanent interests. So, it is wrong to brand all Americans or all non-Muslims as anti-Islam, as some radicals tend to. I don’t deny the conspiracy theory outright, but we cannot keep blaming others for all our ills. We also need to introspect, to critique ourselves at the same time, because we are, in part, also to blame for our own sorry predicament. We keep talking about the West violating human rights in Muslim countries, and there is a great deal of truth in this complaint. However, we also need to critique the existing regimes in many Muslim countries, including those that claim to be ‘Islamic’, that deny their own peoples their basic human rights.

Q: Do you see yourself as an exception among the ulema, or are there many others like you?

A: I am certainly not an exception. There are many young madrasa graduates who think on similar lines, especially among those who have also had a university education. However, our voices are rarely, if ever, highlighted in the media, because the media seems to have a vested interest in promoting the stereotypical image of the ulema as fanatics thoroughly opposed to modernity. That said, I think people like us are also to blame in part, because we have not got together to form a movement or even a forum to share our views. One reason is that many of us are too scared to speak out for fear that we might lose our jobs, being condemned as ‘agents’ of one ‘enemy of Islam’ or the other just because we might dissent from the views of those who claim to speak for the entire community. But in addition to that is sheer apathy, for which we alone are responsible.