Interview: Maulana Kalbe Sadiq on Indian Madrasas

Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, a leading Shia Muslim scholar, is the Vice-President of the All-India Muslim Personal law Board (AIMPLB). He has a Ph.D. in Arabic from Lucknow University and runs a chain of schools and colleges in Uttar Pradesh. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he talks about various issues related to madrasas and Muslim education in contemporary India

Q: While being a religious scholar, you are also engaged in promoting modern education among Muslims. What role do you feel the ulema should play in the field of education?

A: A true scholar, as Imam Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet and the first Shia Imam, once mentioned in a sermon, is one who struggles for the end of oppression and for the establishment of social justice. I do respect the ulema, of course, but I must say that, on the whole, they have cut themselves off from the public, from issues of contemporary social concern. Most of them do not have any interest in working to alleviate the sufferings of the people, as the Prophet did. I think that you cannot call yourself a religious scholar if you do not help the distressed and the needy. Now, this sort of service is not to be limited simply to preaching the virtues of religion, but must also include providing people concrete services, setting up welfare organizations, promoting modern, in addition to religious, education and so on. The mission of the ulema should be to help people, not to create more problems for them.

The Holy Quran tells us to leave aside those things that don’t give any benefit to people. So, we need to develop a socially engaged understanding of Islam that enables us to help people in concrete ways. Otherwise, the youth will ask us why we are building fancy mosques but doing nothing for the poor, when the essence of Islam is to help those in need. This means that the ulema must be more socially engaged than they presently are. They must come out of their mosques and madrasas and move among the masses, understand their economic, educational and social problems and seek to solve them in practical terms. They must raise their voice against oppression, no matter what the religion of the oppressor is. However, unfortunately, most ulema have forgotten this responsibility and restrict themselves to leading prayers and giving fatwas and so on.

Q: What are your views about the ongoing debates on madrasa reforms? Critics argue that much that the madrasas teach is irrelevant in today’s context and leaves their students ignorant of issues of pressing contemporary concern.

A: There is an immense stagnation of thought in most of the madrasas, and this is a major problem. The major focus in the madrasas is on the nitty-gritty of ritual actions, and there is really no effort to provide the students with an awareness of the major issues in the wider world.

Education, or, rather, the lack of it, I one of the most crucial challenges facing the Muslims of India is that of education. We must make that one of our foremost priorities. There may be some ulema who do not recognize the importance of modern education, but, increasingly, the ulema, both Shia as well as Sunni, are realizing it. Imam Ali said that he who doesn’t know about something, he becomes its enemy. Likewise, there may be some maulvis who know nothing about modern education or science and, therefore, oppose it. However, these are increasingly becoming a smaller minority.

But on the other hand, this saying of Imam Ali also applies to those who have ‘modern’ knowledge but know nothing about religion, and so they also begin to oppose it or neglect it, thinking that it is a sign of ‘backwardness’.

Personally, I see myself as in between these two extremes. I feel that our survival depends critically on excellence in modern education. But I also stress the importance of religious knowledge. Through science and technology you can control the world, but true religion means control over oneself, one’s soul. And so you find big scientists spending their lives inventing machines to destroy human beings because they have no faith in God. So, I keep stressing, what we need is both ‘modern’ as well as religious education.

The Government of India itself admits that Muslims are among the most marginalized communities in the country in terms of education and in many other fields. Hence, my appeal to Muslims is, for God’s sake, open your eyes! This time is not for building palatial mosques, but, instead, for using our resources for setting up schools, colleges, polytechnics and research institutes. I also say that much of what is being taught in the name of religion in madrasas has nothing top do with true religion or spirituality. True religion inheres in values, not just rituals. But, unfortunately, much of what is imparted in the name of religious education is ritualism, without the foundational values of true religion.

Q: What do you feel about the government’s proposals for intervening in the madrasas in the name of ‘reform’?

A: Muslim opinion on this is divided. Some Muslims favour this and others oppose it. So, I can’t really give any opinion on the matter. But the point is that merely installing two or three computers in a madrasa and teaching basic English and Mathematics will not lead to any substantial change. Madrasas need to change their basic approach. They need to adopt modern ways of approaching a host of issues. We urgently need to exercise creative reflection (ijtihad) in order to meet contemporary challenges.

Q: In the Jafari Shia school of jurisprudence, which you represent, ijtihad is allowed for, while many Sunni ulema argue to the contrary. What do you have to say about this?

A: Yes, in our school ijtihad has always been open, so our leading clerics or mujtahids are able to respond to contemporary issues through ijtihad. But even among Sunni scholars today many are calling for the ‘gates of ijtihad’ to be re-opened. This will probably happen soon, if not today, then tomorrow, because it is not possible to have a stagnant jurisprudence for a constantly and rapidly changing world.

Q: In India today, a growing number of ulema are setting up ‘modern’ schools, which provide both ‘modern’ as well as Islamic education. How do you see this?

A: I think it is a very positive development. However, many of these schools are of mediocre standard. A person should do what he or she is trained for or capable of. But many of the ulema who run such schools seek to tightly control them even though they do not have any ‘modern’ education themselves. This, I think, is wrong, and only results in poor standards. In my own case, I have been associated with the setting up of numerous schools and colleges, and even a medical college in Lucknow, but I have left the management of these institutions to a professional team and do not interfere in their day-to-day functioning. Unfortunately, many top-ranking mullahs who control institutions are victims of enormous egoism and that is why they want to treat their institutions like their own private properties.

Q: Muslim education, in India and elsewhere, is characterized by an extreme dualism, between the ulema of the madrasas, on the one hand, and the ‘modern’ educated middle class, on the other hand. How can this dualism be bridged?

A: Rather than term it as dualism, I would prefer to see this as representing two channels of education. Only if and when these two channels meet can our woeful educational conditions really change. At present, there is hardly any communication between the two groups, as a result of which there are great apprehensions, misgivings and misunderstandings on both sides.

We must appreciate the good points in both systems of education and seek to bring them together. For this, too, we need to take recourse to ijtihad so that our approach, in the field of education, as elsewhere, is based on the ethical values of Islam, rather than on empty ritualism. Imam Ali told his son, Hazrat Muhammad bin Hanafiya, that when one goes to some other land one should not isolate oneself. He advised that one should abide by one’s values and yet adopt the good things that one finds among the people one lives with. So, in the field of education, as in other fields, Muslims should take good things from others and there is nothing wrong with that.

Q: What do you think the state should do for Muslim education?

A: Muslims expect a lot from the government, but the government is so corrupt. We don’t have real democracy in India. Real democracy means the protection of the rights of the minorities, not brute majoritarian rule. But, sadly, in India minorities are not given their due. But then, expecting that the government alone should shoulder the responsibility of solving Muslims’ educational problems is asking for something that even God does not allow for. In the Holy Quran God says that He does not change the conditions of a people unless they make efforts to change these themselves. So, those Muslims who demand that the government should change its policies but are themselves unwilling to change or to do anything positive and constructive for the community are living in a fool’s paradise. In other words, Muslims have to take the initiative themselves, while, of course, the government also has to abide by its duties. Unless Muslims themselves make efforts to promote education in the community nothing is going to change.

Q: You yourself have studied in leading madrasas in Lucknow, the Madrasat ul-Waizin and the Madrasa Nazmiya. How do you see the increasing attacks on madrasas in the media today?

A: I can say with full confidence that no madrasa in India, whether Shia or Sunni, is engaged in providing any sort of terrorist training. There are indeed some in Pakistan that are doing this, but this does not apply to India at all. I think this talk of Indian madrasas being allegedly engaged in promoting terrorism has been deliberately engineered by anti-Muslim parties and outfits. These groups do not want to see the truth, so even if we try to explain the reality of the madrasas to them, they will not listen or cease their anti-madrasa propaganda. I think they are deliberately doing this so that Muslims devote all their attention to defending madrasas, thus leaving them no breathing space to focus on modern education. It is a means, actually, to perpetuate Muslim educational marginalisation.

Our madrasas are open for all to see. They impart the message of humanity, not terrorism. Anyone can come to the madrasas and see this for oneself. And in the case of the Shia madrasas, I can confidently say that we give equal stress on worship of God and the service of God’s creatures. Shias believe that you cannot, under any condition, give up your own life unless it is to save the life of an innocent person, irrespective of her or his religion.

Q: What do you have to say about the demonisation of madrasas in the Western media?

A: This is part of the larger Western design to demonise Islam. The West needs an enemy to survive, to seek an excuse for its imperialistic offensives. And if such an enemy does not really exist, it has to conjure up a ghost and use it to scare people. So, following the collapse of Communism, the West and Zionist forces, desperately searching for an enemy, decided to project Muslims as the new foe. They began claiming that Islam presents a danger to the world and in this way sought to create hatred against Islam and its adherents. And while there are terrorists among Christians, Jews and Hindus as well, the media only refers to Muslims when it talks of terrorism. This is part of a well-planned strategy.

We must be dispassionate when discussing the issue of violence in many Muslim countries. The West needs to look at the causes of this unrest and address and remove them if it is seriously interested in solving the problem. In fact, it is primarily the West, and its client state, Israel, that have created conditions for this unrest. The oppression and denial of the rights of the Palestinians, the invasion of Iraq and so on—all these have naturally created conditions of unrest among Muslims, who wish to retaliate. After all, even if you pinch a little ant, it seeks to defend itself by biting back.

Q: Since you refer to Iraq, what are your views about sectarian conflicts raging there, between Shias and Sunnis?

A: This sort of thing never existed in Iraq before the American invasion. There was never any sort of terrorism there before the Americans invaded. My mother was from Iraq and I know the country and its people well. There was never any Shia-Sunni problem in Iraq, and even though Shias are in a majority there, relations between Shia and Sunni Iraqis were cordial. It is true that Saddam persecuted Shia leaders and arranged for many of them to be killed, but he also persecuted many Sunnis and caused their deaths, too.

Before the Americans invaded, Iraqis rarely thought of themselves as Shias and Sunnis or as rivals on the basis of sect. There was never any inter-sectarian violence there. All this started and flared up after the Americans invaded Iraq in the name of bringing ‘peace’ and ‘democracy’ to that country. And I think the Americans are deliberately trying to stoke sectarian rivalry in Iraq and prolong the civil war so that they can divide and rule.

Q: Some Muslims argue that America is anti-Islam or anti-Muslim, and see its invasion of Iraq, among other developments, as proof of this. Do you agree?

A: One has to distinguish between the American people and the current American government. I am not saying that all Americans are anti-Islam. This is not true, but the same cannot be said to be true of the Bush administration. I must say that many Americans are indeed open-minded. However, they are easily swayed by the media, and the dominant Western media has a vested interest in whipping up anti-Muslim hatred. I strongly believe that if we are able to reach out to the American people with the truth, many of them will indeed listen to us and will also agree with us.

Q: To come back to the issue of inter-sectarian and inter-community dialogue in India, what role do you feel the ulema could play?

A: I think that in this regard their first responsibility is to refrain from inciting Muslims to take to violence under any condition. They must also seek to promote dialogue and unity between the different Muslim sects. In this they must focus on the many things that the different Muslim sects share in common and refrain from using the few issues on which they differ in order to divide them.

As for inter-religious dialogue, I think the Muslim ulema and religious scholars from other religious traditions need to take it up with great seriousness and urgency. This is the only way to solve inter-community disputes. I have read about other religions and have come to the conclusion that while they differ in matters of ritual, if one goes to their core and studies them in detail, one finds that many of them share the same spiritual basis. We need to build on that shared spirituality.

Q: What efforts are being made to promote inter-sectarian dialogue among Muslims, especially between the Shia and Sunni ulema, in India today?

A: Although this is very important, in India today there are no organized efforts to promote inter-sectarian dialogue between the ulema of different sects. I think this is really very unfortunate. However, despite this, the demand for dialogue and unity is being voiced from various quarters, although some extremist, some obscurantist mullahs might oppose this.

Q: What about efforts to promote Shia-Sunni dialogue in other countries?

A: In Pakistan, a Deobandi scholar, Maulana Ishad Madani, recently challenged anyone who can justify the denial of the need for Sunni-Shia dialogue. A leading Indian Deobandi scholar, Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, recently wrote a wonderful article stressing the need for Shia-Sunni unity and dialogue. In Iran several efforts are being made in this regard. For instance, every year the Iranian government celebrates the ‘Unity Week’, and invites Sunni and Shia ulema and activists from different countries to participate together and to stress Muslim unity.

Q: But some hardliner Sunnis would argue that this is not a sincere effort and would claim that this is a ‘pretence’, referring to the Shia notion of taqiyya or dissimulation.

A: Let these critics say what they want. But I know that the government of Iran is indeed serious about this. After all, in Iran, where Shias are an overwhelming majority and Sunnis a small minority, there is no Shia-Sunni problem. Likewise, in Iraq, where Shias account for 65% of the population, although fringe groups like Al-Qaeda are targeting Shias and their holy sites, the Iraqi Shia religious leadership has constantly warned the Shias against falling into the American trap by retaliating against the Sunnis. They have stressed the need for Iraqi Shias and Sunnis to be united and stand up against the American occupying forces. This is surely a sign of a very great and mature leadership. America is trying to set Sunnis and Shias against each other in Iraq and elsewhere, and Muslims should see through this sinister game plan.

Q: What role has the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, of which you are the Vice-President, played in promoting Shia-Sunni dialogue?

A: The issue of Shia-Sunni dialogue is not within the purview of the Board, whose focus is only the question of the administration of Muslim personal law in India. However, the fact that Shias and Sunnis have representatives on the Board is itself of considerable significance. But, still, I do feel the need for an organized forum in India, as well as elsewhere, to bring the ulema of the different Muslim sects together. We should move away from the past and think of our common future. It is pointless talking about what happened between Shias and Sunnis in the past. What’s happened has happened, and that we cannot change. But we can build a better common future if we work together. Instead of thinking of the welfare of just our own sects, we should think in terms of general Muslim welfare and interests.

Q: In Lucknow, where you live and work, there have been several cases of violent conflict between Shias and Sunnis. What role have local Shia and Sunni ulema played in defusing this tension? Do they visit each other’s institutions and madrasas to exchange views?

A: There is a tremendous communication gap between the ulema of the different Muslim sects here. I think I must be one of the only ulema in Lucknow who visit the institutions of other Muslim sects. I have visited the Nadwat ul-Ulema, a leading Sunni madrasa in Lucknow, several times and have interacted with students and teachers there in a very friendly atmosphere. I have visited another major Sunni madrasa in Uttar Pradesh, the Madrasat ul-Islah in Sarai Mir, in Azamgarh, a couple of times. I was also invited to the Ahl-e Hadith mosque in Malerkotla, Punjab, where I delivered three lectures, which were well received. I have good contacts with leading Sunni ulema.

Q: Some extreme anti-Shia groups, such as some official Saudi Wahhabi ulema, have gone to the extent of claiming that Shias are non-Muslims. How do statements like these impact on efforts to promote Shia-Sunni dialogue and unity?

A: The Saudi government is a slave of the United States. It instigates its paid mullahs to issue such fatwas against the Shias in order to protect its own interests as well as that of America. Some Saudi mullahs have declared that Muslim holy shrines in Iran and Iraq, which the Shias particularly revere, should be bombed. I would appeal to all Muslims, Sunnis as well as Shias, to see through this game and not fall into efforts to divide them.

Q: How do you look at the issue of inter-faith relations from an Islamic point of view?

A: There are, broadly, two ways of approaching this question. The first is to see it in terms of a so-called ‘clash of civilisations’. Another way is to look at it as an opportunity and a challenge, to work for inter-faith dialogue, and that is what I personally believe in and have tried to follow. I have had numerous dialogues and discussions with Hindu religious leaders in India, and with several Sunni Muslim leaders in India, Pakistan and elsewhere. Dialogue through personal communication and contact, I believe, is the only way to clear misunderstandings and bring the different communities closer. There is really no other way out.

Q: Many Indian ulema typically view Hinduism in very negative terms. Do you see the possibility of a different way of looking at the issue?

A: I think the ulema must seriously discuss this question. The Quran talks about the Ahl-e Kitab, or ‘People of the Book’, whom it considers as ‘protected people’, such as Jews and Christians. It recognises that they have been recipients of holy scriptures. Now, in traditional Islamic jurisprudence there is another group of people who are seen as similar to the ‘People of the Book’, such as the Zoroastrians, who also claim to have received divine scriptures. So, perhaps the Hindus can also be considered, from this juridical point of view, as similar to the Zoroastrians. I’ve read the Bhagwad Gita, and I can say that it preaches pure monotheism and is opposed to idolatry. Those who have read the Vedas also make the same point. And then, the Quran itself clearly says that God has sent messengers to every community, so it might well be that the Vedas were divinely revealed texts.

Q: How do you view the phenomenon of Islamism that is so much talked about today?

A: See, the Islamic law or shariah rests on certain basic fundamentals: intellectual development, spiritual development and production of life, and production of wealth. Now, a society which rests on these principles is a balanced one. If that is what you refer to as advocates of Islamism are struggling for, I support it. But no ideology can be forcibly imposed, because this is an age of dialogue. You cannot shove something down people’s throats. Instead, you need to convince them of your claims by the force of your personality and character. The Quran very clearly states that there can be no compulsion in religion.

In this context, one also must understand how religion has been misused for narrow political ends, so not every state that claims to be ‘Islamic’ really is so. Is Pakistan really an ‘Islamic’ state? Are Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Iran? No, in my opinion, there is no state today which can claim to be fully ‘Islamic’ in the true sense of the term. A truly Islamic society, as the Prophet Mohammad defined it, is one where there is complete social justice, which is not to be found in any of the so-called Islamic states in the world today. In my view, the basic purpose of God's sending to earth a succession of prophets and scriptures was to end oppression and establish social justice. So, as I see it, an ideal state would be one in which nobody, irrespective of religion, is oppressed. Any other sort of rule is not really ‘Islamic’.

Q: Increasingly, in places such as Pakistan, there has been an alarming rise in Shia-Sunni clashes. How do you account for this and what can be done to stop the spread of this sort of sectarian conflict?

A: I do not believe that there is any inherent conflict between Shias and Sunnis. After all, there have been relatively few cases of Shia-Sunni clashes in India. Even in Pakistan it is not really a Shia-Sunni conflict. Ordinary Shias and Sunnis in Pakistan live together in peace. The real cause of these incidents of violence is political, and politicians and some mullahs who claim to be religious leaders have a vested interest in instigating sectarian violence. It is the work of ignorant mullahs, who provoke their equally ignorant followers.

Q: At the theological level, how do you think Shia-Sunni differences can be resolved?

A: We cannot do away with all our differences, but we can narrow them down and learn to live with those that remain. These different sects are human creations, while true religion is from God. So, you can remain associated with whatever sect you want, but you must also remember that all the different sects have been made by human beings. Since Islam is divine, that must be a Muslim’s primary reference point, and only after that need one identify with one of the many sects, if one wants to. The problem arises when you reverse the order, and you place something that is a human product over and above that which is divine.

People change their views not through polemical wars but by being influenced by the character and behaviour of others. If you show that you love them, they will express their love for you, too. Hatred only produces further hatred, making the problem even more intractable. And this principle is as valid in the case of intra-Muslim differences as it is, say, in the case of relations between Muslims and others.