Interview: Nejatullah Siddiqui on Madrasa Reforms

Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqui is a leading Indian
Islamic scholar, whose specialisation is Islamic
Economics. Recipient of the King Faisal Award for
Islamic Studies, he has taught at the Aligarh Muslim
University and the King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah.
He was a Fellow at the University of California, Los
Angeles and Visting Scholar at the Islamic Development
Bank, Jeddah. He served for sixteen years as member of
the central committee of the Jamaat-e Islami Hind. He
is the author of numerous books, including a recent
one on madrasas. In this interview with Yoginder
Sikand, he talks about various issues related to
madrasas in contemporary South Asia.

Q: Briefly, can you describe your educational and
professional background?

A: I was born in 1931 in Gorakhpur, in what is now
eastern Uttar Pradesh. I studied there till the ninth
standard. It was then that I happened to read some
books by Maulana Maududi, which made me decide to
change my line of studies. I procured the syllabus of
the Dar ul-Uloom, Deoband, thinking that I might go
there for higher education, but it did not satisfy me
. Meanwhile, the Jamaat-e Islami had, following the
Partition, shifted its headquarters to Malihabad, near
Lucknow. After my eleventh grade examinations, I went
there and met senior Jamaat leaders, including then
then amir, Maulana Abul Lais Nadwi. I told him that I
wanted to discontinue my studies and devote myself to
the work of the Jamaat .He asked me to wait till the
jamaat was in a position to make some arrangements

I followed Maulana Sahib's advice. I finished my
twelfth grade in science from the Islamia College,
Gorakhpur. Thereafter, I joined the Jamaat's Thanavi
Darsgah-e Islami in Rampur. This was in 1949, and I
was among the first batch of this school's students. I
stayed there for four years, studying Islamic Studies
and Arabic, after which I joined the Aligarh Muslim
University to study Arabic, English and Economics. I
graduated in 1958, then did my M.A. and then my Ph.D.
from Aligarh in 1966. I then taught Economics at the
AMU, later shifting to King Abdul Aziz University,
Jeddah, where I served as Professor of Economics. In
between I also served as Professor and head at the
Department of Islamic Studies at AMU.

Q: Most of your writings are about Islamic Economics,
but you have recently done a book on Madrasa
Education, in which you have put forward a plan for
reforms. Here you've argued for madrasas to also teach
a modicum of 'secular' subjects. Why do you feel this
is important?

A: I think this is necessary so that the madrasa
students, as would-be ulema, can provide appropriate
responses to the manifold challenges that Muslims are
today faced with. They need to understand the world in
which we live in order to make suitable responses to
challenges. Modern sciences, especially social
sciences, are crucial in this respect. No proper
understanding of self, society and environment can
come from exclusive reliance on old knowledge. Some
ulema, who may be in a minority but whose voices are
undoubtedly influential, continue to argue against the
inclusion of 'secular' subjects in the madrasa
curriculum. Their argument is that if madrasa students
are taught these subjects, in addition to the
traditional subjects, the burden on the students would
simply be too much for them to bear. Consequently,
they claim, the students would be good neither for
'this world' (duniya) nor the hereafter (akhirat).

I think this argument is superficial, and it needs to
be contested. How can you be considered educated, even
in Islamic terms, if you do not know even such basic
things as which side of the body the appendix lies on,
how many lungs a human being has or what bacteria,
that cause various diseases, are? So, modern (asri)
knowledge starts from here, from knowledge of oneself,
and then stretches beyond, to areas covered by various
disciplines such as Geography, Economics and so on and
then their various specialised branches. Obviously, it
is not necessary for madrasa students to be taught
these subjects in depth, but certainly they should be
at least familiar with their basic concepts. The Quran
repeatedly stresses the need for us to ponder on the
beauties of creation, which are signs of God's
existence and His power and mercy. Obviously,
therefore, Islam positively encourages the acquisition
of such knowledge.

So, to come back to the question of whether teaching
the basics of some of these 'secular' subjects in the
madrasas would be feasible, I unhesitatingly say it
is. For this, the madrasas will have to compress their
existing syllabus. When I was studying at the Thanavi
Darsgah in Rampur, I discovered that more than 80 per
cent of the syllabus of Fiqh, Muslim jurisprudence,
and Hadith, Traditions attributed to the Prophet, was
the same. The Hadith course started with teaching the
books of Ritual Purity, Fasting, Prayer and so on, and
this was the same in the case of the Fiqh course. So,
this sort of repetition can be cut down drastically,
which would then give enough time for students to
study basic 'secular' subjects without burdening them.

Q: A major focus of the existing madrasa syllabus is
on Fiqh. In many madrasas, the medieval fiqh texts,
prepared in a very different historical context,
continue to be taught. What changes would you advise
in this regard?

A: Unfortunately, fiqh is taught in most madrasas as
something timeless and changeless, although it is
largely a historical product. So, it is as if the
same Fiqhi or jurisprudential responses are applicable
for all time, leaving no room for ijtihad or creative
juridical responses based on individual reasoning and
reflection on the primary scriptural sources of Islam.
Of course, the rules for prayers, ablutions,
pilgrimage and so on do not change but surely those
related to several other spheres of life which the
medieval jurists have pronounced on, based on their
own ijtihad, might need to be modified in order to
serve their original purpose in a changed social
context.

This is why I think History needs to be taught in
madrasas, so that students can gain an understanding
of social dynamics and how that impacts on our
understanding of religion. By History, I don't mean
just a chronicle about rulers, as it is generally
presented in our textbooks. Besides political history,
the history of ruling elites, we need to also focus on
social, economic and cultural history, the history of
'ordinary' people also. And not just what is conceived
of as Islamic History but World History and Indian
History, too. And then, we must try to see history as
objectively as possible, also looking at the dark
spots of our history as well. There's no use trying to
sweep that under the carpet, as many of us try to. A
proper understanding of history will provide madrasa
students with an understanding of social change,
enabling them to understand the need for ijtihad to
reflect on current social issues, rather than remain
stuck in the groove of the medieval jurists. They will
then learn to appreciate how conditions have changed
so considerably after the age of the classical Imams
that many of their legal prescriptions, based on their
own ijtihad, are not relevant today and need to be
re-thought, and that it is impossible to strictly
abide by them today in the name of taqlid.



There has to be this realization that today, in many
cases, taqlid can lead to considerable taklif or
hardship and is thus not feasible. To cite a small
example, the medieval fuqaha or jurisprudents insist
that a woman should never travel alone, without a
mehram man. Some years ago a man approached an alim
and asked him if his wife could travel by air alone
from Jeddah to Riyadh, a very short journey, provided
that she were dropped off at the Jeddah airport by him
and received by her brother in Riyadh. The alim, who
insisted on taqlid of what the medieval jurists had
ordered, insisted that this was not permissible!



Or take this other case. When currency notes began
being circulated, some ulema argued that zakat need
not be paid on them because, they pointed out, they
are simply a promise to pay the bearer a certain sum
and not tangible assets themselves, on which zakat
could be levied. This they argued based on their
strict adherence to taqlid, but obviously it defeated
the very purpose of zakat, which later forced these
ulema to revise their position.

So, you can see how this adherence to taqlid and an
unhistorical approach to the medieval fiqh schools,
which is often stressed in the madrasas, can lead to
considerable problems today, when the social context
has changed radically. What eventually happens because
of this stern insistence on taqlid in many cases is
that people simply do not follow what the ulema say,
finding it too difficult or inconvenient, or else
approach an alim of a different school of thought for
a more convenient answer.

Obviously, in many cases, strict adherence to taqlid
can lead to a violation of the aims of the shariah
(maqasid-e shariah). Hence, there is an urgent need
for madrasas to also begin to teach maqasid-e shariah
as a separate discipline in order to encourage ijtihad
on a host of issues. Presently, however, this subject
is largely ignored, although recently some
publications have appeared on the subject, and the
Islamic Fiqh Academy in New Delhi is seeking to
popularize it among ulema circles.



Q: Do you think that making the maqasid-e shariah the
focus of teaching fiqh could lead to reformulation of
several fiqh rules, conceived in medieval times, that
might militate against the basic shariah mandate of
equality and justice, such as, for instance, in
matters concerning women and non-Muslims?

A: Certainly. No sphere of life, other than the ritual
observances, can remain immune. Obviously, in many
cases, fiqh rules must change as contexts change if
the aims of the shariah are to be observed. Blind
adherence to the rules of medieval fiqh on a number of
issues can otherwise lead to subverting the very aims
of the shariah. So, for this, the text would have to
be read in its context to discover its underlying
meaning and purpose, and new rules need to be
formulated that would serve the same purpose in
today's very different social context.



Q: How far have madrasas been able to go beyond the
medieval fiqh texts and also include issues (masail)
of contemporary import in their fiqh curriculum?

A: There has been some progress in this regard,
although this has been very limited. Most madrasas
keep repeating the same old fiqhi masail, ignoring
contemporary concerns and questions. Fatima Mernissi,
the noted Moroccan sociologist, mentions a very apt
instance in this regard. She writes that in a noted
madrasa in Tunisia, students were taught about the
various types of water that could be used for
ablutions (wazu). At the end of the class, a student
got up and pointed out that the teacher had mentioned
so many different sources of water, but asked why he
had not mentioned water that comes out of a tap! The
teacher turned red in the face and scolded him, saying
that he was teaching from a very reliable book,
written in medieval times, which did not mention taps!
So, the teacher's whole life was spent in reading such
books, because of which he was unable to answer even
this basic question asked by the student if tap water
could be used for ablutions!



Q: You argue for the need for encouraging ijtihad, but
that requires an environment of critical thinking.
Would you say that the ethos in the madrasas is
conducive to this?

A: With some exceptions, I would say no. Most madrasas
do not encourage their students to ask teachers
questions or to critically think for themselves. When
I was teaching at the Abdul Aziz University in Saudi
Arabia, I was asked to be the co-examiner of a thesis
prepared by a Sudanese student on labour relations in
Islam. In the context of offering a solution to labour
dispute, the student had written: 'I propose this…'.
No sooner had he said this than the senior examiner
pounced on him and scolded him, saying, 'How dare you
propose anything? Your work is simply to transmit what
has been written by the ulema of the past, not to
propose anything new on your own!'.

Now, look at the contrast. I recently visited the King
Fahd Chair of Islamic Commercial Law at Harvard
University in America. I had a look at the course
outline, and was delighted to discover that the
professor had asked his students to collect the views
of the different schools of Muslim jurisprudence on a
range of issues and then decide for themselves which
views were more in accordance with their own
understanding of the Quran and the Prophet's
Tradition. This is a way to encourage students to
think critically for themselves, rather than being
spoon-fed in an authoritarian manner.

This culture of examining, pondering for oneself,
asking questions and critically examining whatever is
passed down in the name of medieval tradition is
heavily discouraged in our madrasas. Sometimes, so
stern is this opposition that those who question what
a certain maulvi says can be easily branded and
condemned as a kafir, even if he might use perfectly
valid Islamic arguments to back his case. So, when we
talk of madrasa reforms, we should not simply advocate
the inclusion of a few 'modern' subjects like social
and natural sciences, but also reform of our ways of
teaching and thinking, encouraging the students to
reflect on changing social realities and what this
means for how fiqh is formulated and understood. There
is no need to think within the established box of the
established schools of medieval fiqh if they don't
provide proper guidance to a range of issues that we
are faced with today.

Q: So, are you then saying that the scripturalist
resources need to be contextually understood in order
to gauge their import in today's circumstances?

A: Exactly. They need to be located in their social
and historical contexts in order to understand their
essence. Meaningful ijtihad can only happen then, or
else we'll be sticking to the letter and ignoring its
substance or essence. Take one instance. The Prophet,
when in Medina, forbade price fixing, saying that God
would arrange for this. This was in order to prevent
people from being exploited. But 150 years later, when
the Islamic Empire came into being, Baghdad, the
Abbasid capital, had a population of almost a million.
In order to relieve people of suffering due to short
supplies of wheat, the ulema agreed that the Sultan
could indeed fix the price of wheat. So, although what
they decided might seem, on the face of it, to have
contravened the Prophet's dictum, it was done to serve
precisely the same purpose of the shariah—ensuring
justice.

Q: How far do you think the Indian ulema have actually
gone in accepting this need for ijtihad to suit the
conditions of contemporary times?

A: Many ulema continue to argue that the age of
ijtihad came to an end with the establishment of the
established schools of Muslim jurisprudence, although,
of course, I do not agree. This opposition to ijtihad
perhaps emerged from the fear that rulers would begin
to interfere in the domain of the shariah to suit
their own purposes. Eighty years ago, the poet-scholar
Muhammad Iqbal boldly called for what he called the
reconstruction of religious thought in Islam, but this
is yet to happen in ulema circles to any appreciable
extent. Perhaps this is because of general apathy.
Another reason is that most Muslim countries are ruled
by dictators, and naturally they do not want any
radical change, which ijtihad would encourage, and
their own vested interests lie in the preservation of
the status quo.

Reviving ijtihad would also necessitate familiarizing
the ulema with the actual empirical conditions of the
Muslims, the country and the global scenario as a
whole, issues that are hardly taught in the madrasas.
We need to think of setting up research institutions
to do this sort of social science research, using the
findings to formulate appropriate juridical and
theological responses to new issues, if need be. Only
then can the ulema provide relevant and proper
guidance to the community. Unfortunately, there are no
such social science research centres worth the name
run by Muslims in India. Such institutions are also
needed to fund research scholars to do proper research
and publish books to counter growing anti-Muslim
propaganda. But the idea of this sort of investment
remains totally foreign to our leaders, unfortunately.
There is simply no vision of this sort. They
fancifully think that simply by issuing some
statements or delivering an impassioned sermon these
issues can be sorted out.

In other words, what I wish to argue is that the
normative discourse about Islam emanating from the
madrasas is not enough. It has to be supplemented by
in-depth social science research. Then, bringing
theory and praxis together, one can come up with
relevant understandings and interpretations of
religion. Studying texts alone is not adequate. That
has to be supplemented with reading life, reading
about and understanding how people lead their lives,
what their existing social problems are. This,
unfortunately, is sorely missing in most madrasas.

You cannot change the conditions of the community by
simply preaching, appealing to people to abide by a
certain normative model, as most of our ulema do.
After some time, most people will react simply by
paying lip service to what is preached. The appeal to
the normative has to be supplemented by practical
action, for which you have to know what the existing
ground realities of the community are. Sad to say,
there is no tradition of empirical social science
research in the madrasas, that still remain trapped in
a purely normative discursive framework.

Q: Some ulema argue that demands for reform in the
madrasa system are a guise to promote the interests of
what they see as anti-Islamic forces, such as the
American establishment. How do you react to this
argument?

A: America's assault on Iraq and Afghanistan have led
many to feel this way. They also see the pressure that
the American government is exercising on a number of
Muslim countries to modify their religious studies'
curriculum in the name of 'reform' but actually to
combat opposition to America. But, then, throughout
history, it has been very difficult for one society to
properly appreciate the other. We today live in a
globalised world but we have not been able to change
our ways suitably to understand the 'other'—this
applies to Muslim-Hindu relations as much as it does
to relations between Muslims and the 'West'. So, I
would argue for the pressing need for genuine dialogue
between Muslims and others on all the issues that are
seen as contentious between them. And, frankly,
madrasas will be able to effectively counter the
mounting vilification campaign against them only if
they introduce necessary changes, such as which I, and
many other Muslims who work along with the ulema, have
suggested. They should learn to introspect and do away
with their own shortcomings.



I think the best way to convince the ulema about the
need for the reforms that I, and several others, hav e
been calling for is to convince them that this is
necessary for producing good Muslim scholars, that
this is precisely what Islam wants, that the ulema
cannot guide Muslim society without a basic knowledge
of a range of contemporary disciplines that are
presently not taught in the madrasas. You need to
convince them that this is an Islamic task, and not
that 'modernity' is something that they are being
sought to be compelled to embrace against their will.





Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqui can be contacted on
mnsiddiqi@hotmail.com

Several of his articles can be accessed on
www.siddiqi.com/mns