Interview: Asghar Ali Engineer

Asghar Ali Engineer is the director of the Mumbai-based Centre for the Study of Secularism and Society and the Institute for Islamic Studies. He has written extensively on Muslim and Islamic issues and has been in the forefront of the struggle against fascism and communal conflict in India.

(Interviewed by Yoginder Sikand)

Q: Right-wing Hindu groups and influential sections of the Indian press portray madrasas, branding them as centres of ‘obscurantism’ and as breeding grounds for ‘terrorists’. What do you have to say about this?

A: This propaganda against the madrasas in India is unfair and unsubstantiated. It is nothing short of motivated political propaganda. It is a complete travesty of truth to say that all or even most madrasas in India are centres of pro-Pakistani elements or agents of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). If there is any truth in the allegations against the madrasas, then why does the government not publish a white paper on the subject? I think this propaganda against the madrasas is calculated to deliberately create communal tensions and fuel anti-Muslim prejudice. Madrasas only impart basic education of Islam to children. How on earth can these children be agents of the ISI? As for the larger madrasas, these are basically centres of higher Islamic learning. One can differ with them on their syllabus and methods of teaching, but one cannot accuse them of engaging in any sort of political activity.

Q: But the Deoband madrasa, the largest in South Asia, does have a long history of political involvement.

A: That is true, but it is important to note that the vast majority of the Deobandi scholars were fierce opponents of the Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan. Instead, they strongly supported a united India. In the 1940s, the then rector of the Deoband madrasa, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, wrote extensively against the Pakistan movement. In his book Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam (‘Composite Nationalism and Islam’), he argued that the Muslims and Hindus of India were one nation, and that religion alone could not be the basis of nationalism. Hence, he stressed, Muslims must work along with Hindus for a free, united India, where all communities would have equal rights.

Q: How do you see the question of reforms in the madrasa system?

A: I have been consistently critical of the dars-e nizami, the syllabus which is used, although in some modified forms, in most of the Indian madrasas. This syllabus is, in my view, outdated and needs to be revised. Madrasas still teach subjects like ancient Greek philosophy and Ptolemian astronomy, which they wrongly consider to be somehow part of the Islamic tradition. At a certain stage in history perhaps these subjects were useful, but are no longer so and so should be done away with. I am not alone in saying this. Many ulema hold the same position. In place of the old and outdated ‘rational sciences’, modern social and natural sciences and humanities should be taught, as well as comparative religions. In this way, the graduates of the madrasas would be better informed about the conditions of the modern world and hence would be in a better position to give their legal opinions or fatwas on matters related to Islamic jurisprudence. Christian seminaries are doing this sort of thing today. Catholic priests are studying, besides their own religion, subjects like history, economics, sociology, political science and comparative religions, and so are better equipped to handle the challenges that modernity places before us all.

In medieval times, leading Muslim ulema did likewise. Faced with the challenge of Greek philosophy, they mastered it, and medieval madrasas produced leading Muslim philosophers, sci­entists, logicians and mathematicians, who were also pious Muslims themselves. So, there is no reason why the ulema of today shouldn’t do the same and learn modern subjects. But to promote this sort of reform, instead of blindly opposing the madrasas I feel one should think of ways to creatively work with them for change. After all, for many Muslims, especially the poor, madrasas serve a valuable function of providing free education and literacy.

Q: Why do you think Indian madrasas today give so much stress to the intricacies of jurisprudence, to the relative neglect of many other subjects?

A: The reason for this perhaps is that Islam first spread among peoples who had had no well-developed tradition of law. The Arab tribes had no regular system of government. That is why the early Muslim scholars paid such close attention to developing a system of jurisprudence. However, today, most tradi­tional ulema insist on the need to blindly follow past jurisprudential precedent , what is called taqlid in technical parlance, while ignoring what the many early ulema were so particular about—the need to exercise independent judgment or ijtihad based on a thorough understanding of the principles of fiqh, which, unfortunately, is not much stressed in the madrasas today So, you have ulema today who talk about the great rewards of using a tooth-brush made of the twig of a particular tree, because the Prophet used this to clean his teeth. They write entire books on the how long the tooth-brush should be and from which tree it should be made and so on, while they ignore the fact that the world has moved on to the age of toothpaste! Or, for that matter, many ulema have penned tracts on the amount of zakat (poor-due) that should be paid on a camel or a goat, while they forget that pastoral societies are fast disappearing from off the face of the earth!

The point is that many traditional ulema, by remaining wedded to past jurisprudential precedent or taqlid, have ignored the need for ijtihad and the need for approaching the question of fiqh through a study of its basic principles.

Q: But surely there are many ulema who do stress the need today for ijtihad in order to come to terms with the challenges of modernity?

A: Such ulema, in India at least, are few, and the vast majori­ty still insists on the need for taqlid of the particular school of law to which they belong. Forget about ijtihad-e mutlaq or free-ranging ijtihad, many of them would not even allow for ijtihad-e muqayyad or choosing opinions from other estab­lished schools of Islamic jurisprudence or from among the different views within a particular school. I agree that there is no need for ijtihad as far as basic beliefs and ritual practices are concerned, but surely in other matters, such as social relations, Islam does allow for the exercise of ijtihad to some degree.

Unfortunately, we are yet to see the emer­gence of ulema brave enough to talk of ijtihad in these mat­ters, which is really the need of the hour today. Instead of blind adherence to the existing legal schools, I say there is no reason why there should be no new schools of thought and jurisprudence attuned to today’s conditions.