Profesor Akhtar ul-Wasey is the head of the Department of Islamic Studies and the Director of the Zakir Husain Institute of Islamic Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he reflects on the functioning of the various Islamic Studies Departments in universities across India and on madrasa education in the country.
Q: How do you see the role of the Departments of Islamic Studies in those universities in India that have such departments?
A: Very few Indian universities have such departments. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that those universities that do have different names for departments that teach broadly the same subject. So, Lucknow University has a department of Arab Culture, in Calcutta University it is called the Department of Islamic Culture, while in Aligarh, Jamia Millia, Jamia Hamdard and Kashmir University it is called the Department of Islamic Studies. Then, in Aligarh they also have the two Departments of Sunni and Shia Theology. I think there should be some clarity in this issue of nomenclature.
While departments of Islamic Theology are meant to be more concerned with the study of Islamic texts, departments of Islamic Studies are supposed to focus particularly on the study of the historical interface between Islamic texts and changing social contexts. The point is that no text can be properly understood without understanding the broader historical context. I feel that the intellectual crisis and chaos of the Muslim world today owes largely to the lack of a proper appreciation of the need for contextual understanding of the textual tradition and of the changing social, political, economic and cultural realities.
Now, to come to your question, yes, our Departments of Islamic Studies in various universities in India have been trying to do what was expected of them, but I cannot deny that there are still many weaknesses that need to be addressed. To be honest, we have tended to become ritualistic in our approach to our curriculum, not reflecting the necessary dynamism and paying less than sufficient attention to promoting inquisitiveness and the culture of questioning among our students.
Q: Does this also have to do, at least in part, with the sort of students who typically opt for Islamic Studies as a course of study in universities?
A: I think that most students who join Departments of Islamic Studies do so just for the sake of the degrees they get. But in this they are not exceptional, of course, this being the case with other departments, too. Also, it is clear that many students who opt for Islamic Studies do so because they do not possess enough marks to enter other streams. Since the attitude is that they have to do some course or the other, they choose Islamic Studies, which they feel is easier to get admission in. But, then, at least some of our students, say a fifth or so, join our Department out of real interest.
Q: Are these students mainly from madrasas or schools?
A: Both. A good many of our students, perhaps half, come from madrasas, because the Jamia Millia Islamia is one of the few universities in India to recognise the degrees of selected madrasas. In this regard, I must, however, mention that the doors to the universities have not been opened to madrasa students so that they can join to study Islamic Studies, Urdu, Arabic and Persian, as is, unfortunately, generally the case. The fact of the matter is that they tend to join these departments because it is easy for them to score well there because of their madrasa training. But I don't suppose they learn much, because, if they have received a proper training in their madrasas, they would already have learnt much more there than they would in these Departments.
Enabling madrasa students to join universities is, of course, a good thing, but this must be so that they can join other social science and humanities departments, so that they can improve and widen their vision. Combining their religious training and the social science orientation that they receive from the universities, they can go on to become effective leaders of the community and country. But, sadly, that is not happening on a significant enough scale.
Q: What would you recommend to address this issue?
A: I think that Islamic Studies and Arabic should be allowed only as optional or subsidiary papers for madrasa graduates who join universities, so that they are encouraged to join other social science departments instead. They should study subjects like Political Science, Sociology, Economics, History, or English, Hindi and other languages. I think this would also prove to be crucial in helping develop more context-sensitive understandings of religion and would enable madrasa students to play a more effective social role than at present. I am sure that madrasa graduates can do well in these other departments because in the madrasas they are taught to work very hard.
Q: How would you consider the research output of your Department?
A: The quality of the theses submitted to our Department is, of course, mixed. The Islamic Studies Department in Jamia was established in 1975, and some thirty doctoral theses have been submitted to it so far. More than half of them have been published.
Q: There is a distinct lack of a tradition of empirical research in the Departments of Islamic Studies in India. The focus is almost wholly on texts and Muslim history. Very little attention is actually paid to the study of the lived realities, including religious, of Indian Muslims in their contemporary context, which, as you said at the outset, should also be a focus of the Departments of Islamic Studies. What do you feel about this?
A: That is, unfortunately, true, although I must say here that several of our students have, in their theses, focused on issues of contemporary concern, such as women's rights, inter-faith dialogue, the West and Islam and so on. One student of ours recently did a field-based study on empowerment of Muslim women, based on her experiences in Kashmir and Delhi. That. However, was an exception.
Needless to say, we need much more research of this sort too, but this is hampered by the lack of funds for field research. Most of our students come from lower-middle class families and cannot afford this themselves, and there is little or no funding from the University Grants Commission for this sort of research for our students. The Department also does not have resources for this. Nor has the community thought of doing anything about this.
Q: In this regard, what do you feel about the fact that while there are literally thousands of institutes for Islamic Studies, including madrasas and maktabs, in India, there is not a single Muslim social science research institute in the entire country that does serious research on the empirical conditions of India's Muslims?
A: Sadly, that is true. I think this has to do, in part, with the very low level of social consciousness in the Muslim community. Almost all our organizations and jamaats are concerned with promoting sectional, sectarian and personal interests. Indeed, in many cases, jamaati and personal interests are one and the same, since jamaats often act as personal properties and are controlled by particular families.
I think that the Aligarh Muslim University and the Jamia Millia Islamia should have taken the lead in promoting serious social science research on the Indian Muslims, because this is part of their mandate. Sadly, they have done little in this regard, although of course in the past they did produce some brilliant scholars of Indian Muslim history and politics. Their various social science departments could have taken up Muslim social issues in the form of research projects, both at the micro and the macro level. I think one reason for the reluctance to do so is the fear of being wrongly accused by communal forces of pursuing a particular 'agenda'. It also has to do with indifference and lack of vision. And sheer laziness, too. So, you have the situation, and I think in some ways it is also heartening, that better social science as well as journalistic writing has been done on the conditions of the Indian Muslims by non-Muslims than by Muslims themselves. Yet another reason is the widespread view that giving money for madrasas and mosques is a means to acquire a place in heaven, while donating to a school or a hospital or a social science research centre is not so! That also explains the lack of such efforts on the part of the community
I think one needs to understand all this in terms of the anxieties about threats to their religious identity, real as well as imaginary, that many Indian Muslims perceive, which, in turn, means that institutions such as madrasas and mosques receive more importance than social science research or community development as priorities for the community. And, then, the so-called Muslim Ashraf or self-styled 'upper' caste elite have generally cared but little for the woeful social and economic conditions of the Muslim masses, whose issues are not on their agenda but only get lip-sympathy.
For the sort of serious social science research you are talking about one needs social awareness and true organic intellectuals. But, sadly, the Indian Muslims suffer from a lack of this on all fronts. We have made polemicists, not real thinkers, our leaders. And, generally, our leaders do not realize that there is often a fine line between bravery and stupidity. In the name of bravery they often lead Muslims to perdition.
Q: Could you elaborate on this a little more?
A: At the risk of generalization, one can say that the Muslim political leadership has fed Muslims only half-truths, which are more dangerous than blatant lies. So, they tell them that iron can be broken with iron, which is true, but only partly so, because they do not tell them what sort of iron needs to be used for this. Hot iron can only be broken with cold iron, not with hot iron, but they conveniently leave this unmentioned or else tell them to combat hot iron with another piece of hot iron! What I want to say is that they have unnecessarily got Muslims involved in heated controversies in response to the attacks of adversaries.
For its part, the Muslim religious leadership explains that all that befalls us comes from God. This is, of course, true, but they do not also say that, as the Quran explains, God does not grant us anything without our having to strive for it, and that one has to strive and work hard and leave the rest to God.
So, as a result, what Muslims have been doing is that they have been trying to do whatever is actually God's work themselves, while the work that they should have been doing they have left to God! Naturally, that has caused chaos and has put us in the unenviable position that we are in today.
Q: Let's come back to the question of serious social science research on the Indian Muslims.
A: Yes. I want to add that government-funded academic institutions such as the University Grants Commission, the Indian Council for Historical Research and the Indian Council for Social Science Research should seriously consider special academic programmes and research on these issues. They must remember that this is vital not just for the Muslims alone but also for the future of the country's peace, development, social justice and communal harmony as a whole.
The community also has to come forward to set up institutions to sponsor this sort of research. These must be independent, free of political strings and economic bondage. The future of the community is not going to be determined by the beauty of the Taj Mahal or the grandeur of the Red Fort or the height of the Qutb Minar that the Muslims of the past built, and which we never tire of glorifying, but its intellectual capital.
Now, this is in line with the work of God. According to the Quran, when God created Adam, the angels protested. God asked the angels to tell Him the names of things, but they could not whereas Adam could, and so the angels bowed before Adam, as God commanded them to. This means that God has decided that those who do not know must accept that those who truly know are above them. This is Allah's sunnat and Muslims should understand this. So, if Muslims are to be spared bowing before others, there is no other way than seeking knowledge, and, of course, the sort of social science research and knowledge that we are discussing about is part of this.
Muslims must also remember that the future of Islam is joined with that of the future of Muslims, and that the future of Muslims is not separated from that of the future of others. Questions that confront Muslims, such as poverty, illiteracy, inequality and injustice, are problems that afflict other communities too, as these do not recognise barriers of religion. So, in addition to the important social science research that you have mentioned, I would also say that it is crucial for Islamic scholars to seek to reflect on what answers Islam can provide to these common social problems and issues that afflict all communities. This will also provide a firm basis for good inter-community relations.
Indian Islamic scholars must play a more pro-active role in promoting inter-community dialogue, not because Muslims are a minority in India, but because Islam demands so. We should remember that this is, or, at least, should be, the age of dialogue, not conflict and polemics. The Prophet came to communicate, and communication is the solution. So, one thing that are students of Islamic Studies in our universities must do, although this has not really happened on a significant scale at all in India, is to get involved in seeking to communicate, through words and deeds, with people of other faiths, to work together with them for the common good based on their religious commitment. Minorities need to compensate for their numerical weakness by working extra hard, including even in this regard, but I regret to say that instead of being hard workers, most of our scholars and so-called 'experts' are 'hardly-workers'.
Q: How do you look at the vilification of madrasas as ‘dens of terror’? What do you feel about the recent spate of conferences organized by various Indian ulama organizations seeking to denounce terrorism and stressing that Indian madrasas have nothing to do with it?
A: I think the anti-madrasa campaign is a carefully orchestrated exercise on the part of influential sections of the media, in which sections of the state apparatus and intelligence agencies that provide false reports are also closely involved. And at the global level, one has to understand this in the context of the offensives of the neo-imperialist forces.
Undoubtedly, we do have some unwanted elements, but the media has created a mountain of a molehill. But we must, at the same time, also recognize that the molehill does actually exist, instead of seeking to deny it. However, that molehill is certainly not the madrasas. The former Indian Prime Minister I.K.Gujral, and the present Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, have acknowledged that Indian madrasas have nothing to do with terrorism. Even the senior BJP leader L.K.Advani, while serving as India’s Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, went on record as saying that his government had not been able to identify any madrasa in the country serving as a training ground for terrorists.
Now, as far as the response of the ulema to these charges of terrorism in the form of the series of conferences that they have been organizing is concerned, I feel that there is no need to defend anything beyond what is necessary. Why should the ulema be forced to become so defensive? I don’t quite agree with this approach. Fine, they have made the point that madrasas have nothing to do with terrorism. Let them state it and leave it at that instead of repeatedly stressing it. Let the government now prove or disprove its claims or let the media do this, instead of madrasas trying to explain themselves. But today the situation is such that madrasas are being branded as guilty and are themselves being forced to prove their innocence, while actually it should be for those who accuse them to prove their charges against them.
Another issue about these anti-terrorism conferences that various ulema groups are organizing is that they are being held in Muslim localities and are being attended almost wholly by Muslims. What use does that serve? Instead, the ulema should be organizing such meetings and dialogues with non-Muslim opinion makers, such as social and political activists, journalists, lawyers, etc.. Let them not invite only secular non-Muslims, but even right-wing non-Muslims and dialogue with them, too. And they must also seek the help of Muslim professionals in this regard and include them in their dialogue efforts. This sort of intra-Muslim dialogue must go hand-in-hand with dialogue with people of other communities. Sadly, neither of these two is happening on any significant scale.
While some ulema groups have started some sort of dialogue work with non-Muslims, this has been limited only to those who are already convinced of the cause of the Muslims. Let them not be content with that. To think that the mindset of everyone who is anti-Muslim to some extent or the other cannot change is wrong, as very often such prejudice stems simply from ignorance and lack of interaction. So, there should be more interaction with people of other faiths, irrespective of their political stances, and then automatically the stranglehold of stereotypes will begin to weaken.
Q: What about the role of certain state governments in harassing young Muslims, including madrasa teachers and students, and arresting them on charges of terrorism, which have generally later proven to be false?
A: The worst state governments in this regard, I feel, are the Congress governments in states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, where numerous such cases have occurred. Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra are becoming hunting grounds for Muslim youth even for states like Gujarat. The National Human Rights Commission must enquire as to how many Muslim youth have been arrested on charges of terrorism, how many have been then charged, and how many have then been freed because the charges against them have been trumped-up. The number of such fake cases is now enormous. These innocent youth must be compensated and the Government of India must apologise for demeaning an entire community in this way.
Q: In recent years there has been talk in some circles about the need for setting up a Government-sponsored Central Madrasa Board. How do you look at this proposal?
A: Some ulema have rejected this proposal outright, but I feel that it isn’t wise to reject something without first having investigated it properly. In the last sixty years, Indian Muslims have become so used to losing things, including their rights, their properties, their dignity and even their lives, that they do not realize the value of something when they get it because that has become so rare. That principle might operate behind the outright rejection of the Board proposal on the part of some. Further, large sections of the ulema are justifiably concerned as to why the Government, which appears to have no interest at all in the welfare of the Muslims, is suddenly so concerned about madrasas. As the Urdu saying goes:
Unki Mahfil Main Kab Ata Thha Mujh Tak Daur-e Jam
Saqi Ne Kuch Mila Na Diya Ho Sharab Mai!
(When would the cup of wine ever reach me in his parties?
And now that it has, perhaps the cupbearer has mixed something in the wine!)
So, obviously, there is some reason for the ulema to react to the proposal in the way that many of them have. After all, the Government has done little, if at all, for Muslim education right from 1947 onwards, and, instead of opening schools in Muslim areas, it is setting up more and more police stations there. And if there is some literacy among the Muslim masses, it owes much to the efforts of the ulema, who, despite facing numerous hardships, provide free education to literally millions of poor children through the madrasas. Despite the efforts of the Government to wipe off Urdu, it is the madrasas that have kept the language alive. So, the point is that it is quite understandable that the proposal of the Board has not been greeted with much enthusiasm on the part of many ulema.
That said, I would advise that before rejecting the proposal outright, let the ulema carefully study what it is all about. If they don’t agree with any part or the whole of it, let them tell them government so and explain why. If the government listens to what they have to say and, accordingly, modifies the structure of the Board, good enough. And then, affiliation with the Board will not be compulsory. Madrasas will not be compelled to join it against their will. Those madrasas who don’t want to join the Board can remain independent as they now are.
Q: But what do you see as the possible advantages of having a Board like this?
A: Muslim families who send their children to the madrasas are also tax-paying citizens of India, and have as much right to government programmes as others do. Why should they be left out? If the Government’s Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for primary education is joined with maktabs and junior madrasas, it will help provide madrasa students basic knowledge of important subjects such as Hindi, local languages, Mathematics, Science and so on, which is really very important today. All this while we have been complaining that the Government ignores Muslims, but now that it might be offering us something we want to run away from it! This isn’t quite the right attitude.
The proposed Board might also lead to greater accountability on the part of the managers of the madrasas, who, at present, for the most part, are only accountable to themselves. I feel that the opposition of at least some of the madrasa managers to the proposed Board stems from the fear that it might undermine their hegemony and control.
Q: Some critics of the proposed Board cite the instance of madrasas affiliated to the state madrasa board in Bihar, where such madrasas are said to have been rendered dysfunctional because their teachers, now being paid government servants assured of a regular salary, don’t take their teaching work seriously. They use this as an argument to oppose the proposed Board. How do you look at this argument?
A: I don’t agree with this logic at all. Look at the Jawaharlal Nehru University or the IITs. They are Government-funded educational institutions and still their academic standards remain high. The quality of education and the work of the teachers in any educational institution do not depend on whether it is in the private or public sector but on the personal commitment of the teachers. But, if there is this fear that the teachers of madrasas affiliated to the proposed Board might not take their work seriously, surely there are means to get around the problem, instead of using this as an excuse to reject the Board outright. For instance, the teachers’ contracts could be time-bound, and renewable depending on their performance. Or, they could be provided performance-based promotion and other benefits, so that the problem associated with the Bihar Board madrasas does not arise.
Q: How do you look at on-going debates about madrasa curricular reform?
A: These debates, and most of the issues that form part of the debates, are not new. They are more than a century-old. Shibli Nomani raised precisely the same issues in the 1880s. Maulana Azad did so half a century later. And today we are talking about many of the same questions! This itself shows that the pace of reform has been slow. This has to do with many issues, a major one being a certain reluctance on the part of many madrasa managers and teachers to come up to new standards of excellence, to learn new ways of teaching and new subjects, fearing that if the importance of all these is conceded others might take over. Many of them are scared of reform and think that this might dilute the particular identity that they have come to assume. So, while many fancy buildings are being constructed by many madrasas across the country, fundamental questions as to curricular reform are still not getting the importance they deserve. If I may add, it always happens that when buildings associated with any institution become more grandiose the passion and commitment of those who manage it decline. Sometimes, such grand structures come to serve as graves of knowledge and wisdom. I wish we had the same passion for knowledge and wisdom as we have for setting up such buildings!
Q: Some ulema would argue that non-ulema really do not have the right to advise them on matters related to their institutions. How do you respond?
A: I believe that it is for the ulema themselves to choose and decide. We cannot bring about any change from without. In contrast to what some ulema claim, however, people like myself are not calling for the secularization of madrasas. We are not saying anything new to the ulema. We are only pointing out that the sort of reform that we are talking about is not an unprecedented innovation, and that, in fact, if accepted, it would take the madrasas back to their glorious past, where, in addition to religious subjects, other subjects were also taught. In an age when there was no Harvard or Cambridge or Oxford University, it was the madrasas that provided the best architects to the world, people who designed the Taj Mahal and the Qutb Minar. Great scholars like Avicenna, mathematicians like Omar Khayyam, philosophers like Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi and the father of modern Sociology, Ibn Khaldun, all studied in madrasas. Why cannot we revive that tradition today?
That said, I wish to reiterate that the reform of the madrasa curriculum is a task for the ulema of the madrasas to undertake themselves. We do not have the right to decide for them, but, surely, we have the right to ask questions of them, and this we shall continue to do. Outsiders like us can only help them, but that is only if they ask us to. It is for them to take the initiative. It is crucial that they should bridge the artificial divide between religious and worldly knowledge, which is not an Islamic way of conceiving knowledge.
Q: Perhaps several madrasas do wish to include a basic of ‘modern’ subjects, but maybe they simply cannot get the teachers to do so.
A: I recognize the problem, particularly that of limited resources of the smaller madrasas, but here is where community effort and assistance has to come into play. Of course, teachers cannot be procured all at once. Take the case of the Prophet Muhammad, whose life provides us with two models of education. The first model is represented by the Suffa, the platform outside the mosque in Medina where the Prophet used to teach those of his companions who would gather there, the Ashab-e Suffa. The second model is represented by those Meccan prisoners of war who fought the Muslims in the Battle of Badr whom the Prophet released provided they taught a certain number of Muslims. Now, these were all not just non-Muslims but also people who were dead against Islam. Obviously they did not teach the Muslims the Quran. They taught them, possibly, literacy or numerical skills. Just think of it! The Prophet of God instructed his enemies to teach his companions on this occasion!
So, how can one forbid this thing that the Prophet of God has allowed for? Does it not mean that Muslim children can also study from non-Muslims, particularly since these non-Muslims, unlike the Quraish captured in Badr, are not enemies of Islam? Why can’t we have qualified non-Muslims to teach our children in the madrasas subjects such as English and Mathematics and so on if getting Muslim teachers for these subjects is difficult? After all, the Prophet is reported to have said that wisdom is the lost property of the believer, and wherever he finds it he should acquire it.
Q: Presumably, some ulema would argue that non-Muslim teachers or Muslim teachers who are not ulema themselves might negatively impact on the faith or culture of the students.
A: I don’t agree with this argument. If one’s belief is firm, nothing can weaken it. Did the non-Muslims who became prisoners of war and then taught Muslims cause the faith of those Muslims to weaken? Obviously not. The case of the prisoners of Badr clearly suggests the principle that one should consider a teacher’s skill and capability, not his or her religion.
Q: You earlier spoke about the need for intra-Muslim dialogue. In this regard, what do you have to say about the fact that numerous madrasas are, in fact, the backbone of sectarianism and intra-Muslim rivalry based on sectarian differences?
A: Here I think the example of Shah Waliullah, whom all the various Sunni groups in India respect, is crucial. He sought to bring about reconciliation or tatbiq of the different Sunni schools of jurisprudence, between proponents of the two main Sufistic schools—advocates of Wahdat al-Wujud (‘Unity of Being’) and Wahdat al-Shuhud (‘Unity of Witnessing’), between those who stressed the shariah and those who gave more importance to the tariqa or Sufi path. His magnum opus, Hujjatulla ul-Balagha, has near consensus among the Sunni ulema in South Asia. Unfortunately, we all take Shah Waliullah’s name but do not follow his approach.
Another example I can cite in this regard is that of Imam Shafi, who, when he visited the grave of Imam Abu Hanifa, prayed in the Hanafi fashion, much to the surprise of his own students. When asked to explain his behaviour, he replied that he did this out of respect for the deceased Imam. The noted scholar, the late Dr. Hamidullah, remarks in this connection that Allah so loved the ways of the Prophet that He made them all immortal in some or the other school of Muslim jurisprudence. So, some Muslim schools believe that the word ameen be recited aloud in prayers while others recite it silently. Some hold their hands around their chests while praying and others around their waists. Instead of squabbling about which group is right in this regard, as often happens today, Dr. Hamidullah’s advice was that all these practices are proven from the Prophet’s life and thus are equally acceptable. I think if this sort of approach is adopted, many of the minor issues that some sectarian leaders rake up in order to garner support for themselves, some even using these to brand other Muslim groups as outside the pale of Islam, can easily be solved.
That said, I must also add that sectarian or maslaki differences, if kept within decent limits, are not wholly objectionable and are, in fact, to some extent, understandable as they reflect differences of interpretation of the Islamic textual tradition. In a sense, this is also a reflection of the democratic character and structure of Islam. Differences of opinion are or can be a blessing for the community, as the saying goes.
After all, what is democracy? Basically, it is a product of scientific empiricism where an element of doubt is always working. So, the majority might have a certain view, but the person in a minority of one might well be correct, but all have the same right to hold their own views. Islamic scholars, who issue fatwas or write Quranic commentaries, always end their works by adding the line that while what they have written is their own considered opinion, God knows better what is correct (Wallahu Alam Bis Sawab). This reflects what I referred to as the scientific empiricism that demands an element of doubt, which is also present here. Hence, no scholar can regard himself as the final authority. This is a very big thing, a reflection of intellectual democracy.
So, I would say, one should not see differences of opinion between the different sects as necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time one realizes that the ways in which these differences are often expressed are not proper.
Q: To come back to an issue that you had briefly referred to earlier, what role do you see the ulema as playing with regard to inter-community dialogue in India today?
A: Dialogue must move beyond discussions about religious beliefs and practices to centre on issues of common concern that afflict us all, questions such as poverty, social injustice, the ecological crisis, war and peace and so on. Our own religious approach to people of other faiths should be as the Quran lays down—that each of us is entitled to follow our own religion and that there can be no compulsion in religious affairs. This is not because we are a minority in India or because of local compulsions, but precisely because Islam mandates this approach for us.
The ulema must take the leadership to promote genuine inter-community dialogue and harmony. In this regard, a classic instance is that of Maulana Azad. His commentary on the opening verse of the Quran, the Surah al-Fatiha, can well be considered a manifesto for inter-faith understanding. If we are the ‘’best of the communities’, the Khair ul-Ummah, as we often refer to Muslims as, we should take the initiative in promoting inter-community dialogue and not wait for others to do it. It is our Quranic mandate to work for solving the manifold problems that not just Muslims alone but the whole of humanity is faced with. Of course we cannot do this alone, and we need an inter-faith alliance with a common minimum programme.
In this respect, as in every other, we have a guide in the Prophet Muhammad. Even before he declared his prophethood, he was associated with a group of fellow Meccans, all of them non-Muslims, in the form of the Hilful Fudhool, which provided help and succour to the distressed. Later, when in Medina, at a time when he and his followers were faced with relentless threats from the Meccans, he announced that if the Meccans invited him to join an alliance like the Hilful Fudhool he would do so.
So, if the Prophet could be willing to enter into an alliance with those opposed to Islam for the sake of human welfare, why should not we enter into similar alliances with people of other faiths, particularly those who are well-meaning and are in no way inimical to us and our religion? Honestly, I don’t see Muslims getting anyway ahead unless they take up this task seriously and in a major way.
I don’t mean to sound pessimistic, but the fact remains that till we could produce grand edifices for the world like the Taj Mahal and the Qutb Minar we mistakenly thought of ourselves as ‘shadows of God’ (zill-e ilahi), but today the situation is so dismal that far from contributing anything for others, we only take from them, and that too we do not even know the proper way of taking.
As Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar once poetically remarked:
Hadd Hai Pasti Ki Ke Pasti Ko Bulandi Jana
Ab Bhi Ahsas Ho Iska To Ubharna Hai Yehi
(The height of degradation is to think of degradation as exaltation
But if one is even aware of this, it is a sign of a possible reawakening).
Prof. Akhtar ul-Wasey can be contacted on wasey27@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Wasey can be contacted on wasey27@gmail.com
.
Read More...
Read More...
