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

Read More...

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.

Read More...

So, I've been wondering for some time how to make this a more interesting and readable blog, but I haven't really put forth much effort. I have read some fascinating blogs in the past few years and I think those bloggers must devote a lot of time to them. Time is a luxury that I sort of have. I can't say that I don't. In this day and age, we all devote portions of time to so many things that we spread ourselves thin and appear to be busier than we really are. For example, I have posted maybe ten times on this blog. Whooptido. Ten times is probably what I should have done in the first month. It's not like I'm not on the internet. Before school and after school I find the time to sneak on. I am regularly seen on www.flickr.com as well as a couple of other sites, so it's not that I don't have the time. I was very hesitant about setting up a blog because you have to give the public a bit of your self. I am pretty private - a. I'm a niqabi so few people know how I look in the first place. b. I am active online more so than in real life; I have three small children so they take up quite a bit of my day (and night). c. I don't really feel like taking the time to weed out the garbage one is bound to get on a blog in the comments (not that I have any readers, lol). So, chalk it up to shyness, busyness and a bit of laziness too.
Anyway. My daughter is doing surprisingly and exceptionally well. Her uncle is five and he's in public kindergarten. He's up to "E" in the alphabet and I'm pretty sure he can't spell his name yet. It's December and we have just about finished the curriculum. She's reading first and second grade books (and everything around the house: cans, bottles, boxes, etc.). I am quite proud of her success and pray that InshaALLAH she keeps at it. I myself feel burnt out from time to time because it takes lots of patience to sit back and watch a child learn. You start itching to "help". That's part of the whole fast-paced society thing, I guess. It's training for the adult to learn how to sit still and let things happen as they may.
It looks like Eid-ul-Adha is going to be on Wednesday, InshaALLAH so I have to prepare for that. We will be adding balloons and such like last Eid so the kids should really get a kick out of that. I think they will be getting some puzzles and books mostly - especially something from the Melissa and Doug collection. Their stuff is expensive but it rocks. We got their abacus for the kids and it is quite handy . Read More...

Television?

As salaamu 'alaikum.

How do you feel about television? Is public t.v. alright? Islamic movies only? I think I want to cut it out altogether. My kids are little and really have no business in front of the tube and I know that they will gladly sit there until I turn it off. They do other things as well, but I would like for them to feel that t.v. is a luxury, not a right. I stopped watching it so long ago (we don't have cable) but I admit that I miss cable network news and all the home/d.i.y. networks. Read More...