Madrasas and 'Terror': Interview with Asrar ul-Haq Qasmi

Maulana Asrar ul-Haq Qasmi, a graduate of the Deoband madrasa, is the founder and director of the Delhi-based All-India Ta’limi-o Milli Foundation, an organization working for Muslim educational advancement. He is also the Assistant General Secretary of the All-India Milli Council and a former General Secretary of the Jami’at ul-’Ulama-i Hind.

YS: What do you feel about the allegations being levelled today that madrasas are engaged in spreading hatred against other communities?
MAQ: Madrasas have had a long history in India, of almost a thousand years, and they are thus not a new phenomenon. They see themselves as preserving, transmitting and promoting the Islamic tradition. They also seek to instill in their students certain basic moral values. We believe, in accordance with the teachings of Islam, that God is the Lord of all the worlds and of all creatures. We also believe that God sent the Prophet Muhammad as the mercy for all. But we certainly do not teach our students to hate Hindus, for that would be going against the teachings of our faith. In fact, the Qur’an says that God does not stop you from befriending people of other faiths if they have not persecuted you on account of your faith. It also explicitly lays down that Muslims must not let the enmity of others lead them to swerve from the path of justice. On the other hand, the RSS and its allied organizations run scores of schools where they openly preach hatred for Muslims, Christians and others. Why is it that so few people talk about that and pick on the madrasas instead?

YS: If that is the case, then why do you think there is this organized campaign to defame the madrasas?
MAQ: As I see it, this campaign is motivated simply by political considerations, so that right-wing Hindutva groups can thereby gain the support of the Hindus by spreading baseless rumours about the madrasas. Let me give you a small example to show how successful they have been in poisoning the minds of ordinary Hindus. Some months ago a group of students from the Deoband madrasa were traveling in a train. They started a conversation with some Hindu co-passengers, who, when they came to know that they were from Deoband, made all sorts of wild allegations about the madrasa, based on hat they had been reading in the newspapers. The students then invited them to come with them to Deoband to see the madrasa for themselves. They, however, refused saying that they had heard that there was allegedly an underground chamber in the madrasa where Hindus are routinely killed! Of course there is no such thing in the madrasa, but see how ordinary people’s minds have been so terribly poisoned by Hindutva propaganda!

YS: What would you say about reports of some madrasas in India’s border areas being allegedly used by the Pakistani secret service agencies?
MAQ: There is no evidence to suggest that any of these madrasas is engaged in any sort of conspiracy against the Indian state. Not a single madrasa in India provides military training to its students. Now, there is much talk about madrasas in Rajasthan situated along the border with Pakistan being allegedly used as training grounds for militants. When I first heard of these reports, I met the chief minister and the governor of the state, and then I addressed a press conference. I told the journalists who had come there, almost all of whom were Hindus, that I was going to inspect the madrasas along the border and I invited them to come with me to see if they were really engaged in ‘anti-national’ activities, as was being alleged. I told them that if I saw a single such madrasa I would destroy it myself, with my own hands!After the press conference two journalists, both Hindus, one from the UNI and the other from the Hindu, came along with me to the Barmer district. We went unannounced, so that the journalists could be sure that nothing had been pre-arranged. After touring the madrasas, we found absolutely nothing incriminating at all. Then, one of the journalists asked me if he could address a gathering at a madrasa. He stood on the podium, tears streaming down his face, his hands folded, and said, ‘Please forgive me, I’ve been writing against madrasas all this while, but I had never been to a madrasa before. I’ve now seen for myself the contribution that you are making, with your meagre resources, for promoting education in this area’.

YS: There have been several reports of madrasa students and teachers being harassed by police or intelligence agencies in some parts of the country. What do you have to say about this?
MAQ: Yes, this has happened at several places, and many perfectly innocent people have been wrongly targeted. To give you an example, some time ago, a certain Maulana Atiq Asari, a teacher of ah Ahl-I-Hadith madrasa in Uttar Pradesh, was arrested. The newspapers created a big sensation, claiming that he was an agent of Osama bin Laden. As was later discovered, this was a totally concocted story. Apparently the teacher was arrested for something very different, for some problem in registering ownership of a plot of land. Later, the issue went to the High Court, and he was declared innocent. Meanwhile, his reputation had been totally damaged, with all these wild stories of his allegedly being a terrorist.I’ll give you another instance. Last year intelligence agents came to a village in Hapur to question a young madrasa student, suspecting him of being involved with the Kashmiri militant group Hizb ul-Mujahidin. The boy was arrested and branded as a terrorist, and it was even claimed that he had been involved in a bomb blast in Bhopal in 1986. But at that time he boy would have been only 13 years old. So, we issued a statement challenging this allegation, saying that the charge was extremely doubtful as the boy would have been too young to engage in such an act. We took the matter to the Bhopal High Court, which later declared him innocent. Now, when he as first arrested, the newspapers claimed that he was a dreaded terrorist, but when he was declared innocent no Hindi paper admitted that he was wrongly accused. No wonder then that many people who rely only on such newspapers for information think that madrasa students are all terrorists.

YS: How, then, can this campaign against the madrasas be countered?
MAQ: We must make use of the media to put forward our voices, and to explain to others what exactly the madrasas are all about. One way to do so, as I have suggested to my fellow ‘ulama, is that madrasas must seek to highlight before others the great role played by the ‘ulama in India’s freedom struggle. This is itself a long story, going back to the Shah Abdul Aziz’s fatwa of 1814 against the British, and then carrying on till 1947. All along, the majority of the Indian ‘ulama were strongly opposed to the British and took an active part in the freedom movement, even opposing the Partition of the country. But, today, how many people are aware of these facts? These must be brought to the notice of the wider public.

Also, I have suggested that madrasas must organize functions on the 15 of August every year, on Independence Day, to which they should invite the Hindus, Muslims and others of their localities, as well as government officials. They should arrange for speeches on communal harmony and tolerance and so on, and must also explain to the public what exactly they teach and their sources of income, so that in this way they can counter the misunderstandings that some people might have about them.

Madrasas should also play a leading role in setting up peace committees, comprising responsible people of their locality from all religious communities. These committees must seek to resolve all contentious issues and disputes through negotiation. Also, madrasas must engage in inter-faith dialogue work to promote peace, understanding and good social relations between people of different faiths.

YS: How do you think this agenda of inter-religious dialogue can be proofed?
MAQ: You don’t need to be a profound thinker or theologian to do this! By citing small examples you can make a very deep impact. You must convince people that our country can only survive and prosper if all of us live together in peace, and only if we accept the multi-religious character of our society. Let me give you an example, which I often cite when I talk or write about inter-faith harmony. Some years ago a Saudi plane collided with a Kazakh plane over the village of Charkhi Dadri in Haryana, causing the deaths of all the passengers, now, most of the passengers were Muslims, and there was not a single Muslim in the village. Yet, when I got there the next day I saw the whole village in deep mourning. The local Hindus made elaborate arrangements for providing food to the relatives of the deceased passengers who had gathered there. The village youth helped in lifting the corpses.

I also often refer to another similar incident, but this time the roles were reversed. A fire broke out during a school function at the village of Dabwali, killing several hundred people. Although no Muslims live in the village, at the time of the fire some Muslims had come to the local market to sell rice. When they heard about the fire they hurried to the scene to rescue the people who had been trapped. One of them, a certain Shamim, rushed into the fire seven times, each time rescuing one person. He suffered 75% burns and then died in hospital. Mind you, he must have known that none of those trapped in the fire were Muslims and yet he was willing to sacrifice his life for them. This is what I call the real India, the strength of our India, which people like the RSS-walas want to destroy. Read More...

Inter-Sectarian Rivalries: Interview with Wahiduddin Khan

Based in New Delhi, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is a noted Islamic scholar. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the urgent need to promote dialogue and ecumenism between the different Muslim sects.

YS: Although the Quran stresses Muslim unity, Muslims are divided into numerous sects, and some of them see the other sects as enemies. How do you account for this phenomenon of intense sectarianism and the fact that, unlike in the Christian case, there is really no Muslim ecumenical movement to bring the ulema of the different sects on a common platform for serious dialogue?
WK: I think this has much to do with the lack of modern education among Muslims. As a result of the Renaissance in Europe, modern scientific thought had a major impact on religious thought there, although there was also fierce conflict between the Church and scientists. But the scientific spirit promoted tolerance in matters of religion, and because of this Christians, then largely based in Europe where the scientific revolution occurred, were also inclined towards more tolerance in matters of inter-sectarian relations. This had to do with the scientific revolution in Europe and not with Christianity as such.

The serious lack of modern education and the scientific spirit among large sections of the Muslim community gives space to professional clerics to exercise their influence by seeking to establish the veracity of their own sects by denouncing the other Muslim sects, instead of seeking to build bridges with them. Rather than reaching out to them, to seek to understand them or dialogue with them, their approach is to brand them at once as 'enemies', 'infidels' and as allegedly having strayed from the path of Islam. Maulvis of different sects hurl fatwas against the other sects, denouncing them in harsh terms.

However, I feel that it is only through serious and constructive dialogue that you can reach out to other groups. If you feel these groups may not be in accordance with your understanding of Islam, you must seek to dialogue with them. Denouncing them will only further promote conflict.

YS: Are you aware of any efforts being made today to promote inter-sectarian dialogue and unity among the ulema of the different Muslim sects?
WK: Some efforts have been made in recent years in this regard. However, their approach has been basically that of seeking to end differences and thereby promote unity. This, however, can never work. On the other hand, Christians associated with the ecumenical movement tolerate intra-Christian differences but seek to promote unity despite these differences. They agree to disagree. But there is no such tradition among the Muslim ulema. They must understand that unity cannot be had by trying to destroy differences. We should learn to tolerate, not eliminate, differences and in that way the different sects can indeed come closer.

YS: What do you see as the minimum common basis on which intra-Muslim dialogue between the different sects can be promoted?
WK: Unity should have a basis, and I think there are no differences among the ulema of the different sects on the basics of Islam, which can serve as the basis of dialogue. All recognized Muslim sects, Shias as well as Sunnis, as well as the various groups within these two larger categories, believe in Allah, the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. This is the basis for their unity. The four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence and the main Shia school, the Jafari school of the Twelver Imami (Ithnashari) Shias, are all based on the Quran and Hadith, although they differ are on what I call 'non-basic' issues. There will always be this disagreement on the 'non-basics' so instead of trying to eliminate them, we should learn to accept them and despite these seek to build unity on the foundation provided by the 'basics'.

YS: Does it follow from your argument that those who are engaged in promoting inter-sectarian rivalry take the 'non-basic' as the 'basic'?
WK: Exactly. Take, for instance, the case of the conflict between the Salafis and the Hanafis, both of who are Sunnis. Today, in India, many Salafis and Hanafis see themselves as rivals of each other. But their essential difference relates to a non-basic matter of some postures during prayer and whether to utter the word ameen loudly or silently. And then there are differences between them as to whether and how the opening verse of the Qur'an should be recited by a worshipper praying behind an imam. Now, these are trivial differences, but sectarian maulvis have sought to make a mountain of this molehill and brand sects who differ with them on such issues as deviant.

Many such differences and disputes have long historical roots that got back to the period when the classical compendia of Hadith, reports attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, began being put together. These reports number in the tens of thousands. On several issues these reports differ from each other. One reason for this was that the companions of the Prophet, who are said to have first narrated these reports, spent varying periods of time in his company.

Consequently, they reported what they had personally experienced or seen. So, one companion said that he saw the Prophet uttering the word ameen loudly in the course of his prayers, while another companion said that he saw the Prophet uttering that word silently. Or, one said that he saw the Prophet placing his hands on his stomach while praying while another said he saw that he had placed them on his chest. This was because companions were with the Prophet on different occasions and their opinions are, therefore, equally valid.These are differences on relatively minor or what are called in Arabic furui issues, but some present-day sects take them as major and use these to denounce other sects, who have different opinions on these issues, as 'un-Islamic. This is really unfortunate and betrays an extreme form of intolerance which has no sanction in Islam.

YS: How did the classical Muslim scholars approach this issue of these minor differences in the Hadith reports?
WK: Over time, two broad responses emerged to this question. One was that which was represented by experts in Hadith, the muhaddithun. The other was that which was articulated by specialists in Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh, the fuqaha. The first sought to reconcile these differences in a spirit of tolerance. This was in line with the Hadith report wherein the Prophet is said to have declared that his companions were like stars and that he who follows them would be guided. This represented an acceptance of diverse opinions, or what is called tawassa in Arabic, in what appear to be conflicting Hadith reports that are traced through different companions. This reflected an understanding that on these relatively minor issues diversity must be tolerated. There was no difference between the companions on major or 'non-basic issues, or what is called in Islamic legal parlance, usuli issues. Even the Shias and the Sunnis are united on these basic issues, such as belief in one God, in the Quran, the Day of Judgment, prayer, the pilgrimage to Makkah and so on.So, the position of the muhaddithun was like that of someone who enters a room and finds people sitting, and accepts that they are, in that position, engaged in the same act, although their sitting postures maybe different.

On the other hand, many fuqaha took a different approach. They argued that there is no division in truth, and that there can be only one true opinion on any matter attributed to the Prophet. So, they argued, in contrast to the muhaddithun, that either the report which says that the Prophet uttered the word ameen in prayer loudly is true or the other tradition that says he uttered it silently is true, and that both cannot be true and valid at the same time. But faced with conflicting Hadith reports that are traced back to different companions of the Prophet, they declared some reports to be true and others to be weak or false. It is like someone demanding that everyone present in a room sit exactly in the same posture.This approach helped solidify sectarian differences, as each sect sought to claim that its own approach to the Hadith was right and that of the others was wrong. And in the process, some fuqaha sought to deny some Hadith just because the school of jurisprudence which they followed had different opinions on issues that these Hadith reports referred to. For instance, the noted Deobandi scholar Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri argued that several Hadith reports in the collection known as Sahih Bukhari may not be fully authentic just because they differ from the Hanafi position on some matters. The hardcore Wahhabis adopt a similarly rigid position and condemn other schools of Islamic jurisprudence as deviant. This is a form of extremism or what is called ghulu in Arabic. There is a Hadith report that warns Muslims not to take to ghulu in matters of religion because earlier communities met with a dismal fate precisely because of this. Perhaps this is because extremism based on such trivial differences on non-basic issues leads inevitably to sectarian strife and conflict.

If we had followed the approach that the muhaddithun had advocated by accepting the legitimacy of diversity of opinions among Muslims on non-basic issues perhaps we would not have faced this problem. I think one way out of the sectarian mess is to adopt the approach of the muhaddithun. All Muslim sects agree on the basics of Islam, and on non-basic issues we should agree to disagree.

YS: Some ulema might argue that there is no point in seeking to bring the different Muslim sects closer. To justify this argument reference is often made to a Hadith report which claims that the Prophet declared that after his death his community would be divided into 73 sects, and that only one sect, called the firqa al-najiya in Arabic, would attain salvation. This sect would be that which follows the path of the Prophet and his companions. Each sect claims to be that one chosen firqa al-najiya, implying, thereby, that the other sects are by definition deviant or false. How do you look at this Hadith report and the way it is sometimes used to legitimize sectarian conflict?
WK: This Hadith report is in the form of a prediction, not a commandment that Muslims must be divided into several sects. Now, there is a big fallacy that surrounds popular perceptions of this report, in that it does not actually talk about the firqa al-najiya. It does not refer to any particular chosen sect. What the Prophet was referring to here were individuals who follow his path and that of his companions, who he said would be saved. He was not referring to a particular sect. This obviously means that those who are saved could belong to different sects, provided they follow the Prophet and his companions. This is because, as the Quran says, God will decide the fate of people after their death based on their own actions as individuals. If we look at this Hadith in this way, it can be used as a means to promote inter-sectarian harmony, rather than to promote conflict, as it often is.There is another point concerning this Hadith report that I want to talk about. This relates to what is meant when the Prophet says that those who follow his practice and that of his companions will be saved. Some people take this in a very narrow, literalist sense, and say that following the Prophet's practice means insisting on using a tooth-stick, as the Prophet did, or to adopt Arab dress and so on. Actually, I think what is actually meant here is essentially the ethical and moral model of the Prophet and his companions.

Basic to this ethical model is the principle of tolerance in matters that are not basic to the faith but which do not at the same time impinge on the basics of the faith. This tolerance on non-basic issues among Muslims is reflected in the lives of the Prophet and his companions, and this is something that the different Muslim sects need to realize. Once a companion of the Prophet recited some words of praise to God aloud while in prayer in addition to those that are normally recited by Muslims in their prayers. The Prophet heard this but did not get angry. A similar instance is that of the response of the Caliph Umar to the question of reciting the taraweeh prayers during Ramadan, which the Prophet's companions, including Hazrat Umar himself, did not recite. One day Hazrat Umar came to a mosque and found people saying the taraweeh prayer. He did not join them in this, but nor did he scold them. Instead, he remarked that this was a 'good innovation'. The se two instances suggest that when the above-mentioned Hadith talks about the need for us to emulate the model of the Prophet and his companions, it also exhorts us to accept differences among the Muslim sects on non-basic issues. This is also the only way to promote inter-sectarian unity.

YS: If such minor differences lie behind the genesis of the different Muslim sects, how did these sects become so solidified over time?
WK: Minor differences over one small issue gradually lead to further differences, owing to a host of factors, including political motives and vested interests. Take the case of the Shia-Sunni divide. In its origins, it had nothing to do with any differences over the basics of Islam. It was entirely a political issue as to who should lead the Muslim community after the demise of the Prophet. Later, in order to justify these differences some religious beliefs and claims were developed so that the two political groups eventually emerged as two different sects. Later, within the broader Shia and Sunni fold new sects emerged, essentially over succession to the post of Imam in the case of the Shias or over being the rightful representative of the Prophet's Sunnah, in the Sunni case, and religious doctrines were marshaled to justify these rival claims.
YS: In several madrasas students are taught to despise and counter other Muslim sects, based on the assumption that their own sect alone is true. This is also reflected in the polemical sectarian literature produced by numerous ulema associated with madrasas. How do you see this problem?

WK: I think this has, in large measure, to do with the vested interests of some ulema who thrive on sectarian controversy in order to proclaim themselves as 'representatives' of Islam and Muslims. By condemning other sects they seek to prove that their sect alone is correct, that they alone have the Truth with a capital 'T'. And it also has to do with a certain sort of inertia and hostility to change. Teachers in many madrasas have been taught, from the beginning of their careers, to teach such polemical, sectarian works, and so if you ask them to replace these by books that talk of inter-sectarian dialogue, they might well refuse, not just because they may not agree with the need for dialogue or because they might oppose acceptance of other sects but also because they are trained only in teaching a particular set of books and no other. And if they are forced to teach entirely new books they might find themselves unemployed.

YS: It is also argued that forces inimical to Muslims and Islam have also played a crucial role in promoting inter-sectarian strife among Muslims, such as, for instance, America's consistent attempt to set Sunnis and Shias against each other in Iraq. What do you have to say about this?
WK: Competition is part of God's plan. There has always been and shall always be clash of interests and egos. People and nations want to dominate others. This is inevitable, given the freedom to choose between right and wrong that God has given us. Others may seek to divide you, but the point is that you should develop the capacity to prevent others from doing so. So, yes, the United States is seeking to inflame sectarian conflicts in Iraq, but we Muslims must learn how not to fall into this trap. We must learn to dialogue with and accept the various Muslim sects so that the efforts of others to divide us do not succeed. God says in the Holy Quran (3:120) that the conspiracies of others cannot cause any harm to those who are steadfast and do right, because God is aware of all that they do. Read More...

Interview: Waris Mazhari on the Ulema and Inter-Sectarian Rivalries

Waris Mazhari, a leading Islamic scholar, is the editor of the New Delhi-based Tarjuman- i Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Old Boys' Association of the Deoband Madrasa.In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he talks about the problems that mark inter-sectarian relations among the Indian Muslim ulema.

YS: The Quran and Hadith places much stress on the unity of Muslims. How, then, do you explain the fact of fierce sectarian disputes among the different groups or sects of Muslims today?
WM: This has mainly to the fact that Islam, which, unlike say a religion like Hinduism, has a comprehensive framework of law or shariah that is all-comprehensive. Shariah contains certain norms or criteria to decide between right and wrong. From this emerge the concepts of shirk (associationism), bidah (innovation), haram (forbidden), halal (permissible), maroof (good) and munkar (evil). And since the shariah can only express itself through human efforts and understood through the use of human reflection, the result of which is called fiqh, there is ample room for differences between the different sects on numerous matters. These are then quickly pounced upon by sectarian maulvis, who readily use them to denounce as deviants or even as kafirs those who interpret the shariah even marginally different from them. The same is true in the case of the Jews, who also have a similar concept of religiously-inspired law, which believing Jews are expected to follow.

On the other hand, even though almost all the Hindu scriptures ordain division based on caste, Hinduism does not have this concept of a well-defined shariah. A Hindu can deny God and still be a Hindu. He can worship in a Muslim shrine and still be a Hindu. He will not be transgressing any shariah rule if he does so, and hence the scope for sectarianism of this sort is greatly reduced as different forms of worship are allowed for and are considered as legitimate.

YS: Madrasas, it is alleged, play a crucial role in fanning inter-sectarian disputes among Muslims. Having studied at some of India's leading madrasas, do you agree with this?
WM: Unfortunately, this is certainly true. Sectarian divisions and conflicts, be they between Shias and Sunnis or between the different groups among the Sunnis, such as the Barelvis, the Deobandis and the Ahl-e Hadith, are a major hurdle to the social, educational and political progress of the Muslim community as a whole. I think it is linked essentially to the economic and other vested interests of sections of the maulvis, who claim to be the representatives of Islam and the Muslims on the basis of their insistence that their own sect alone is true while all the other Muslim sects are false.

There are some liberal, progressive and independent-minded ulema in all the different sects who want to promote intra-sectarian unity and dialogue, but since their interests are linked to their own sects they cannot do anything practical. If they say or do anything that is construed as going against their particular sect, they are subject to boycott or expelled. So, they keep their views to themselves and their close confidants, being afraid to speak out in public against other maulvis who are hell-bent on stoking the flames of intra-Muslim rivalries.

Almost every madrasa in India is associated with one or the other sect. Generally speaking, the way these madrasas understand and present Islam is heavily influenced by their particular sectarian affiliation. This is also reflected in the teaching and publishing activity of the ulema of the madrasas. In many madrasas, students are taught to engage in munazara or polemical debates to denounce the other Muslim sects as aberrant or even as apostates. And so, from an early age, madrasa students are brought up to believe that other Muslim sects are not properly Muslim enough, to put it charitably.

YS: Do you think that inter-sectarian rivalries promoted by certain sections of the maulvis associated with the madrasas have been on the decrease in recent years? Or, contrarily, is it become more intense?
WM: The latter, I am afraid. Sectarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has been given further impetus by various maulvis in the years after 1947, especially in the last two or three decades. Before 19th century, the Deobandis, the Barelvis and the Ahl-e Hadith were merely different trends, not full-blown sects as they today are.

In fact, sectarian rivalry has taken such a turn today that many maulvis make their differences an issue of belief (iman) and infidelity (kufr), truth (haq) and falsehood (batil), claiming that only those who follow their sect are true Muslims and that the others are virtually or wholly disbelievers ( kafirs).

In the past there were a lot of cross-overs and shared ground between the different trends that have now emerged as separate and mutually-opposed sects. So, for instance, the Deobandis, Barlevis and Ahl-e Hadith all claim to be inheritors of the legacy of Shah Waliullah and his family's Islamic revival movement in the Indian sub continent.arelvis and the Deobandis are both Hanafis and both like, Shah Waliullah, recognize Sufism. Yet, now the two groups are considered fierce opponents.

The late Qari Muhammad Tayyeb, the former head of the Deoband madrasa, for instance, believed that there was no harm in attending the urs or annual celebrations at Sufi shrines, because they provide Sufis a chance to get together, and he felt that unlawful customs associated with the urs, which many Deobandis condemn, were not because of the urs itself. But some later Deobandis went ahead and condemned participation in the urs celebrations altogether. Similarly, Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, one of the sheikhs of the founders of the Deoband madrasa, wrote a book titled "Haft Masla" ('Seven Issues'), where he supported certain popular customs and beliefs, like urs, mehfil-e sima or Sufi musical assemblies and so on that are normally associated with the Barelvis, but today these very beliefs and practices are routinely critiqued by many Deobandis in their tirade against the Barelvis.

Or, take the case of Shia-Deobandi relations. Some, though by no means all, Deobandi ulema, particularly in Pakistan, wrongly denounce the Shias as kafirs. The great eighteenth century Indian scholars Shah Waliullah and his son Shah Abdul Aziz, who are held in great respect by the Deobandis, did not condemn the Shias as kafirs, although they believed that they had strayed from the true path. Maulana Qasim Nanotvi, the founder of the Deoband madrasa, wrote a book on Shia but he did not charge them with infidelity A. leading Deobandi cleric, the late Chief Mufti of Deoband, Maulana Mahmud ul-Hasan, was of the same opinion. But today, you have some Deobandis who band Shias as kafirs, although, I must add, most of them, at least in India, do not hold this extreme opinion.So, the point I am making is that earlier there were ideological differences between different groups of ulema, but at least within the broader Sunni fold, these were in the form of tendencies or trends, rather than as separate sects, as they later transformed into. A host of political factors and, of course, the vested interests of some sections of the ulema intervened and widened the gap between these tendencies, so much so that today they see each other as inveterate rivals.

A lot of literature has been written by sectarian polemicists to further widen these divisions. Often, small issues of difference are taken by these people and magnified all out of proportion in order to widen sectarian divisions and thereby stress each sect's claim of being the only authentic Muslim sect.

Take, for instance, numerous ideologues of the Ahl-e-Hadith, who argue that the other Muslims, who abide by the principle of taqlid, or following the guidance of one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, or who might perform some Sufi rituals that was not common in the early Islamic era, are committing a grievous sin similar to shirk or associating others with God. Some of them go so far as to denounce other Muslims as kafirs. The Deobandis, being thus attacked by the Ahl-e Hadith, reacted with their own defenses and by denouncing the Ahl-e Hadith as troublemakers. To add to these wranglings, because the Deobandis and Ahl-e Hadith both critiqued various popular customs prevalent among the Indian Muslims, advocates of the cults of the Sufis reacted by going on the offensive, and, led by their chief ideologue, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, they emerged as a new sect, the Barelvis, in the early twentieth century.

YS: In many cases, relatively minor issues related to the external form of performing certain rituals become the focus of intense inter-sectarian dispute among the ulema of different sects. Why is this?
WM: To understand this you will have to go back to the period of the early Muslims. There were differences even among many sahaba, companions of the Prophet, and their followers, on a lot of matters. But unlike many maulvis today, they tolerated these differences and did not use them to denounce those who differed from them as deviant. On some occasions, the Prophet Muhammad said or did something which he did not say or do other times. In several matters, the Prophet's method varied. Hence, different sahaba narrated different reports based on what they had seen, and these were considered as equally valid. But today, literalist groups like the Ahl-e Hadith go to the extent of arguing that only that report about the Prophet is valid which is according to their thought and belief. So, they claim, one who does not read the opening verse of the Quran or Surah al-Fateha during their prayers while standing behind the Imam or does not lift up his hands before bending down (ruku) is deviant and should be condemned. Such a narrow-minded approach is really awful. It is a significant departure from the tolerance displayed by the sahaba.

The early Muslim scholars also recognized that differences are acceptable in mujtahid fi masail, those issues in which ijtihad, or the creative application of human reason, can be applied. Although they stressed that their own position on such matters was better (afzal) and that other positions were less favorable (ghair afzal ), they did not engage in takfir or condemning those who differed from them as kafirs or deviants.

Today, we need to emulate the model of the early Muslims, who exhibited a generous tolerance on matters on which they differed, and not, as is often the case today, descending to branding those who differ from them as heretics.

YS: Some argue that foreign funds provided to some sectarian groups have further escalated the problem of Muslim sectarianism in India. What do you have to say about this?
WM: Yes, this has happened, particularly from the 1980s onwards. Funding from Saudi Arabia and certain other Gulf states has benefited largely the Ahl-e Hadith, who claim before the Saudi Salafi or Wahhabi ulema that they are loyal to them and that there is no difference at all between them, although this was not the case with the early Ahl-e Hadith movement. This has enabled them to get huge funding from the Saudis, to build their own madrasas and mosques, publish their literature and organize big conferences. So, you will find that almost all the big Ahl-e Hadith madrasas in India were established in or after the 1980s, and most of them, not through local community funds, but, instead, through money from the Gulf.

Using the lavish funds that they got from abroad, Ahl-e Hadith polemicists began publishing literature defaming the Deobandis and the Barelvis as virtual heretics. In turn, these groups responded with similar literature against the Ahl-e Hadith. Then, some Deobandis, seeing that the Ahl-e Hadith were getting easy money from the Gulf, also tried to come closer to the Saudi Salafis. They began claiming that they, too, had a soft corner for Wahhabism, hoping that this would also win them financial support from the Saudis. And this led to further conflicts between them and the Ahl-e Hadith, as both started competing for Saudi patronage.

However, in recent years some positive changes have been taking place. In the face of growing attacks on madrasas and other Muslim institutions and the ever-looming challenge of right-wing Hindu forces, some ulema from the different sects are increasingly coming together on the same platforms to voice the concerns of Muslims as a whole, and not just of those who belong to their own sects. You could call that a positive fall-out of a negative development.

YS: Some Muslim writers blame a 'foreign hand' for internal sectarian strife among Muslims. Do you agree with this thesis?
WM: This sort of thinking represents the insular mentality of a community that is suffering from a sense of defeat and loss. When a community reaches this level, it seeks to blame others for all its ills. Instead of looking within and introspecting to see where it has gone wrong, it talks of 'conspiracy theories' and 'a hidden hand', blaming others for its own internal problems. Such a way of thinking must change. We must recognize that we Muslims are ourselves primarily responsible for sectarian strife. True, others might take advantage of this strife for their own vested interests, as America is doing with regard to the Shias and the Sunnis in Iraq, but that should not cause us to forget that the root cause is largely internal.

YS: Are there any institutions in India that are working for promoting dialogue among the ulema of the different Muslim sects?
WM: No, unfortunately not, although this is really vital. The situation is so bad that one never even hears, for instance, of a Barelvi delegation visiting a Deobandi madrasa or Ahl-e-Hadith students taking up study in a Barelvi madrasa or vice versa, although all three of them claim to be Sunnis. Even now the medieval tradition of munazara or polemics continues, either in the form of actual public debates or through scurrilous polemical literature. These debates and diatribes have not served any constructive purpose. Instead of seeking to understand others, as should be the purpose, these debates aim only to score points over the other groups, to find fault with and denounce them. So, they have only further stoked the rivalries between the different groups. The gravity of the situation can be gauged by the fact that there is hardly any literature available on the need for and the methods of promoting genuine dialogue and understanding among the different Muslim sects. Few functions or programmes on this subject have ever been organized.

YS: Given this, how do you think dialogue between the ulema of the different sects could be promoted?
WM: There has to be a realization that today dialogue, not confrontation, is the way out, at the international level, between different religions and communities and also between the different Muslim sects. In order to proceed with dialogue, representatives of all the various sects must first meet, not for debate, but, rather, to explain their own positions without denouncing the others. They should identify the issues that they share in common as well as those that they differ on. On the latter, they should agree to disagree, and they must focus on the former in the larger interests of the entire Muslim community. Further, they can also dialogue on issues of common concern to all Muslims, say, for instance, on poverty, illiteracy, marginalisation, victimization by communal forces and so on.

YS: But who, do you think, can actually take the initiative?
WM: I think that 'modern' educated Muslims, who, typically, stay away from such issues to do with the ulema, must intervene and take the lead in setting up organizations to promote inter-sectarian unity and dialogue between the different sects. In this, they must work with open-minded and progressive ulema, especially those who have also had a benefit of university education and are not rigidly circumscribed by sectarian boundaries.

If these organizations are floated and controlled by the traditional ulema they are not likely to be very successful, as, inevitably, they would not be able to go beyond their sectarian biases and prejudices. So, although they must be close to the ulema of the madrasas, they should not get fully assimilated into them. Organisations like the Jamaat-e Islami and the Institute of Objective, Studies, New Delhi, can play an important role here. They are not controlled or dominated by the ulema, but, at the same time, have good links with them, and they also have some representatives from among them. Another thing: the organisations must not be dependent on the general public for their finances, as then they will not be able to say or do anything that goes against the sectarian prejudices that remain dominant among the public. Rather, they should have their own financial resources so as to be largely self-sustaining. Read More...

Madrasas and 'Terrorism': Interview with Salman Nadvi

Madrasas and Charges of "Terrorism": Interview with Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi
by Yoginder Sikand

Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi, Dean of the Faculty of Shariah at the renowned Nadwat ul-Ulama madrasa in Lucknow and member of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, is a senior Indian Muslim scholar. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about various aspects related to madrasas in contemporary India.

Q: Today, madrasas in general suffer from a bad press. What do you think can be done to address this?
A: I think much of this owes to lack of knowledge of media persons of what madrasas are all about. Instead of dispelling wrong propaganda about madrasas, much of the media has fallen victim to anti-madrasa propaganda and is further fuelling it. I strongly feel that to address this issue, media persons must visit madrasas themselves, observe their environment closely, interact with the ulema, the teachers and the students and then present a true picture, based on what they observe. They must present the truth, as they see it, rather than project a distorted image which certain forces opposed to the madrasas are bent on creating and reinforcing.
Another thing that needs to be done in this regard is to promote more interaction between madrasas and schools, colleges and universities. There can be exchange of students and teachers, joint programmes, such as debates, seminars and also joint sport activities. In this way, teachers and students in madrasas and in these other educational institutions can interact, learn about and come closer to each other. This will surely help break down prejudices, many of which are based on the lack of familiarity. And I am not just advocating that madrasas interact with Muslim secular institutions. I would also like them to interact in the same way with Hindu institutions, Hindu teachers and Hindu students. For instance, Hindu teachers can come to madrasas to deliver lectures. Or, madrasa students can have joint sport functions with college students, Muslims and non-Muslims. Such was the case earlier with the Nadwat ul-Ulama, whose students used to play football with students from the Lucknow University, located just adjacent to the madrasa.

The point behind such joint activities is to help promote a consciousness of a common humanity. Religion, if understood correctly, does not teach division, but, rather, addresses itself to all humankind. True religion is based on true humanism. It wants that human beings, irrespective of religion, should live together amicably.

Q: But some conservative ulema might oppose such activities, claiming that they might ‘negatively’ impact on the religious commitment and identity of the students of the madrasas.
A: Some maulvis may indeed oppose this, but I think when madrasa teachers and students interact with others and have a free exchange of views and ideas with them, many will support such initiatives, provided, of course, that the others also relate to them with a genuine concern for understanding and dialogue. This will help promote a more balanced and true picture of the madrasas in the public domain. Obviously, this would be for the good of the community and for the country, too. We must work for the country, for which peace and good relations between the different communities is indispensable. And for that we must come closer to each other, promote mutual trust and confidence and oppose narrow communalism.

Q: What efforts have you personally made in this regard?
A: I have tried to do this, in my own limited way, through the Jamiat Shabab il-Islam ('The Union of Islamic Youth’, which I established in Lucknow way back in 1974. The intention was to help madrasa graduates interact with graduates of colleges and universities, both Muslims as well as Hindus, and to help reduce the gap between the two streams of education. We also wanted young madrasa graduates to become social workers, to take a more pro-active role in community affairs, and to engage with society, with Muslims as well as Hindus, on issues related to education, social welfare and so on. And even today, when I travel to and speak at various madrasas and colleges, I repeat this same point: that madrasas and college-educated students must interact more closely. This will help counter misunderstandings. It will also work for the larger good of the country.

Q: What do you see as the reasons for the current wave of propaganda directed against madrasas, emanating from powerful quarters in the West and even in India?
A: There is no doubt that much of this has to do with the powerful Zionist lobby in America. Today, America is in the grasp of the pro-Zionist lobby, which controls its current administration, its politics, its economics and its media. America has consistently backed Israeli aggression and has always vetoed any UN resolutions that are critical of Israel. This, and the greed for cheap West Asian oil, accounts largely for the anti-madrasa propaganda emanating from America. To add to this is the power of the right-wing pro-Zionist Christian lobby, which dreams of the imminent arrival of Jesus Christ, who they believe will establish a global Christian empire with his capital in Jerusalem.

Obviously, in the current context, the only forces that can stand up to and resist this religious aggression and these hegemonic designs of America and Israel are the Muslims. The ulema of the madrasas, who are well-versed with the history of the Muslims and of Islam, play a crucial role in shaping the mentality of the Muslim masses and to give them a certain direction. America knows that this class of people can effectively mobilize opposition to its imperialistic policies and designs, and so it is seeking to undermine them. In order to legitimize its imperialist aggression against many Muslim countries, it constantly claims that the ulema are ‘terrorists’, ‘extremists’, ‘obscurantists’, and so on.

Often, these anti-Muslim forces commit certain heinous crimes through their paid agents and place the blame on the ulema or on madrasa students. This is part of their larger strategy of seeking to delegitimise the ulema so as to weaken resistance to Western and Zionist imperialism.
Q: Would you say that this holds true in the case of India also?
A: Much the same pattern is being repeated in India, too. In India, many bomb blasts are actually engineered by certain agencies, who then wrongly blame Muslims for them, especially madrasa students and teachers, in order to defame them. It seems that now American, Israeli and Indian agencies have come together and are working in tandem. The Hindutva right-wing has for long been engaged in such destructive acts directed against Muslims. So, any time there is a bomb blast Muslims are automatically blamed for it, even if there is no evidence for this, and they are arrested under draconian laws. In jail they are tortured and forced to sign fake confessions. In this climate of growing injustice, some might entertain feelings of revenge. But that, I feel, can only further add to the mindless destruction that we are witnessing. If we are to ensure peace in the country, which is indispensable for its progress, there needs to be an immediate stop to the harrassment of innocent Muslims wrongly accused of ‘terrorism’.

Q: So, are you saying that there is no evidence of Indian madrasas being engaged in ‘terrorism’?
A: Exactly. Madrasas give great stress to morality, to manners and decorum, to respect for elders and so on. So docile are madrasa students that they cannot take any step forward. To accuse them of aggression is, therefore, wrong.

Q: But surely this is not the case with many madrasas in Pakistan?
A: The situation in Pakistan is somewhat different. There is a certain extremism there in some madrasa circles. In many cases, this is as a response to incidents, events and provocations specific to the Pakistani context. Some madrasas there may indeed be involved in militant activities as a response to what is happening in that country. But Indian madrasas are quite different, and not a single one has been proved by even the Government of being engaged in ‘terrorism’.

Q: Certain governments and influential policy-makers, who, while accusing madrasas of fanning ‘terrorism’, at the same time are now vehemently advocating ‘reforms’ in the madrasa curriculum. How do you look at this?
A: I don’t think their intention is proper. They talk about ‘reforming’ the madrasas even though they lack a proper understanding of the madrasa system. For such people to talk of madrasa ‘reforms’ is like forcing a healthy man to eat medicines! It can only make the man fall sick and have all sorts of unwanted side effects! Instead of curing the man you will end up making him fall ill! This is what some governments are trying to do.

I would suggest that government dialogue with and interact with reliable and responsible ulema who enjoy the confidence of the community and only on the basis of that, and with their support, formulate its policies. This sort of dialogue is essential. If the government has any misgivings about the madrasas, it can sort them out with the ulema through dialogue. It should not impose any measures with a preconceived notion about the madrasas and without the cooperation of the ulema.

Q: In this context, how do you see recent suggestions emanating from official quarters for the setting up of a National Madrasa Board under government control?
A: I think imposing such a Board against the willingness of the ulema is not only wrong, it will also not work. The opposition of many ulema to this Board is because of what they have seen happening to many of the madrasas affiliated to government madrasa boards in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. There, many such madrasas do not teach at all, and some of them even have fake names of teachers on their registers simply to pocket the money given by the boards. Many teachers in such madrasas have lost the passion for teaching as they are now assured of a steady income and have become like any other government servants, whose primary concern is to increase their salaries. Often, teachers in such madrasas will be found demonstrating outside state assemblies, staging dharnas and strikes, demanding increase in their pay and perks. This, of course, goes against the stature of the ulema.

So, seeing the dismal state of affairs in many madrasas affiliated to state madrasa boards in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, many ulema are apprehensive that if a National Madrasa Board is instituted, it would lead to the same phenomenon replicating itself throughout the country and on a massive scale, which can only prove detrimental to the cause that madrasas are meant to serve. Otherwise, the ulema have no conflict with the government. Nor are they opposed to modern education, as is claimed by some advocates of the National Madrasa Board. After all, many madrasas have begun teaching computers and English, and scores of others have been teaching Mathematics, Hindi, Science, Social Sciences and so on for years now. We want our madrasa students to learn these subjects too. Islam does not oppose this. We tell our students that many great scientists and inventors in the past were Muslims, so that they can take pride in and be inspired by their example. So, it is wrong to say that our opposition to the Board stems from any hostility to modern knowledge. Rather, the opposition stems from the feeling on the part of many ulema that the Board is being sought to be imposed on the madrasas and that its consequences will be negative.

If this issue is sorted out through dialogue between the government and the madrasas there can well be cooperation between the two. The government should let the madrasas free, and if it is sincerely interested in helping them improve, it can provide them grants for infrastructuiral development and for teaching modern subjects without interfering in their functioning. But for the government to take any unilateral decision without the consent of the majority of the ulema would be grossly undemocratic.

Q: What role do you think middle-class, university-educated Muslims can play in the process of promoting dialogue between the ulema and the government?
A: Unfortunately, some such Muslims seek to downplay their Muslim identity, wanting to have little or nothing to do with the Muslim masses and their issues. This is both because they are concerned only about their own aggrandisement as well as because they fear think that if they identify themselves with Muslim causes they would be mistakenly branded as ‘communal’ or ‘obscurantist’ by others. This is very unfortunate. I think there is a great need for middle-class Muslims who have links with the media and the government to facilitate dialogue between the ulema and the government. Unfortunately, however, little has been done in this regard.

Q: To return to the point about the growing anti-madrasa propaganda, would you agree with the oft-heard argument that this must be understood as part of a broader strategy to seek to impose Western values on the rest of the world so as to reinforce Western hegemony?
A: That is how it seems to me to be. America, and the West in general, wants to establish its global cultural hegemony, which is indispensable for its economic and political hegemony as well. It operates on the assumption that those who do not share its culture and its values are its foes and that, henceforth, they should be suppressed and eliminated. This, of course, leads to aggression, as evidenced in the massive destruction wrought by the Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere.

Q: But then how do you explain the fact that America has such close relations with regimes that claim to be ‘Islamic’, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?
A: These close links are simple because these regimes feel compelled to have them. They are like servants who cannot express their anger against their master, being wholly dependent on them.

Q: Yet, at the same time, these regimes boast of their ‘Islamic’ credentials. Isn’t this some sort of hypocrisy (munafaqat), which is considered to be a grievous sin in Islam?
A: Yes, it is hypocrisy. It is 100 per cent hypocrisy. There is no doubt about it at all. For instance, Saudi Arabia is under American pressure, and although it does not agree with every American policy, it finds it difficult to speak out against America.

To come back to your question of culture as a tool of imperialism—I am not blindly opposed to everything from the West. We need to appreciate and learn from good things in every culture. Some people talk of the ‘clash of civilisations’, but I prefer to talk of the ‘consensus of civilisations’. In the face of the massive onslaught of blind Westernisation, which is certainly a weapon being used to promote Western hegemony by supplanting other cultures, we are ignoring the tremendous ill-effects of many aspects of contemporary Western culture. We have to preserve and promote the good aspects of our own Eastern cultures, based on the Hindu religion, Islam and so on, and refuse to be swept away by the West or suffer from an inferiority complex, which is reflected in blindly imitating everything that comes from the West.

Q: What role do you think the Muslim ulema can play in promoting inter-community dialogue in India?
A: Inter-community dialogue and understanding is an Islamic imperative at the same time as it is necessary for the welfare of the country as a whole. My appeal to Muslims is to strive to be models of Islamic virtue so that they can be a source of mercy (rahmat) to others through their actions. Deal kindly and gently with others, not aggressively—only then will people be willing to listen to you. The earlier method of polemical debates (munazara) is of no use. It only further reinforces conflicts and divides. It reflects an unhealthy urge to seek to impose one’s views on others, to denounce others. What is needed, instead, is dialogue, through which we should learn to understand each other and each other’s faiths and thereby clear our misunderstandings. In that way, people of different faiths can come closer to each other. The Quran says that God has made human beings from the same pair of primal parents and has divided them into different communities so that they can know or understand each other. This can happen only through dialogue, not through fierce polemical exchanges.

So, for instance, ulema should meet with Hindu and Christian religious leaders and discuss issues of mutual interest and get to know each other. They should seek to understand other religions in the same way as their followers understand them. They should know if in puja a man is praying to a stone, considering it to be a god, or is actually taking it as a symbol of Ishwar, or if when a man is saying his prayers in a mosque if he is praying to a wall or to God. There should be programmes in temples to which ulema are invited, in mosques where pujaris are invited, or in churches where pujaris and maulvis both are invited. Let them closely interact with each other. That will make them recognise their common humanity.

Q: As a leading Islamic scholar, what do you feel about Muslim girls’ education and modern education for Muslim children? Some argue that the ulema are opposed to both.
A: This argument is wrong. Women should not be behind men in religious or modern education. They should acquire both sorts of education and share it with other women and with their own children. In matters of education there should be no difference between men and women. History itself shows that many Muslim women were better scholars than their male contemporaries. Both halves of society should have equal access to education, otherwise society will not be able to maintain its balance.

As for modern education for Muslim children, we are all for it. We do not say that all Muslim children must enroll in full-time madrasas and spend five or six years training to become maulvis. Not at all. If in a locality there are just five or ten maulvis from whom people can get religious instruction it is enough. The other children can go to school and take up a range of professions, although every Muslim child should be taught the basics of his or her faith as well. After all, not all the companions of the Prophet were expert religious scholars. Many of them were traders or agriculturalists or workers. So, Islam is not a hurdle to acquiring modern education, contrary to what is sometimes alleged by some people. Read More...