Interview: Asghar Ali Engineer

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

(Interviewed by Yoginder Sikand)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Interview: Waris Mazhari (2)

Waris Mazhari is the editor of the Delhi-based Urdu monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Old Boys’ Association of the Dar ul-Ulum, Deoband, of which he himself is a graduate.

This is the second interview with Waris mazhari, conducted by Yoginder Sikand, for this blog

Q: Some government officials have suggested the setting up of a Central Madrasa Board in India. The Pakistani government is also trying to do something similar. Predictably, this has led to a major controversy, with a large section of the ulema opposing this. How do you view this proposal?

A: I cannot speak about the situation in Pakistan, as I have never been there. So, I’ll confine myself to the Indian case. There are both negative as well as possible positive aspects of this proposal, some benefits as well as some drawbacks. We will have to wait and see which is more. What is certain, however, is that the Board will have some very negative consequences. The Board would fund the madrasas that affiliate themselves to it, and obviously this would lead to interference by the state. Such funding could then be used to build and consolidate vote-banks and might lead to the politicization of madrasas, leading to competition for government patronage. This would negatively impact on the teachers’ passion for and commitment to their work. They will become more concerned with raises in their salaries and other such benefits, and would not hesitate to take to demonstrations and strikes for this end, as in other educational institutions. It would further increase corruption. It would also lead to a situation like that which prevails in many madrasas affiliated to the Madrasa Board appointed by the Bihar government, where numerous teachers have never even seen the madrasas where they are supposed to be teaching. They sit at home and draw their salaries, like in many government-run schools across the country.

Because the salaries of teachers and staff in the affiliated madrasas would be much higher than what is presently given in the independent madrasas, political links and personal contacts will become more important than capability, expertise and experience in staff appointments. The managers of the madrasas will then have to seek to please the ruling party to keep the funds flowing in. So, in all, the setting up of a Central Madrasa Board might seriously impact in a very negative way on the madrasas.

Q: What do you think could be the consequences of the proposed Board in terms of relations between two classes of ulema that would be thereby created—between those working in Board-affiliated madrasas and others in independent madrasas?

A: Yes, that is also a very important issue. Board-affiliated madrasas would give their teachers better salaries and service conditions. So, it is possible that teachers working in independent madrasas, whose salaries are very low, would seek to make a beeline for these madrasas. Till now they have been relying on God and leading a very simple lifestyle. But obviously the opportunity of earning a government salary would impact on the minds of several of them. So, two classes of ulema would emerge, and there would be a sort of conflict of interests between them. The teachers in the independent madrasas would feel that, despite their better qualifications and experience and their greater commitment, they are paid much less than those in Board-affiliated madrasas.

Q: Presumably, then, at least a section of the ulema, particularly a large number of them who teach in madrasas, would welcome the proposal.

A: Well, many madrasa teachers labour under the arbitrariness and whims of the managers of the madrasas. The Board, if it is established, would certainly lead to greater and more open articulation of this resentment. Teachers would be motivated to ask for higher salaries, threatening that if their demands were not granted they would shift to Board-affiliated madrasas.

Q: Will the Board be able to bring about greater accountability of the madrasas in terms of use of funds?

A: My personal view is that, over the past few decades, many madrasas have become like businesses. A substantial section, but by no means all, of the ulema have made a business out of donations for their madrasas. So, you will see that often their lifestyle is much better than that of the teachers they employ in their madrasas. This has given the government the excuse it needed to seek to intervene in the madrasa system through talk of establishing a Central Madrasa Board.

Over the last twenty years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of madrasas in the country, although certainly not on as massive a scale as is often alleged. The basic reason for this is economic. There are now less sincere people among the founders of the madrasas. For many, establishing a madrasa is a means for earning money for themselves. They pay their staff, including teachers, pitiable salaries, while many of them travel in cars, live in fancy houses and send their children to modern schools and colleges. So this has led to a silent, but very obvious, conflict between the managers and teachers in many madrasas. Precisely because of the failings of many madrasa managers, the state has been provided by a ready excuse to interfere in the madrasa system.

Most madrasa graduates are totally confused about their future job prospects. They have no idea what sort of work they are going to do. That is why some of them can be easily misled. I have met some graduates of the Deoband madrasa who joined the Qadiani sect only out of material interest. The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as having said that poverty sometimes leads to disbelief. Islam has been wrongly interpreted as enjoining poverty, as denying this world. Now, the managers of the madrasas do not abide by this wrong claim, but the teachers and other staff are forced to do so, being paid very meager salaries.

So, in this context, when madrasa graduates see that all other avenues are closed to them, because they cannot join universities, they are forced to go back into the madrasa system where they came from. And so they establish their own madrasas by collecting donations from the public. For many madrasa graduates, their ambition is to have their own madrasa so that they can lead the same comfortable life-style as the managers of the madrasas that they have studied in. And so the number of madrasas goes on increasing. The situation is really quite worrisome.

I don’t know exactly how a Madrasa Board can address this question of improper use of funds. Perhaps it can regulate the salaries of madrasa teachers and staff on the basis of qualification, capability and experience. Today you have a situation wherein a very good teacher who has been working in a madrasa for twenty years gets only two thousand rupees a month, while another teacher, who is not very good but who presses the manager’s feet and teaches his children, gets five thousand. The Board would need to address this sort of exploitation.

Another thing that the Board could do in this regard is to control wasteful expenditure on the part of certain madrasas. It should see how much funds the different madrasas need and arrange for this money to be diverted to them accordingly. It should not be, as now, that a madrasa’s budget is half a million rupees but it receives five million and no one knows where the rest has gone. It should not be that this money is pocketed or is spent on building ostentatious marble mosques and other buildings. This is simply intolerable. After all, the money is given to the madrasas by the community and so it should be properly spent. Some people say that the Board should simply give the madrasas money and let them do what they want with it. I totally disagree, because this will certainly encourage corruption.

Q: Perhaps a section of the teachers and students of madrasas would welcome the establishment of a Central Madrasa Board to check the arbitrariness of the managers?

A: I suppose so. In some states where there are state-appointed madrasa boards, some ulema initially opposed their being set up, but many teachers supported them because through the boards they were able to get better salaries. And so the same will probably happen if a Central Madrasa Board is established.

I guess many madrasa students will also welcome the setting up of the Board if it enables the madrasas to get affiliated to various universities that would recognize their degrees. This would create two streams within the madrasa system—one group of students would study in madrasas for a couple of years—say till the middle level—and then would be able to join high schools and universities. Others, who want to spend their life serving the cause of the faith as religious scholars, can carry on with specialised religious education. Unlike the case presently, only those students who have genuine interest in serving the faith as ulema, and have not taken to madrasa education out of economic compulsion, would thereby go on for higher Islamic learning in the madrasas. Now, this is by no means an unwarranted innovation. In fact, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a leading light of the Deoband movement, also suggested that madrasas have this sort of dual system—a short, basic course in Islamic Studies for those who could later go on to take up other professions or enroll in schools, and a longer, specialized course for those who want to serve as ulema. He was of the opinion that not all madrasa students have to become maulvis.

Q: Do you think the setting up of the Board can help the process of reforming the madrasas?

A: Personally, I am of the view that reform has to come from within. There is a pressing need to reform the madrasa curriculum. Much of it is irrelevant and has no relation with contemporary life. However, it is for the ulema of the madrasas, rather than for the state, to initiate and encourage reforms. The ulema should have done this long ago but did not, and this has given the government an excuse to seek to intervene in and control the madrasas in the name of ‘reform’. This, of course, would result in unwarranted governmental interference.

But that said, let me also say that there are indeed numerous ulema today who recognize the need for curricular reform. Many of them are writing about this, and some are even calling for fairly radical changes. This, however, is not a recent phenomenon. Talk of curricular reforms within the ulema community goes back to the early years of the past century, and this was further galvanized in the post-1947 period. 50 years ago Maulana Azad, free India’s first Education Minister, himself a graduate of a madrasa, came up with a blueprint for very bold reforms in the madrasa curriculum. Three decades ago, Allama Binori, a Pakistani Deobandi scholar, did the same. Maulana Aslam Qasmi, a noted Indian Deobandi scholar, has been advocating similar changes, as has been Maulana Salman Husaini Nadvi of the Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa in Lucknow. So there is this introspection taking place within the ulema community and changes are coming, although very slowly. In some madrasas, Computers and English are being taught, old books are being deleted. But this change is not happening on a large-scale or in a very organized or planned way.

Q: How can that sort of change be brought about?

A: Well, the first thing is to establish a federation of madrasas. If all the madrasas are not willing to come under one wing, then at least there can be separate federations for the different sects. But, lamentably, nothing has been done by the ulema in this regard. Some major madrasas, like the Dar ul-Ulum Deoband, claim to have established such federations, but these really do not do much work at all.

Getting the ulema of the madrasas to agree to work together is so difficult—they keep fighting among themselves, particularly on sectarian lines. They are not willing to sit together and plan for the welfare of the community. To cite a small instance, even though both the Deobandis and the Nadwis, associated with the Nadwat ul-Ulema, Lucknow, are Hanafi Sunnis and both follow roughly the same school of thought, there are such differences between the two that till date not a single Nadwi scholar has been appointed in the Deoband madrasa. Nor do Nadvi graduates go there for higher learning. Likewise, many Deobandi ulema would not like their students to study in the Nadwat ul-Ulema.

So, as I was saying, there are such differences among the ulema themselves that forming a federation or a federations of madrasas, an essential requirement for promoting internal reforms in a planned, large-scale manner by bringing the ulema together on a common platform, has been rendered almost impossible.

Q: Some ulema argue that if ‘modern’ subjects are also introduced into the madrasa curriculum, the burden would be too much for the students to bear, as a result of which they would do well neither in their religious studies nor in ‘secular’ subjects. How do you look at this argument?

A: I don’t agree at all. One is not asking that ‘modern’ subjects be taught in the madrasas till the matriculation or graduation level. But madrasa students must know the basics of various ‘modern’ subjects, as this will help them in their own life, including also in their capacity of would-be ulema. They should know basic Mathematics, Hindi and English and so on. They should at least be able to know where Saudi Arabia or India is. One journalist reported that on visiting the Deoband madrasa he came across students ranting against the United States but when he asked them which continent it is located in, they were unable to identify it on the map. How can such students serve Islam and the Muslim community properly?

There are several books in the present madrasa syllabus, particularly on medieval theology, philosophy and logic, that are unnecessary, irrelevant and a burden on the students. If these are removed they can easily be replaced by books on basic ‘modern’ subjects without further burdening the students.

Q: Although you oppose the formation of a Central Madrasa Board, suppose it comes into being what do you think the scope of its work should be?

A: One thing it could do is serve as a bridge to enable madrasa graduates to join universities by getting them to recognize their degrees. Now, this is not a new innovation. One of the founders of the Deoband madrasa, Maulana Qasim Nanotvi, is said to have approved of the possibility of graduates of Deoband going on to study in universities. So, the Board can act as a bridge that can help reduce the hiatus that exists between the madrasa and the ‘modern’ systems of education.

This role can be further promoted if the Board can select bright madrasa graduates and arrange for them to go in for short courses in English, Social Sciences and so on, so that they can thereafter join universities. For this it can open a university of its own or else special departments in existing universities.

Q: Do you think that the opposition of some ulema to the proposed Board might also have to do with the fear that it might result in a dilution of their authority and control?

A: Yes, I think so. They fear that even if their authority isn’t fully taken away it would certainly be diminished, even though this might benefit many teachers and students. It would possibly curtail the arbitrary way in which many of them run their madrasas. Today, you have madrasas that spend a million rupees on building fancy marble mosques, while their students don’t have proper food or fans in their rooms, and are forced to sleep on the terrace, and so on. Now, the money that is given to the madrasas is like a trust from the community. How can you so arbitrarily decide to spend the money on opulent buildings and ignore students like that? Managers of madrasas that are dependent on the donations of the community must not behave as if they are their own business concerns that they can spend the money donated for them just as they like.

At least in private and government companies you have workers’ unions, but in madrasas there is nothing of the sort to check the arbitrariness of the management. Students cannot demonstrate or make demands. They cannot ask why they are made to stand two hours in a queue for food, as happens in some madrasas. Neither they nor the community really knows how the money that is received by the managers for the madrasas is actually used. They cannot ask how and why some managers use this money to lead comfortable lives while they are forced to suffer. But certainly this issue must be addressed, since the money comes for the sake of the students.

Q: In recent years, the Government of India has begun talking of the need for madrasa ‘reforms’. How do you see this?

A: Personally, I find this sudden display of apparent concern for reform of the madrasas on the part of the government somewhat disconcerting. If the state is really interested in solving the manifold educational problems of the Muslims, why is it talking only about the less than 3% Muslim children who study in madrasas, while at the same time ignoring the 97% who do not? It is as if these 3% children are a major hurdle to the overall progress of the Muslim community, which is, of course, not really the case.

Q: Some ulema believe that behind this rhetoric of madrasa ‘reform’ being articulated by the state is directed by possible American or Western pressure. Do you agree?

A: It is certainly the case that the West, for its own motives, is seeking to target the madrasas because they know that madrasas exercise an important influence on Muslim society. So, when Western governments talks about the need for ‘modernisation’ of madrasas, there can be no doubt that they are motivated by its own interests and objectives, which reflect a particularly skewed way of viewing the world post-9/11. Some Western powers see madrasas as centres for the transmission of Islamic ideology, and they want to curb or control such ideologies that might challenge their hegemony.

Q: In Pakistan, the state, under American urging, has been seeking to impose curricular reforms in the madrasas in the name of ‘modernisation’ in order to dampen anti-US sentiments. Do you think this is the case in India, too?

A: As I said, the conditions prevailing in the madrasas has provided the excuse to various forces to seek to interfere in the madrasas under various guises. Undoubtedly, the post-9/11 global political context has shaped the way in which the West views madrasas. And that has had its impact on India as well. So, it is now claimed that madrasas are ‘dens of terrorism’, although it has been proven that in India this is not true at all. It is precisely because of this sort of discourse that the state thinks it should intervene in the madrasa system, and this it seeks to do in the name of ‘modernisation’ or ‘reform’.

Although there may not be any substantial proof that the Government of India is doing this under US pressure, the possibility cannot be denied. After all, the Americans have done this in many Muslim countries, too, although I don’t think that blaming America alone for all our woes is the way out. Further, one must also remember that talk of reform began much earlier, both among the ulema themselves as well as in government circles, as is evidenced by the setting up of State-funded madrasa boards in several states in India over the last few decades. That said, one also has to see the politics behind talk of ‘reforms’ by the state.

To come back to your question about Pakistani madrasas, I must say that whatever Musharraf is trying to do in this regard is under US pressure. First, the US encouraged Pakistan to set up militant bases in madrasas in their war against the Russians in Afghanistan and now the Pakistanis are targeting madrasas at the behest of the Americans. It is also part of a larger concern on the part of the Pakistani ruling class, so closely tied to the West, to ward off any challenge to its hegemony.

I must add here that Indian politicians who harangue against the madrasas or else keep harping on the need for them to ‘modernise’ have been strengthened by what the Pakistani rulers are doing in their country vis-à-vis the madrasas, where there are even more stringent controls now in place. So, right-wing Hindu ideologues have got the chance to argue their case that madrasas in India must be tightly controlled because the Pakistani government, too, is doing so.

I must repeat here that the equation that some people draw between the Pakistani and Indian madrasas is wholly accurate. Unlike in Pakistan, not a single Indian madrasa has been involved in promoting any sort of militancy. So, here, obviously, the agenda of reform has to be viewed differently—not to counter ‘terrorism’, because it does not exist, but, instead, to further enhance the socialization of the ulema so as to help promote better relations between Muslims and others and to enable madrasa students to have at least a basic understanding of a range of ‘modern’ subjects.

Q: Perhaps state policies vis-à-vis madrasas also have to do with the image of the madrasas in the media, which has made them appear as ‘suspicious’. Is that so?

A: In India some political parties and large sections of the media wrongly equate Indian madrasas with certain madrasas in Pakistan that are engaged in indiscriminate violence. Thereby, they have created a scare about them in the minds of ordinary people. But even though this propaganda isn’t true, the madrasas are also to blame, in part, for their image problem. They are completely divided, with nothing to bring them on a common platform. And with some obscure fatwas being issued by some maulvis, their entire image has got spoilt. Madrasa students generally do not come up to the standards expected of them. There is also corruption in matters of collection of donations in the case of some madrasas. So, in this way they have contributed in no small way in producing the negative images of themselves that the media broadcasts, so much so that many ‘modern’ educated Muslims, too, have come to see madrasas in a similar light.

Q: So what do you think madrasas could do to improve their media image?

A: I think they must go out of their way to reach out to the wider society. For instance, they could invite non-Muslims, including social and political activists and media persons, to the madrasas to see and study the madrasa system themselves. They need to produce literature in languages other than just Urdu to tell others what exactly they are all about. Some madrasas claim to have now established media cells for this purpose, but most of these are actually non-functional.

It is a fact that, by and large, the ulema of the madrasas have yet to develop the consciousness of the need to advocate their case in an organized way. Many ulema are so insular that they think that the whole world is against the madrasas or even against Islam, so they just don’t feel the need to reach out to others. Some of them think that all non-Muslims, by definition, are against Islam. So they might believe some stupid rabble-rousing Muslim but would ignore a sympathetic and well-meaning Hindu, doubting his sincerity and motives. This is really lamentable, because there are many non-Muslim activists and media personnel and even just ‘ordinary’ people who are not anti-Muslim in any way, and who are committed to truth, social justice and democracy. Madrasas need to contact them, instead of, as now, expecting them to contact the madrasas. After all, it is the madrasas that need them and their assistance.

But let me also add that we should not expect the madrasas alone to do all this. ‘Modern’ educated, middle-class Muslims also have a valuable role to play here, to act as a bridge between the madrasas and the wider, including non-Muslim Indian society. However, few such people actually take any interest in Muslim community issues, including that of the madrasas. One reason for this could be that many ulema suffer from an unfounded inflated superiority complex which makes them feel that they must lord it above others. But it is also the case that that many ‘modern’ educated Muslims generally only engage in criticism but not in any constructive activity. They typically see the ulema as cut off from the world and as opposed to ‘progress’, which, while not true, effectively reduces to the minimum the contact that they want to maintain with the ulema, and, thereby, the possibility for them to act as a bridge between the ulema and the wider society.

Read More...

Interview: Tariq Rasheed Firangi Mahali

39-year old Maulana Tariq Rasheed Firanghi Mahali is a ninth generation direct descendant of Mulla Nizamuddin Firanghi Mahali, who framed what is known after him as the dars-e nizami, the basic syllabus that continues to be followed, albeit in slightly modified forms, by the vast majority of Islamic madrasas in South Asia even today. He is one of the few remaining members of the renowned Firanghi Mahali family of Lucknow who carry on with their family's centuries'-old tradition of Islamic scholarship. A graduate of the Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa in Lucknow, he is presently Director of the Islamic Society of Greater Orlando, Florida, in the United States.

(Interviewed by Yoginder Sikand)

Q: Could you briefly describe your family's tradition of Islamic scholarship?

A: We trace our descent from a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, Hazrat Abu Ayub Ansari, in whose house in Medina the Prophet stayed following his
migration from Mecca. Our family has, over the centuries, produced leading Islamic scholars. In the early eighteenth century, the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb granted Mulla Qutubuddin, one of our ancestors, a mansion in Lucknow, the Firanghi Mahal, which was earlier used by a European (firanghi) merchant, and hence its name and the title of our family, who are known as Firanghi Mahalis.

Mulla Nizamuddin, son of Mulla Qutubuddin, prepared an outline for studies, which came to be known after him as the dars-e nizami or the ‘Syllabus of Nizamuddin’.
This was, for its time, a very relevant syllabus, and soon became so popular all across India that almost all the madrasas that were later established adopted its pattern. And even today most madrasas in South Asia claim to follow the dars-e nizami and so are called Nizamia madrasas.

Q: What was so special about the dars-e nizami?

A: For its times, the dars-e nizami provided a well-rounded education. It included subjects such as Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Philosophy, Logic, Geography, Literature, Chemistry and so on, as well as the Quran, the Prophetic Traditions, Islamic Jurisprudence and Sufism. Those who passed through this course of study went on to assume a variety of careers, not just as imams, but also as bureaucrats in the courts of various princely states.

This is why even Shia and Hindu students studied with the ulema of the Firanghi Mahal family. It was not like today, when, in a climate of increasing sectarianism and narrow-mindedness, madrasas are associated with one sect or the other, and often play a key role in fanning inter-sectarian conflicts. They are now unwilling to tolerate each other, quite a contrast, you will agree, to the ecumenism that characteristic of the early ulema of Firanghi Mahal.

The dars-e nizami, as Mulla Nizamuddin developed it, was not intended to be a hide-bound, fixed and unchanging syllabus, as it is sometimes made out to be today by some maulvis. This is evident from the fact that although Mulla Nizamuddin authored several books, he did not include even one of these in the syllabus that he framed. The syllabus was flexible enough to allow for the inclusion of new or better books. In place of bookish learning, which is characteristic of many madrasas today, Mulla Nizamuddin did not teach entire books to his students. Rather, he taught them only some chapters of each book, and encouraged them to study the rest of these books on their own, so that they could thereby enhance their critical capacities. This was contrast to most madrasas today, where questioning is strongly discouraged.

Q: How did the tradition of learning based in Firanghi Mahal develop after Mulla Nizamuddin?

A: Mulla Nizamuddin did not establish a madrasa in Firanghi Mahal. Rather, students would come to him from different parts of India to learn from him in his house in the Firanghi Mahal. There was no regular, fixed course of study or examinations, as in the case of madrasas today. Students would stay in mosques in the neighbourhood or else rent a place close-by and regularly meet with and study various books from Mulla Nizamuddin or other members of his family. He was also a spiritual instructor for many of them, because he was a Sufi, and a disciple of the noted Qadri saint, Shah Abdur Razak Bansavi.

This system of informal learning at Firanghi Mahal was then carried on by several generations of our family. Basically, students came from elite Muslim families. The system was a product of the feudal period, and our family, like many other scholarly families of that time, was patronised by the Muslim feudal elite. It was only in 1906 that Maulana Andul Bari Firanghi Mahali, who was a noted Islamic scholar of his times and one of the founders of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-e Hind, the leading union of Indian ulema, established a madrasa, the Madrasa-e Nizamia, inside the Firanghi Mahal. The madrasa continued to function till the Partition, in 1947, when Maulana Abdul Bari's son and successor, Maulana Jamal Miyan, migrated to Pakistan.

Q: Some traditionalist ulema argue that the dars-e nizami does not need any change. They claim that it produced good scholars in the past and so can do so today, too. As a descendant of Mulla Nizamuddin and one who knows the tradition of the South Asian ulema well, how do you react to this argument?

A: I strongly disagree with this argument. It reflects a very strange mentality. So rigid are those who argue this way that they easily brand anyone who calls for change as an ‘apostate’ or an ‘agent’ of this or other ‘un-Islamic’ power. Mulla Nizamuddin did not certainly intend that the syllabus he formulated should remain unchanged forever. The point is that the ulema must be kept abreast with contemporary developments, which is not possible if one argues that the dars-e nizami should remain unchanged. How can you be considered to be a real scholar if you study books written eight hundred or five hundred years ago, which is the case with the dars-e nizami, and totally leave out modern books? Of course, the Quran and Hadith texts and so on remain the same. They cannot be changed. But the dars-e nizami is overloaded with books on antiquated Greek logic and philosophy, or what are called ulum-e aqaliya or ‘rational sciences’, much of which is quite irrelevant now. They should be replaced by modern ‘rational’ subjects, such as English and social sciences, so that would-be ulema know about the present world. Without this knowledge how can they provide appropriate leadership to the community? How will they be able to answer the questions that people in the streets are asking? How will they be able to properly deal with new jurisprudential issues if all they learn are issues that the medieval ulema discussed in the books that are still taught in the madrasas that claim to follow the dars-e nizami?

So, this argument that the dars-i nizami should not be revised, on the lines that I have suggested, is completely absurd. I think it should be revised every thirty to forty years in accordance with changing conditions if it is to retain its relevance. Here I must add that a certain hostility to change is deeply ingrained in the mentality of many of our traditionalist ulema. For instance, when I was a child, loudspeakers had just been introduced in India and Mufti Atiq ur-Rahman, a leading scholar of the Firanghi Mahal family, issued a fatwa declaring their use to be unlawful. Some other ulema also reacted the same way, but later the ulema were forced to change their position. Many traditionalist ulema somehow automatically assume that anything new is haram or forbidden, but, actually, in Islam the right attitude is that everything is permissible if it is not forbidden.

The hostility of some ulema to any significant change in the dars-e nizami has also to do with a fixation with a certain understanding of what Muslim culture is. So, even in North America, where I now live, many madrasas that have come up insist on keeping Urdu, rather than English, as the medium of instruction, although few young North American Muslims of South Asian background know Urdu, their language now being English. As if Urdu has some special sanctity attached to it! The ulema who run these madrasas might fear that if they were to use English instead, the students would lose their Islamic identity or be secularised, but this attitude is wrong because, needless to say, all languages, including both Urdu and English, are ultimately from God.

Some ulema might feel that including English in the madrasa syllabus will cause their students to be attracted to the delights of the world and to stray from the path of the faith, but I do not think so. English is now the global language of communication, and if the ulema are to address the younger generation or people of other faiths they must know the language. And if they include English and the basics of modern subjects in their curriculum, they may succeed in attracting students from economically better-off families, too. At present, however, madrasas are largely the refuge of the poor, while middle-class parents prefer to send their children to ‘secular’
schools because there they learn subjects that would help them get a good job in the future. If the madrasas were to include such subjects in their syllabus, at least to a certain basic level, they would attract these students too. And then, after they finish a basic course that includes both religious as well as ‘secular’ subjects, their students can choose which line to specialise in.

Q: Some maulvis dismiss even the most well-meaning suggestions for reform as a reflection of what they claim is an ‘anti-Islamic’ conspiracy, alleging that these are a means to secularise madrasas and rob them of their Islamic identity. What are your views on this?

A: Different people might have different motives when talking about madrasa reforms, but surely the sort of reforms that some younger generation ulema like us, who are genuinely concerned about improving the madrasas, are calling for cannot or should not be branded as a ‘conspiracy’. We are not calling for the secularisation of the madrasas or suggesting that they should teach secular subjects to such an extent that their Islamic identity is threatened. Far from it. But surely there should be a revision of some aspects of the dars-e nizami that are no longer relevant and the inclusion of basic English, Social Sciences and so on, while making the Quran and the Hadith the centre of the curriculum, which they were not in the case of the traditional dars-e nizami, which gave more stress to the then current ‘rational’ sciences. Surely, even many ulema themselves recognise the need for this sort of change or else they would not be sending their own children to English-medium schools or even abroad to study if they can afford it.

Q: The ‘mainstream’ media often depicts the ulema in a very negative light. Ulema such as yourself are rarely, if ever, mentioned by the media. Why is this so?

A: Yes, unfortunately, there is this tendency on the part of large sections of the ‘mainstream’ media to generalize about the ulema and portray them all as if they were some archaic, monstrous creatures. Part of the reason lies in deeply-rooted historical prejudices. And then there are weird people in every community, and the media often picks on some weird mullah who issues some sensational and irrational fatwa and presents him as speaking for all the ulema, which is, of course, not the case. So, part of the fault also lies with such mullahs.

I strongly think that reforms in the curriculum and methods of teaching are essential to help madrasas relate better to others, including non-Muslims, the
media and the government, and also to counter
misunderstandings that many people have about them.
For that we also need to encourage tolerance for other points of view, for other understandings of Islam and for other religions and their adherents.

Q: There is also considerable debate about the need for introducing vocational training in the madrasas. Some traditionalists are fiercely opposed to this. What do you feel?

A: I think vocational training is very important. Ideally, although this is not always the case, one should choose to become an Islamic scholar not for the sake of a job but as a religious calling. In other words, ideally, leading the prayers in a mosque or delivering sermons should not be a paid profession. It should be an honorary, voluntary thing. This is how it was in the distant past. For instance, Imam Abu Hanifa, whose school of law most South Asian Sunni Muslims follow, was not a professional religious scholar—he earned his livelihood as a businessman. Today, however, the general feeling is that large sections of the ulema live off the donations of others. If one is dependent on others how will one earn the respect that is due to him? The ulema can gain proper respect only when they are seen as providing benefits, in terms of proper leadership and guidance, to others, rather than, as now, benefitting from them. And, for that, financial independence of the ulema is a must, and hence the need for introducing vocational training in the madrasas.

Q: As the head of an important Islamic Centre in America, what do you see as the major challenges before the ulema in the post-9/11 world?

A: The most pressing need today is for the ulema to act as a bridge between Muslims and other communities, rather than to add to on-going conflicts. We have tried to do this in our own small way in the United States. After 9/11, in a climate of increasing hostility towards Muslims and Islam, we began outreach programmes with Christians and Jews, speaking on and answering questions about Islam in colleges, universities and other public places. We also helped establish a group to promote dialogue between Muslims and Jews, which is called ‘Jews, Arabs and Muslims’, or JAMS for short. Our purpose is to state that the American Muslims are indeed willing to live peacefully with their Jewish compatriots, despite the differences they have.

I think 9/11 came as a major wake-up call for us in America. We are much more active now in inter-faith dialogue and outreach work than we ever were before.
Earlier, we adopted the same approach that the ulema in India continue to adopt—we were satisfied living in own little cocoons and not making the effort to reach out to people of other faiths, to listen to them and to speak to them. This is what 9/11 forced us to wake up to. And, based on my own experiences in the field of dialogue in the last few years, I must say that the vast majority of Americans are indeed tolerant and willing to listen to what we say, if approached properly.

Q: Some Muslims argue that America is an ‘enemy of Islam’. How do you react to this?

A: I think this is pure hypocrisy. Many of those who make this claim would be the first to migrate to America if they were provided with an American passport or visa! There are numerous fiercely anti-American Muslims, including even some mullahs, whose own children live comfortably in America! I may not agree with some aspects of the foreign policy of the present American government or the attitude of sections of the American media, but nor do millions of non-Muslim Americans. You cannot equate the American government with the American people. The average American on the street cannot be said to be anti-Islam. We have over three thousand mosques in America and enjoy freedom to practise our faith.

I think all of us, Muslims and others, urgently need to shed our parochialism, and seek to reach out to each other if the world is to be saved from catastrophe in the name of religion. Needless to add, there are well-meaning people in every community and in every country, America included, and our task is to work together with them for the sake of our common humanity.

Read More...

Interview: Wahiduddin Khan on Madrasa Reforms

Based in New Delhi, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is one of India’s most prolific Islamic scholars. He has written over 200 books, edits the monthly magazine Al-Risala and heads the Islamic Centre and the Centre for Peace and Spirituality. He has played a leading role in promoting dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths in India and abroad.

(Interviewed by Yoginder Sikand)

Q: How do you look at the madrasa system? There is much talk about the need for reforms in the system?

A: Unlike some others, I am not critical of or opposed to the madrasas as such. Muslims need both types of education—religious as well as secular. Muslim children should have knowledge of both their religion as well as secular subjects. There is, of course, no need for all Muslim children to go to full-time madrasas to train to become ulema. However, there must be some children who do so that the tradition of religious learning can be carried on. We need madrasa-trained ulema who have knowledge of the Quran, Hadith, Islamic jurisprudence and Arabic.

As far as the question of madrasa ‘reforms’ is concerned, I really don’t believe in this talk of ‘modernisation’ as it is often understood. You certainly cannot ‘modernise’ the Quran and the Hadith. So, I think the word ‘modernisation’ in this context is uncalled for.

While on this subject of ‘reforms’, I must say that the ‘modern’ schools and universities are also in urgent need of reform, a point often neglected by vociferous advocates of madrasa ‘reform’. In the Psychology departments of many Indian universities they continue to teach the outdated Conditioning Theory and the Illusion Theory. What I mean to say is that no syllabus can be perfect. What is more important than the formal syllabus are good teachers, because it is teachers who teach, not books.

Some people argue that madrasas teach some outdated centuries-old texts on Greek philosophy and logic. But we must also that departments of English in universities also teach English classics, written centuries ago, which have no value in the outside world. For me these texts are a minor issue. The basic issue is the need for good, committed teachers.

Q: So, are you arguing that madrasa students must not be made familiar with basic ‘modern’ subjects?

A: What I suggest is that separate institutions can be established where some madrasa students, after they graduate, can enroll to learn ‘modern’ subjects, particularly different languages such as English. I myself received a traditional madrasa education and learnt English and ‘modern’ subjects on my own after I graduated. I feel that if students are forced to study ‘modern’ subjects while in the madrasas, in addition to the subjects in the existing madrasa curriculum, it would be too much of a load for them to bear. It might destroy the fabric of the madrasas.

Q: In recent years a small number of these specialized institutions for madrasa graduates that you refer to have been established in India. How do you look at this phenomenon?
A: I think this is a very welcome development. However, it needs to be done in a more organized way. What many of these institutions lack is good teachers who are motivated by missionary zeal. It won’t do to have just professional tutors. I strongly feel that more important than the curriculum are the teachers. In my days in the Madrasat ul-Islah in Azamgarh, we had teachers who worked with missionary passion. They instilled in us the spirit of enquiry, which is the mother of all knowledge and without which one cannot progress. This tradition must be revived. Presently, we have no institutes for training madrasa teachers. They need to be trained in pedagogical techniques, child development and so on. I think this is one issue that Muslim organizations must focus on.

Q: How do you think the rigid dualism between the madrasa-trained ulema and the ‘secular’ university-trained Muslim intelligentsia can be bridged?
A: In my childhood, this dualism was not so apparent. At that time, the secular educational system did not lack ethical or moral values, but today the situation is, lamentably, very different. A feasible way to overcome this educational dualism is by promoting greater interaction between students and teachers of madrasas and those of schools and colleges, including both Muslims and others. In the past there was this sort of interaction. Many Hindus used to study in madrasas, but not now. Presently, there is very little such interaction and that is why there is such a glaring lack of understanding between the ulema and graduates of universities.

Q: Some ulema might argue that the sort of interaction that you advocate might have a negative impact on the faith of madrasa students. What would you say?
A: I don’t agree with this. Interaction, based on a spirit of scientific enquiry and learning, is the source of change and progress. There is a tradition about the Caliph Umar which says that he used to learn from all. This learning he got through interacting with different people. Through interaction with others, based on the quest for knowledge, you can refine your own morals and learn to recognize and respect others as fellow human beings. This is precisely what Islam wants.

To enable madrasas and their students to interact with others, and for them to come out of the four walls of their seminaries, the best way is to inculcate in them the missionary spirit. For this, madrasas can arrange seminars and conferences to which they can invite people of other faiths as well as Muslims and others from colleges and universities. This sort of interaction will be a great means of promoting knowledge on both sides and will go a long way in dispelling mutual misunderstandings.

To take my own example: every day I interact with people, of various social and religious backgrounds. I consider this a blessing, for it provides me knowledge, sensitivity to the humanity of others, rich experiences and moral values.

Q: Related to the above question, some ulema might argue that interacting with people of other faiths might negatively impact on the students’ Muslim cultural identity. Some ideologues refer to what is said to be a Prophetic Tradition in this regard which warns Muslims against copying the ways of others. How do you see this argument?

A: There is no single Muslim cultural identity, just as there is no single Hindu cultural identity for that matter. This notion of completely separate communal cultural identities has been used as a ploy to keep communities apart from each other and reduce interaction between them. It is a major hindrance to interaction and to successful Islamic missionary work. One’s identity should be determined by one’s piety, not by the dress he or she wears or the food he or she cooks or the language he or she speaks. Some people think that a Muslim’s cultural identity is determined by the fact that he uses a pot with a long spout for his ablutions and that a Hindu’s identity is determined by the fact that he uses a round pot without a spout. This sort of thinking is stupid, to say the least.

In south India, it is often difficult to distinguish a Muslim from a Hindu, because there Hindus and Muslims are almost identical in terms of language and dress. Despite not having a clearly and completely separate cultural identity that sets them apart from the local Hindus, the south Indian Muslims, are, I think, perhaps better Muslims than their north Indian counterparts. There is a lesson that we need to learn from this.

Now, as for the Prophetic Tradition which you referred to, my argument is that it applies only to copying the religious symbols of other religions, such as the Christian cross and the thread that ‘upper’ caste Hindus wear. Other aspects of material culture of other communities are not forbidden to Muslims, provided, of course, they do not violate the teachings of Islam.

Q: What role do you feel the madrasas and the ulema can play in inter-faith dialogue?
A: I think they must play a central role, but, unfortunately, this they are not doing. Madrasas do not realize the value of positive interaction with others, including with people of other faiths. Contrary to the fear that interacting with others might negatively impact on the faith and identity of their students, I feel it will strengthen their religious commitment and understanding.

In this regard, let me cite the story of a disciple of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, one of the pioneers of the Deobandi tradition who complained to him saying that his son was not interested in religion. In response, the Maulana advised him to send his son to a Christian school. After his son enrolled in this school his father discovered that he had become a practicing Muslim, the reason being that there he was constantly challenged about his faith. His Christian friends frequently asked him about Islam, and so he had to read up on the subject. They asked him about the Islamic form of prayer, so he started praying regularly.

I can cite a similar instance from my own life. Almost half a century ago, when I was in Lucknow, I met a scholar of Hindu background who was an atheist. He told me that if the Prophet Muhammad was removed from history, it would make no difference to the story of the world. Instead of reacting violently, I took this up as a challenge. A process began developing in my mind, because Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad was the last and final prophet and a model for all humankind. This statement forced me to study numerous books about the historical role of the Prophet, and the result of that was my book Islam: The Creator of the Modern Age. This book was, in a sense, a product of the interaction I had with that atheist scholar. If I had not met him, I would not have experienced that shock or challenge which forced me to study this subject.

So, what I say is that this fear of interaction is baseless and those who play on such fears do not know the value of the challenges that interaction poses. Interaction, done in a positive and conscious way, is itself an important form of education and the source of knowledge. If madrasas do their part in promoting interaction with people of other faiths, I think it can go a long way in helping to improve Hindu-Muslim relations in India.

Q: Are you suggesting that the onus of promoting interaction with others lies on the ulema? What if the other side is not interested in interaction?

A: I am not blaming the madrasas at all. I am just pointing out that the Islamic imperative of communicating the message of Islam to others crucially depends on interaction, with other Muslims and with people of other faiths. Addressing tens of thousands of his followers at Mecca on the occasion of the Haj, the Prophet Muhammad said that he had been sent by God with a message and he told his followers to spread this message to the whole of humankind after him. Accordingly, most of these followers left Mecca and Medina and settled in adjacent lands. That is why if you visit Mecca and Medina you will find very few graves of the companions of the Prophet there. Most of them left for other regions, where they settled and, interacting with people there, spread the message of Islam. Many of these companions of the Prophet did not know the language of the people whom they began living among, but yet they interacted with them and a result of that interaction was the present Arab world, stretching from Morocco in the West to Iraq in the West.

Q: Perhaps one major hindrance the ulema of the madrasas might face in trying to interact with people of other faiths is that many of them may not be familiar or comfortable with any language other than Urdu. Do you think this is a major problem?
A: Where there is a will there is a way. I learnt Hindi and English on my own and I am sure that others with a madrasa background can do so, too, if they have the determination. If you interact with others, gradually you will learn their language and will be able to be sensitive to their culture and traditions.

Q: Another issue is that of the negative images that many madrasa students and teachers might have of people of other faiths. How does one tackle this if the sort of interaction you are calling for is to be promoted?

A: There are these negative stereotypes on both sides. I think that this is largely due to lack of interaction. Positive interaction is a great killer of negativity. A Hindu who has no Muslim friends but has only read about Muslims in the media will probably have a very negative opinion about them. On the other hand, a Hindu who lives in a mixed or in a Muslim locality will more likely have a much more positive appreciation of Muslims. Positive interaction is the basis of the process of removing misconceptions, and for this you do not need any artificial schemes or programmes.

Let me give you an instance of the power of constructive interaction in removing stereotypes. In a village in Himachal Pradesh there was a small Muslim community which had set up a madrasa. The Hindu villagers had all sorts of negative views and feelings about the madrasa and the maulvis who taught there. One day, some Hindu houses in the village caught fire and, seeing this, the madrasa students rushed to the spot and put down the flames. After that, the attitude of the Hindu villages towards the madrasa changed completely. They became as positive in their appreciation of it as they were negative about it before. This miracle was a result of interaction.

Q: Would you recommend that madrasas also teach their students about other faiths?
A: Yes, madrasas could also consider teaching their students the basics of other religions. This will enable them, as would-be ulema, to relate more comfortably with people of other faiths. This will also assist them in their missionary work. The teaching of other religions should aim at providing students an objective understanding of other faiths. The earlier approach of denouncing other religions must be given up. You must learn to understand your neighbour even if you do not agree with him or her. I think bitter polemics are against the ethos of Islam. So, for instance, in my case, when I visit Hindu, Sikh, Christian shrines and other places of worship I try to empty my mind of prejudices, and I have learnt a lot from this. My intention in doing so is to learn, not to debate or to denounce others as inferior. As I see it, communicating Islam to others is an expression of sympathy for others, not hostility. It has anything to do with pride based on the feeling that one is superior to others. The Quran asks us to be sympathetic well-wishers of others.

Q: Another obstacle in enabling the ulema to interact with others could be the fear of rejection due to anti-Muslim prejudice. Do you agree?

A: My point is that communicating the message of Islam to others and healthy interaction with others require great patience, endurance and personal sacrifice. To cite a personal example, when I shifted to Delhi many years ago I learnt about a group of Hindus who would meet once a week at a certain place. I was keen to interact with them and so I started attending these weekly get-togethers. At one of these meetings, a man came up to me and told me something which he claimed was in the Quran. I replied that it was not. He responded by saying that it indeed was. He said that he knew Urdu and had read the translation of the Quran several times. He told me that I was ignorant.

Now, this was a matter of great humiliation for me and his derogatory remarks about the Quran hurt me very badly. Yet, I tolerated what he said. I was not rude to him. As a result, over time, this same man became a good friend of mine. This was the fruit of patience and adjustment that is needed when you want to tell others about your own faith.

Q: How do you react to charges about Indian madrasas being allegedly involved in promoting ‘terrorism’?

A: This charge is completely baseless. There is no such madrasa in India which is engaged in this sort of work. Yes, it is true that there are some madrasas in Pakistan that are doing this, but even there I would say it is not so much a madrasa phenomenon as much as it is a Pakistani phenomenon. Just the other day the Pakistani Parliamentary Secretary for Defence called for what he called jihad against India in the Pakistani Parliament! This is total madness. This man is not a madrasa graduate. He must have graduated from a university. So, as I was saying, terrorism in some madrasas in Pakistan is a specifically Pakistani issue, rather than one of madrasas as such. It is a reflection of a particularly distorted version or understanding of Islam that has developed in Pakistan over the years, which has been used as a means to promote certain vested interests. Unfortunately, some sections of the media wrongly equate Indian and Pakistani madrasas and so assume that the former are engaged in terrorism just as some of the latter are. This is wholly incorrect.

Q: Can you elaborate on this point about the exploitation of Islam in Pakistan? What exactly do you mean?

A: The Pakistan movement was basically centred on the demand for a separate land for the Muslims of India, and for this Islam was used as a tool for popular mobilization. People have the right to demand a land of their own, but why should you exploit religion for that? This is not right. Those behind the Pakistan movement claimed that Pakistan and Islam are one and the same and argued that they needed a separate Pakistan in order to establish Islam. This is totally wrong. Islam cannot be established by grabbing land. Rather, it can only be established if it rests firmly in individuals’ hearts and minds. The Prophet Muhammad once pointed to his heart and said that piety resides therein.

Exploitation is the source of all evil, and since Islam has been exploited by the leaders of Pakistan ever since the country’s inception it was natural that the country became the nursery of conflict and strife, unfortunately in the name of Islam, which Islam does not allow for at all.

Q: Why is it that most madrasa students tend to come from poorer families? This was not the case in the pre-colonial period.

A: The cause lies in the educational dualism that I referred to earlier and to the fact that middle class parents would prefer to send their children to ‘modern’ schools because the jobs that madrasa graduates get are not well-paid. The salary of madrasa teachers must be increased. In that way one can hope that brighter children might prefer to enroll in madrasas and become ulema. In the past, madrasas produced brilliant scholars and leaders, who played a vital role in India’s political life, but this is not the case today.

Q: How do you look at the sensationalist and distorted reporting about madrasas in large sections of the mass media?

A: The media is impelled by profit-making motives and thrives on ‘hot’ news in order to feed the market it caters to. The media is not interested in ‘soft’ news because that is not profitable. So it thrives on sensational news and selective reportage. One day I was listening to the Hindi service of a radio station and a listener called up from Mauritius and asked why the radio station did not give much coverage to Mauritius, which also has a large Hindi-speaking population. The programme presenter replied, half-jokingly, that the media hungers for ‘hot’ news and that no such ‘hot’ news ever seems to emanate from Mauritius! ‘Create some hot news there’, he told the caller, ‘and we’ll report about your country’.

The point is that if you want to change the way the media reports something, you have to work at changing people’s mindsets.

Q: What are your views on the proposed national-level Madrasa Board that some government officials are suggesting?

A: In theory this sounds fine, particularly in order to centralize the madrasa system. The problem, however, is of lack of good rapport between the madrasas and the government, in the absence of which such a Board can serve little purpose. Many ulema doubt the government’s intentions. In any case, if such a Board comes into being its policies and activities must be framed and implemented through consultation with the ulema.

Read More...