Ideological Differences In Madrasas In The Indian Subcontinent: Ending The Divisiveness
By
Mohammad Ali, New Age Islam
29 December
2021
Liberty
Of Choosing What To Teach Would Allow Richness And Diversity In Texts And
Subjects In Madrasas
Main
points:
1. In this
essay, I have discussed that madrasas are built on the basis of divisive
ideologies of Deobandi, Barelvi, and Ahl-e-Hadith;
2. That, they
are not only the habitat of these ideologies, but they also propagate them into
the society;
3. And that the
debate of making madrasas neutral to ideologies must be included in the debate
of madrasa reforms.
------
The word
madrasa comes from Arabic and literally means a place of study. The history of
the word is very old, and it continues to be a part of our modern vocabulary.
However, the connotation of the word has changed in our modern usage. In Muslim
history before the colonial period, this word referred to a place where
teaching—secular or religious—took place. In this sense, it did not refer to a
building, an infrastructure, a mandatory curriculum, etc., rather it referred
to a place where a Shaikh or teacher sat and delivered lectures on subjects in
which he had expertise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberty
of choosing what to teach would allow richness and diversity in texts and
subjects. With the permission of the Shaikh, anyone could join his lectures.
And when the text or book was completed, he could move on to join other Shaikh
to participate in his Dars/lecture if he wished to study more. Such a
system of imparting and seeking knowledge was very diverse and liberating. Even
though there were ideological differences among Ulama, the system that was
functioning beneath the institution did not allow it to convert into a
mouthpiece for a particular group or its ideology.
However,
the old system of madrasa was disrupted by the British invasion of Mughal
India. After 1857, some of the Indian Ulama established India’s first modern
madrasa, the Darul Ulum of Deoband in 1867, which was modelled after Delhi
College, which was established by the East India Company in 1924-25, and where
these Ulama had studied. This madrasa acquired infrastructure, appointed
teachers, and had a prescribed curriculum. It is not bad for madrasas to adapt
to the modern world and have infrastructure and other necessary apparatus. But
the new concept of madrasa envisioned by the founders of Deoband reduced the
old meaning of madrasa limiting it to a place for religious education only. And
when madrasas proliferated across the subcontinent on the pattern of the
madrasa in Deoband, they adopted a very narrow understanding of religious
education, which was not as diverse as it was in the past. Besides, one more
thing happened that changed entirely the character of the institution: it
became the mouthpiece for the reformist ideology of its founders and
caretakers.
Reform
movements in India began in the early nineteenth century. It can be assumed
that Shah Waliullah could be considered as the first reformer who remained
active in the middle of the eighteenth century. However, his campaign for
reform was not as subversive and aggressive as was of his grandson, Shah
Ismail, and his master (pīr), Sayyid Ahmad. Shah Ismail attacked the practice
of Taqlid and the practices of visiting shrines and seeking intercessions of
dead saints, etc., and regarded them as shirk, the gravest sin in Islam whose
perpetrators are considered to be outside of the pale of Islam. The practices
Shah Ismail condemned were deemed as authentic and Islamic by Ulama, Sufis, and
the masses. It affected the Indian Muslims deeply.
After Shah
Ismail, the mantle of reform was assumed by the founders of the Darul Ulum of
Deoband, like Qasim Nanotavi, and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi. However, they were not
as aggressive as Shah Ismail. The practice Shah Ismail declared as shirk, the
founders of the Deoband madrasa considered them as Bidaah, meaning that their
perpetrators would be committing punishable sins, but these sins would not
result in their excommunication. But what were the causes, one can ask, that
triggered these reform movements? There were multiple causes, and all were
linked to the constant deterioration of Muslim political power in the
subcontinent, which was translated as a sign of God’s wrath and anger. And this
wrath could only be averted if Muslims would follow the true teachings of
Islam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim
reformers adopted different approaches, but one thing was common among them:
the supremacy of the idea of the Oneness of God (Tawhid). They believed that
seeking help and intercession from dead saints, and Prophet and asking their
help or observing rituals, such as conducting celebrations on the occasion of
mawlid or the death anniversary of a dead saint for seeking Barkah, had
corrupted the meaning of Tawhid. They imagined God as an absolute monarch whose
powers (here, God’s attributes/sifāt) could not be shared with anyone, not even
the Prophet Muhammad. Until or unless, Muslims do not submit completely to
God’s command, they could not be regarded as believers in His Tawhid. The idea
behind rejecting Taqlid was the same. The opponents of Taqlid argued
that a Muqallid (a person who observes Taqlid), instead of following God’s
commands, follows the commands of Muslim jurists.
Gradually,
the wholesale rejection of popular practices of Muslims became the main
characteristic of the Muslim reformists’ ideology and activism. And when these
ideologues and activists founded madrasas during the second half of the
nineteenth century and afterwards, these madrasas became the mouthpieces for
their ideology. These madrasas were so much embedded with their founder
ideologue or the ideology they represented that it manifested in their
curriculum and everyday life. The students that studied there were demanded
ideological loyalty to their madrasas. After graduation, these students become
vessels that carry the ideology of their madrasas to the society they work in
and extend its network beyond the confines of madrasa to the non-madrasa people.
These people in return fund the madrasas of whose ideology they profess. Thus,
it creates an organic cycle that assists to sustain madrasa and its ideology
and expands its network constantly. Madrasas associated with every ideology or
school of thought are supported by this cycle.
Till now,
we have discussed how madrasa became a habitat of divisive ideology and sustain
this character for so long. Here, I would also like to discuss, how these
madrasas inculcate their ideologies to their students. Apparently, madrasas
claim to be the institutions of Islamic learning and teach Islamic sciences,
like the Quran, hadith, etc. However, the teaching of these texts in madrasas
is not neutral. It is layered with their distinct ideological interpretations.
In the classrooms while teaching, for example, hadith, teacher asserts the
soundness of, say, Deobandi ideology and condemns Barelvi or Ahl-e-Hadith
ideologies. This gives students the impression that the Deobandi ideology if
students are studying in a Deobandi madrasa and so on, is the true
interpretations of Islam, and interpretations other than that are false and
required to be condemned. Outside the classroom, in religious gatherings,
informal meetings with fellow students or teachers, the same thing is repeated until
it is thoroughly ingrained in the minds of students.
Furthermore,
students are supposed to behave properly with regard to their teachers, and
their akābir, meaning the people who have come before them and are part
of the ideological chain. In the parlance of the madrasa, this is called Adab.
The word Adab has various connotations, but in madrasa circle, this word
means proper behaviour, which includes that students should not criticize their
teachers and their akābir. The bigger the personality the more it
requires Adab. And at some point, they acquire sanctity and veneration.
The layers of sacredness and veneration become so thick that no student can
dare to breach them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are
cases related to Jamia Ashrafia and Jamia Aleemia. Both seminaries are
associated with the Barelvi school. They have gone as far as to revoke the
degrees of their graduates who criticized the ideology of the madrasas or their
teachers. In short, we can conclude after this short analysis that madrasas
have evolved into a complex system that has preventive measures to sustain and
promote the divisive ideologies that they are based on. When there is a discussion
on madrasa reforms, the divisive nature of the Deobandi, Barelvi, and
Ahl-e-Hadith ideologies must be included in the discussion and there is a need
to devise a solution that can help eradicate this divisiveness.
-----
Mohammad Ali has been a madrasa student. He has
also participated in a three years program of the "Madrasa Discourses,” a
program for madrasa graduates initiated by the University of Notre Dame, USA.
Currently, he is a PhD Scholar at the Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia
Millia Islamia, New Delhi. His areas of interest include Muslim intellectual
history, Muslim philosophy, Ilm-al-Kalam, Muslim sectarian conflicts, madrasa
discourses.
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/ideological-differences-madrasas-divisiveness/d/126052
New Age
Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in
Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In
Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women
in West, Islam Women and Feminism