Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective November 1-15, 2009)
Note: When the article under above title was circulated there it received enthusiastic response and there was request to enlarge it and hence I am enlarging it somewhat. (A.E.)
The traditional Ulama have always opposed social reforms calling that un-Islamic and they get full support or mobilize support from static Muslim society by quoting either certain selected Qur’anic verses or ahadith which may or may not be authentic. They also often declare reformer kafir or mulhid or nature i.e. not believing in Allah but in nature. Once such fatwas are issued the reformer faces total isolation from society and finds it extremely difficult to carry on his reform movement. Most of the reformers have faced this fate throughout history, particularly since 19th century as during colonial period many reform movements started in the Islamic world under the impact of western ‘advanced society.
Here it is important to clarify what one means by social reform? The moment one talks about social reform the charge is labeled that one wants to change Shari’ah which is ‘divine’ and to change divine law is to defy Allah. This logic naturally presents reformer in adverse light. However, the reforms we are talking about, do not refer to altering any divine law but to reformulate certain rules which were earlier formulated under the then prevailing social conditions and to try to understand or approach divine in new human ways. The word ‘re-form’ itself shows it does not involve basic change but attempt is being made to re-form it to meet contemporary challenges. Underlying values and principles cannot be changed. Then it will not be reform but something new.
For example, certain Qur’anic verses regarding women were understood by the then Ulama in one particular way and Shari’ah rules were formulated based on that understanding. If a social reformer today understands those verses in his/her own way and reformulates certain rules would not mean he is beginning something new different from the Qur’an or altogether new. But our ‘Ulama would immediately say he is deviating from Qur’an and rejecting the Shari’ah laws.
Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan, a great ‘alim himself who had studied in Madrasa in Deoband but totally deferred from traditional Ulama on the question of women’s rights and wrote a book Huquq al-Niswan and tried to challenge what traditional Ulama call men’s fazilat (merit) over women (mardon ki aurton par jhuti fazilat ). He profusely quoted from the Qur’an and understands or interprets these Qur’anic verses in his own way in 19th century when things were changing fast. Do we call him kafir? Or deviant? Or simply reformer? The Maulavi was supporter of Sir Syed’s movement. Mumtaz Ali’s thinking and understanding was remarkably modern yet strictly within the Qur’anic frame-work. It was so modern in respect of women’s rights that even Sir Syed thought it would not be wise to publish it and advised the Maulavi accordingly. But he was determined to publish it and he did.
Sir Syed whose birth day falls on 17th October was also one such great social reformer. He never touched on any religious doctrine as such as Ulama opposed his writing tafsir (commentary) on the Qur’an and made it clear that if he continues with his tafsir they would not support his efforts to establish a modern college. Sir Syed stopped writing tafsir as he gave more importance to modern education and wanted Muslims to go for modern secular education so that gates of modern knowledge which was mostly available in English, could be opened to them. The Ulama opposed his movement for modern education and founding an institution of modern learning and issued fatwas against him and dubbed him as ‘kafir’, ‘Christian’ and ‘Yahudi’. One of them even traveled to Mecca and obtained a fatwa for his killing.
The question arises why such fierce opposition to social reforms which was, after all, for betterment of Muslim community in India. It was certainly not religious belief alone. Opposition to social reforms emanates from host of complex factors. Firstly, change is always feared as it brings uncertainty and unknown consequences, especially on part of those who do not benefit from change. And apart from theologians and community leaders, it is feared by the masses who have not experienced any change and have lived in ignorance and superstitious beliefs.
Unfortunately even superstitious beliefs, far from spirit of Islam became part of religion and any opposition to these beliefs also amounts to attacking religion itself. Sir Syed was great supporter of modern science and scientific approach to social questions it was thought to be interference with religious beliefs and ‘Ulama attacked him. He was called ‘nechari’ (i.e. one who believed in nature) as if he did not believe in God since he advocated cause of science. His famous dictum was ‘word of God cannot contradict work of God’
Qur’an was word of God and this universe is work of God and science studies work of God and hence Sir Syed supported systematic study of God’s work through science. That is why the ‘Ulama started calling him ‘nechari’ (one who considers nature everything. His description by ‘Ulama as ‘nechari’ aroused such fierce opposition that when he went to Lahore to collect fund for college no one was prepared to listen to him. It was only when Maulavi Nazir Ahmed was brought from Delhi and spoke in Jama Masjid, Lahore first denouncing ‘necharis’ and then cleverly supporting Sir Syed’s mission for education that people started pouring out money. This also shows how Muslim psyche has been moulded. You arouse them emotionally and get anything done. Traditional leaders always try to play with their emotions.
The priesthood maintain their control and grip over the minds of Muslims through manipulating emotions and emotions could be easily manipulated in the name of religion. In fact a truly religious person would always appeal to reason and serious thinking. Qur’an repeatedly invites believers and non-believers as well to think and reflect (6:50, 7:184). The priesthood (in fact there is no priesthood in Islam) and theologians as well as some socio-cultural leaders reared intellectual approach most, as it challenges their leadership. The priests and theologians have had grip over the minds of people for long and they feel any change will throw up new social or theological leaders and they will loose out. Thus they begin to oppose any change to secure their own positions. And to legitimize their opposition they find religious reasons for that and try to quote from scriptures to impress the masses.
The Ulama in 19th century were highly apprehensive of English education as it would mean challenging the madrasa education and also their apprehension that Muslims will go a step nearer to Christianity. As Arabic education was considered one step towards Islam, English education was considered one step towards Christianity. There was one more reason for Ulama to oppose modern education.
The Ulama had held high positions in Mughal courts and functioned as qadis or religious judges. These qadis were being replaced by British judges and highly qualified Indians who had studied law. These created strong resentment among Ulama and they denounced English education which was taking away everything from them. They also feared that modern institution of education will also do away with madrasas and they will loose their jobs as madrasa teachers also. Thus they had everything to fear and nothing to celebrate.
Muslim masses also supported them, firstly because they always recognize these Ulama as their religious leaders and men of great Islamic learning. Secondly, the whole Muslim society was static and decadent. Any change made them fearful and they rightly thought British people as their enemy who threatened their religious belief and political hegemony. The future was unknown and in the hands of foreign rulers.
Also, as pointed out before, change is feared by those who loose out and celebrated by those who gain every thing from it. Only very few generally side with reformers who have some idea of future prospects. Among Muslims in India Sir Syed began vigorous movement for modern education even before a new class of Muslims who could be beneficiary of English education could emerge.
Eventually of course that class emerged albeit slowly and that class subsequently became harbinger of change. Among these people a galaxy of intellectuals arose who are respected even today. Among them was Nawwab Muhsinul Mulk, Maulavi Chiragh Ali, Justice Amir Ali, Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan and several others. They developed new vision of life and laid foundation for better life for Muslims. Many of this new class of Muslims joined civil, police and other services and made name for themselves.
Today many Ulama are not only learning English but also trying to project Islam to non-Muslims in English language. Now a madrasa is being established in Calcutta to give education through English medium. What was thought to be language of kafirs has come to stay in the Muslim world. Thus those who oppose change subsequently not only accept it but also becomes for them very means of survival. It is very unfortunate that our Ulama vehemently oppose everything new in the beginning and then accept it for their own survival. We often refuse to move with the times and then time forces us to move with it after paying the price for our refusal to change.
———————————————————-
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
