ASK MAULANA
Your Questions Answered
Q & A with Maulana on the ulema and inter-faith dialogue.
You are one of the few traditionally-trained Muslim ulema, in India and abroad, to participate in inter-community dialogue initiatives. What do you think are the reasons that few such ulema are engaged in such dialogue?
One major reason is that the Muslim ulema are not comfortable with the present concept of dialogue. The present concept of dialogue is based on mutual learning and mutual understanding. But the traditional mind of the Muslim ulema is based on debate and heated polemics. So, they have no interest in serious dialogue. Even if they participate in any interfaith dialogue, they often misrepresent Islam because they speak in the language of debate, which is not acceptable to other participants. I don’t know of any traditionally-trained Muslim scholar or cleric who is competent enough to participate in the modern kind of interfaith dialogue.
Muslims are devoid of the dialogue spirit. They want to impose their concepts on others. They don’t know the concept of dialogue, which is based on sharing and mutual understanding. In the light of my experience, Muslims are debaters and not dialoguers.
Do you think that the fact that in the madrasas where the wouldbe ulema are trained, students are not trained in various languages other than Arabic (and in India, mainly Urdu) have to do with the fact that few ulema are engaged in dialogue—because such dialogues generally take place in other languages, particularly English?
Many madrasas in Africa have adopted English as their medium of instruction. In the Arab world, the medium is Arabic, while in Iran it is Persian. But all the scholars who are taught in these madrasas are one and the same. All of them are trained in the concept of debating.
They are not aware of the concept of modern dialogue. It is basically a question of the present Muslim mind, and not a question of language.
The present Muslim mind is one and the same in every country, from the East to the West, in the Arab world, and among non-Arabs, too. I’ll also say here that where there is a will there is a way. I learnt English on my own and I also studied in a madrasa, and so I am sure that others with a madrasa background can do so, too, if they have the will. No one is stopping them. If you interact with others, gradually you will learn their language and will be able to be sensitive to their culture and traditions.
What role does the fact that madrasa students and the ulema who teach in madrasas have very little social interaction with people of other faiths play in there being very few traditionally-trained ulema who are engaged in interfaith dialogue?
All the madrasas, not only in India, but everywhere else too, were established on a common idea—that is, the preservation of the identity of Muslims. It is this widespread concept that is mainly responsible for the phenomenon that few Muslims take part in dialogue with other communities. This concept has created a ghetto mentality among Muslims. No Muslim community throughout the world is an exception in this regard. Malaysia, for instance, is said to be a ‘modern’ Muslim country. But recently, there was this news of a Malaysian court issuing a decree that sought to prevent others from using the word “Allah”.
How absurd! But this is the case with all other Muslim countries as well today.
What role might feelings of supremacism or Muslim exclusivism or looking down on other people or the fear of being rejected by people of other faiths have in explaining the perceived lack of enthusiasm for interfaith dialogue among the ulema?
As per my experience, the word ‘supremacism’ is the most appropriate term to explain the present Muslims’ mentality. Previously, such communal supremacism was considered to be a Jewish phenomenon, but now Muslims have monopolized this concept. I think that Muslim supremacism is the greatest reason for all kind of problems that are seen in the Muslim world.
May be one reason that the ulema may not be enthusiastic about interfaith dialogue is that some of them might think that interacting with people of other faiths might negatively impact on the Muslims’ identity. Some ideologues refer to a Hadith in this regard which warns Muslims against copying the ways of others. May be they think that if Muslims interact closely with others, including through and for dialogue, it might weaken their commitment to their own faith and identity. How do you see this argument?
There is no single Muslim cultural identity, just as there is no single Hindu cultural identity or Christian cultural identity. This notion of completely separate communal cultural identities has been used as a ploy to keep communities apart from each other and to minimize interaction between them.
One’s identity should be determined by one’s piety or Godconsciousness, and not by the dress one wears or the food one eats or the language one speaks. Some people think that a Muslim’s cultural identity is determined by the supposed ‘fact’ that he uses a pot with long spout for his ablutions and that a Hindu’s identity is determined by the fact that he, supposedly, uses a round pot without a spout! This sort of thinking is stupid, to say the least. And it is also a meaningless claim. In south India, for instance, it is often difficult to distinguish a Muslim from a Hindu, because there, many 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, many south Indian Muslims, are, I think, perhaps better Muslims than many of their north Indian counter parts. There is a valuable lesson that we need to learn from this.
Now, as for the Hadith 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 Hindu Janeu (Holy thread). Other aspects of material culture are not forbidden, provided, of course, they do not violate Islamic teachings.
Another issue is the negative images that many madrasa students and teachers might have of people of other faiths. Perhaps that is a major barrier to interfaith dialogue?
There are negative stereotypes on both sides. I think 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 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 feelings about the madrasa and the maulvis who taught there. One day, some Hindu houses caught fire. Seeing this, the madrasa students rushed to the spot and helped put out 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.
Would you recommend that madrasas also teach their students about other faiths? May be that will also help them become more interested in or open to interfaith dialogue?
Yes, madrasas could also consider teaching their students the basics of other religions. This will enable the students, as would-be ulema, to relate more comfortably with people of other faiths. The teaching of other religions should aim at providing students an objective understanding of these faiths. The earlier, polemical, approach of denouncing other religions must be given up. You must learn to understand your neighbour even if you do not agree with him. I think 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 process. My intention in going to such places is to learn, not to debate or to denounce others as inferior. The Quran asks us to be sympathetic well-wishers of others
Innumerable processes are at work in
the world, all in accordance with nature's
equilibrium. The earth moves in its orbit
and revolves non-stop. The sun continues
to shine its light on the world. The winds
blow, the rains come, the rivers flow, the
plants and trees grow. All processes continue
without interruption in a peaceful manner
without any violence or confrontation.
Human beings should act in a balanced way
in this world, without distorting the balanced
pattern of nature. If we distort the plan of
nature it will lead to chaos.