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
Plan of Nature
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.
