[Bahujan-forum] Madrasa Reforms: Indian Muslim Voices

-- Dear Friend

This [third] book of mine, the text of which I am sending you brbelow, was published by the Mumbai-based Vikas Adhyayan Kendra in 2010. It was also translated and published in Urdu. I am sending it to you [sorry, it's a long text!] as you might find it interesting.

Regards

Yogi

 

Madrasa Reforms: Indian Muslim Voices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compiled by Yoginder Sikand

 

 

Introduction

 

My interest in madrasas, Islamic seminaries, and the ulema, Islamic scholars who are trained in the madrasas and manage them, began around a decade ago, when they suddenly emerged as a major subject for discussion and debate in the Indian and Western media. Almost all of this media reporting was clearly one-sided, negative and wildly sensational. It was is if all madrasas were 'dens of terror' and 'factories for fundamentalists'. It was as if there was nothing good or positive at all about the madrasas and that all the ulema were hardened 'fanatics'. That I knew to be quite incorect. After all, I had met numerous ulema and had visited a few madrasas before, and they did not quite fit the description that the media was providing of them. I decided to investigate things for myself.

 

In the course of four years, from 2000 onwards, I visited several madrasas in various parts of India, and met with ulema representing a wide range of theological and political opinions. Through this close interaction I came to appreciate the central role played by the madrasas in preserving and transmitting the Islamic scripturalist tradition as well as forms of Muslim culture that many Muslims see as integral to their understanding of their faith. I also came to realise the importance of madrasas as centres for education to literally millions of children from the most poor and deprived sections of the Muslim community.

 

Although there were issues concering the madrasa curricula and the worldviews of large sections of the ulema that I personally disagreed with, I still felt that the media depictions of the madrasas and their ulema were unfair and needed to be countered by sober and serious analysis. This led me to work on a book on the history of the Indian madrasas, which was published under the title Bastions of the Believers: Madrasas and Islamic Education in India (Penguin, New Delhi, 2004). I kept up my interest in the subject following this, publishing several articles on madrasas as well as interviews with leading ulema and other Muslim scholars in numerous magazines and newspapers, which I later put up on a blog that I had created (www.madrasareforms.blogspot.com).

 

                                                                        *

 

Missing in the entire madrasa debate that rages outside the narrow circles of India's madrasas are the voices of the ulema of the madrasas themselves. True, the ulema are engaged in their own internal debates about their institutions, but their voices are hardly audible outside their circle. This owes to several reasons, including the fact that this internal debate is conducted largely in Urdu, a language that has now been effectively banished to the Muslim ghettos, and because, in general, the ulema have few contacts with non-Muslims. It also owes to a fundamental reluctance on the part of the state, the 'mainstream' media and non-Muslim civil society groups to seriously engage and dialogue with the ulema, and vice versa, owing perhaps to deeply ingrained, though often unfounded, prejudices and suspicions.

 

Yet, it is crucial that the voices of the ulema who are engaged in this rich and very productive internal debate about the madrasas be heard beyond their circle. Many of the issues that they are seeking to grapple with, through their writings and public activities, are precisely those that others are raising and asking in connection with the madrasas, questions such as 'terrorism', war and peace in Islam, relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and between Muslim and non-Muslim states, women's rights, reforms in the madrasa system and so on.

 

This book, a collection of interviews with a wide cross-section of Indian ulema, in addition to some Indian Islamic scholars not trained in madrasas, seeks to broaden the scope of the madrasa debate by highlighting issues and perspectives that are rarely, if ever, touched upon in media reporting of the madrasas. The scholars whose voices appear in this book represent a wide cross-section of Indian Muslim scholars who have worked on or in the madrasa system in terms of sectarian affiliation and political allegiance. They include Shias and Sunnis, and, within the latter, scholars associated with Deobandi, Nadvi, Barelvi, Ahl-e Hadith and Jamaat-e Islami schools of thought. Some of them are professional ulema, teaching in or managing madrasas, others are university students, writers and journalists, and yet others are social activists.           

 

Admittedly, these scholars do not, by any means, speak for all Indian ulema. In fact, in many ways they might well be exceptional, and many of their views might be hotly contested by many, if not most, traditionalist ulema. In this sense, the book seeks to highlight what I consider to be 'progressive' (admittedly, a very subjective term) voices emanting from within the community of the ulema and Muslim scholar-activists, as a counter to those 'conservative' voices that project themselves as representing all Muslims, and which are generally presented by the media as such.

 

I believe that it is important that the progressive views that these scholars articulate be recorded and highlighted. They indicate that the madrasas and their ulema are far from being monolithic and, hence, that the sweeping generalisations that are often made about them are quite misleading. They point to the richness of the internal debate among the ulema, which opens up newer possibilities for promoting reform in the system of madrasa education, Muslim community advancement and empowerment, better relations between Muslims and people of other faiths as well as Muslim women's rights, all seen as contentious issues today. They also suggest new possibilities for dialogue between the ulema and non-Muslim actors, including agencies of the state, NGOs and peoples' movements.

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                    Yoginder Sikand        

                                                                                    Bangalore

                                                                                    May 2008 

                                                            Acknowledgments

 

In the course of my own 'journey of learning' about the ulema and the madrasas I have accumulated a great burden of debt to numerous people. Most of them I cannot, for want of space, mention by name here. But three deserve special mention—Waris Mazhari (my best maulvi friend!), ChachaAmin Usmani of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, New Delhi and Francis Robinson, my guide and teacher.

1

 

Salman Hussaini Nadvi, Dean of the Faculty of Shariah at the renowned Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa in Lucknow and member of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, is a senior Indian Muslim scholar. He has written extensively on Indian madrasas, including a book on madrasa reforms.

Q: Today, madrasas in general suffer from a bad press. Why do you think this is so?

A: I think much of this owes to lack of knowledge of what madrasas are all about. Instead of dispelling wrong propaganda about madrasas, large sections of the media have fallen victim to anti-madrasa propaganda and are further fuelling it. I strongly feel that to address this issue, journalists must visit madrasas themselves, observe their environment closely, interact with the ulema, the teachers and the students and then present a true picture, based on what they see. They must present the truth, as they see it, rather than project a distorted image which certain forces opposed to the madrasas are bent on creating and reinforcing.

 

Another thing that needs to be done in this regard is to promote more interaction between madrasas and schools, colleges and universities. There can be exchange of students and teachers, joint programmes, such as debates, seminars and also joint sport activities. In this way, teachers and students in madrasas and in other educational institutions can interact, learn about and come closer to each other. This will surely help break down prejudices, many of which are based on the lack of familiarity. And I am not just advocating that madrasas interact with Muslim secular institutions. I would also like them to interact in the same way with Hindu institutions, Hindu teachers and Hindu students. For instance, Hindu teachers can come to madrasas to deliver lectures. Or, madrasa students can have joint sport functions with college students, Muslims and non-Muslims. Such was the case earlier with the Nadwat ul-Ulema, where I now teach, whose students at one time used to play football with students from the Lucknow University, located just adjacent to the madrasa.

 

The point behind such joint activities is to help promote a consciousness of our common humanity. Religion, if understood correctly, does not teach division, but, rather, addresses itself to all humankind. True religion is based on true humanism. It wants that human beings, irrespective of religion, should live together amicably.

 

Q: But some conservative ulema might oppose such activities, claiming that they might 'negatively' impact on the religious commitment and identity of the students of the madrasas.

A: Some maulvis may indeed oppose this sort of thing, but I think when madrasa teachers and students interact with others and have a free exchange of views and ideas with them, many will support such initiatives, provided, of course, that the others also relate to them with a genuine concern for understanding and dialogue. This will help promote a more balanced and true picture of the madrasas in the public domain. Obviously, this would be for the good of the community and for the country, too. We must work for the welfare of our country, for which peace and good relations between the different communities is indispensable. And for that we must come closer to each other, promote mutual trust and confidence and oppose narrow communalism.

 

Q: What efforts have you personally made in this regard?

A: I have tried to do this, in my own limited way, through the Jamiat Shabab il-Islam ('The Union of Islamic Youth'), which I established in Lucknow way back in 1974. The intention was to help madrasa graduates interact with graduates of colleges and universities, both Muslims as well as Hindus, and to help reduce the gap between the two streams of education. We also wanted young madrasa graduates to become social workers, to take a more pro-active role in community affairs, and to engage with society, with Muslims as well as Hindus and others, on issues related to education, social welfare and so on. And even today, when I travel to and speak at various madrasas and colleges, I repeat this same point: that madrasas and college-educated students must interact more closely. This will help counter misunderstandings. It will also work for the larger good of the country.

 

Q: What do you see as the reasons for the current wave of propaganda directed against madrasas, emanating from powerful quarters in the West and even in India?

A: There is no doubt that much of this has to do with the powerful Zionist lobby in America. Today, America is in the grasp of the Zionist lobby, which controls its current administration, and exercises a huge influence its politics, its economics and its media. America has consistently backed Israeli aggression and has always vetoed any UN resolutions that are critical of Israel. This, and the greed for cheap West Asian oil, accounts largely for the anti-madrasa and anti-Islamic propaganda emanating from America. To add to this is the power of the right-wing pro-Zionist Christian lobby, which dreams of the imminent arrival of Jesus Christ, who, Christian fundamentalists believe, will establish a global Christian empire with his capital in Jerusalem.

 

Obviously, in the current context, with the collapse of Communism, the only force that can stand up to and resist this religious aggression and these hegemonic designs of America and Israel are the Muslims. The ulema of the madrasas, who are well-versed with the history of the Muslims and of Islam, play a crucial role in shaping the mentality of the Muslim masses. America knows that this class of people can effectively mobilize opposition to its imperialistic policies and designs, and so it is seeking to undermine them. In order to legitimize its imperialist aggression against many Muslim countries, it constantly claims that the ulema are 'terrorists', 'extremists', 'obscurantist', and so on.

 

Q: So, are you saying that there is no evidence of Indian madrasas being engaged in 'terrorism'?

A: Exactly. Madrasas give great stress to morality, to manners and decorum, to respect for elders and so on. So docile are madrasa students that they cannot take any step forward. To accuse them of aggression is, therefore, wrong.

 

Q: But surely this is not the case with many madrasas in Pakistan?

A: The situation in Pakistan is different. There is a certain extremism there in some madrasa circles. In many cases, this is as a response to incidents, events and provocations specific to the Pakistani context. Some madrasas there may indeed be involved in militant activities as a response to what is happening in that country. But Indian madrasas are quite different, and not a single one has been proved by even the Government of India of being engaged in 'terrorism'.

 

Q: Certain governments and influential policy-makers, who, while accusing madrasas of fanning 'terrorism', at the same time are now vehemently advocating 'reforms' in the madrasa curriculum. How do you look at this?

A: I don't think their intention is proper. They talk about 'reforming' the madrasas even though they lack a proper understanding of the madrasa system. For such people to talk of madrasa 'reforms' is like forcing a healthy man to take medicines! It can only make the man fall sick and have all sorts of unwanted side effects. Instead of curing the man you will end up making him fall ill! This is what some governments are trying to do.

 

I would suggest that governments dialogue with and interact with reliable and responsible ulema who enjoy the confidence of the community and only on the basis of this, and with their support, formulate their policies. This sort of dialogue is essential. If governments have any misgivings about the madrasas, they can sort them out with the ulema through dialogue.

 

Q: In this context, how do you see recent suggestions emanating from Indian Government quarters for the setting up of a National Madrasa Board under government control?

A: I think imposing such a Board against the willingness of the ulema is not only wrong, but it will also not work. The opposition of many ulema to this Board is because of what they have seen happening to many of the madrasas affiliated to government madrasa boards in various Indian states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. There, many such madrasas do not teach at all, and some of them even have fake names of teachers on their registers simply to pocket the money given by the boards. Many teachers in such madrasas have lost the passion for teaching as they are now assured of a steady income and have become like any other government servants, whose primary concern is their salaries. Often, teachers in such madrasas will be found demonstrating outside state assemblies, staging demonstrations and strikes and demanding increase in their pay and perks. This, of course, goes against the stature of the ulema.

 

So, seeing the dismal state of affairs in many madrasas affiliated to state madrasa boards in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, many ulema are apprehensive that if a National Madrasa Board is instituted in India, it would lead to the same phenomenon replicating itself throughout the country and on a massive scale, which can only prove detrimental to the cause that madrasas are meant to serve. Otherwise, the ulema have no conflict with the government. Nor are they opposed to modern education, as is claimed by some advocates of the National Madrasa Board. After all, many madrasas have begun teaching Computers and English, and scores of others have been teaching Mathematics, Hindi, Science, Social Sciences and so on for years now. We want our madrasa students to learn these subjects too. Islam does not oppose this. We tell our students that many great scientists and inventors in the past were Muslims, so that they can take pride in and be inspired by their example. So, it is wrong to say that our opposition to the Board stems from any hostility to modern knowledge. Rather, the opposition stems from the feeling on the part of many ulema that the Board is being sought to be imposed on the madrasas and that its consequences will be negative.

 

If this issue is sorted out through dialogue between the Government of India and the madrasas there can well be cooperation between the two. The Government should let the madrasas free, and if it is sincerely interested in helping them improve it can provide them grants for infrastructural development and for teaching modern subjects without interfering in their functioning. But for the Government to take any unilateral decision without the consent of the majority of the ulema would be grossly undemocratic.

 

Q: What role do you think middle-class, university-educated Muslims can play in the process of promoting dialogue between the ulema and the Government?

A: Unfortunately, some such Muslims seek to downplay their Muslim identity, wanting to have little or nothing to do with the Muslim masses and their issues. This is both because they are concerned only about their own personal aggrandisement as well as because they fear think that if they identify themselves with Muslim causes they would be mistakenly branded as 'fundamentalist' or 'obscurantist' by others. This is very unfortunate. I think there is a great need for middle-class Muslims who have links with the media and the Government to facilitate dialogue between them and the ulema. Unfortunately, however, little has been done in this regard.

 

Q: To return to the point about the growing anti-madrasa propaganda, would you agree with the oft-heard argument in some Muslim circles that this is part of a broader conspiracy to seek to impose Western values on the rest of the world so as to reinforce Western hegemony?

A: That is how it seems to me to be, at least in some ways. America, and the West in general, wants to establish its global cultural hegemony, which is indispensable for its economic and political hegemony as well. It operates on the assumption that those who do not share its culture and its values are its foes and that, henceforth, they should be suppressed or else eliminated. This, of course, leads to aggression, as evidenced in the massive destruction wrought by the Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere.

 

Q: But then how do you explain the fact that America has such close relations with regimes that claim to be 'Islamic', such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?

A: These close links are simple because the rulers of these countries feel compelled to have them. They are like servants who cannot express their anger against their masters, being wholly dependent on them. Yet, at the same time, these regimes boast of their 'Islamic' credentials. This is 100 per cent hypocrisy. There is no doubt about this at all.

But to come back to your question of culture as a tool of imperialism—I am not blindly opposed to everything from the West. We need to appreciate and learn from good things in every culture. Some people talk of the 'Clash of Civilisations', but I prefer to talk of the 'Consensus of Civilisations'. In the face of the massive onslaught of blind Westernisation, which is certainly a weapon being used to promote Western hegemony by supplanting other cultures, we are ignoring the tremendous ill-effects of many aspects of contemporary Western culture. We have to preserve and promote the good aspects of our own Eastern cultures, based on the Hindu religion, Islam and so on, and refuse to be swept away by the West or suffer from an inferiority complex, which is reflected in blindly imitating everything that comes from the West.

 

Q: What role do you think the Muslim ulema can play in promoting inter-community dialogue in India?

A: Inter-community dialogue and understanding is an Islamic imperative at the same time as it is necessary for the welfare of the country as a whole. My appeal to Muslims is to strive to be models of Islamic virtue so that they can be a source of mercy to others through their actions. Deal kindly and gently with others, not aggressively—only then will people be willing to listen to you. The earlier method of polemical debates is of no use. It only further reinforces conflicts and divides. It reflects an unhealthy urge to seek to impose one's views on others, to denounce others. What is needed, instead, is dialogue, through which we should learn to understand each other and each other's faiths and thereby clear our misunderstandings. In that way, people of different faiths can come closer to each other. The Quran says that God has made human beings from the same pair of primal parents and has divided them into different communities so that they can know or understand each other. This can happen only through dialogue, not through fierce polemical exchanges.

 

So, for instance, Muslim ulema should meet with Hindu and Christian religious leaders and discuss issues of mutual interest and get to know each other. They should seek to understand other religions in the same way as their followers understand them. There should be programmes in temples to which ulema are invited, in mosques where Hindu priests are invited, or in churches where Hindu pujaris and Muslim maulvis both are invited. Let them closely interact with each other. That will make them recognise their common humanity.

 

Q: What do you feel about Muslim girls' education and modern education for Muslim children? Some argue that the ulema are opposed to both.

A: This argument is wrong. Women should not be behind men in religious or modern education. They should acquire both sorts of education and share it with other women and with their own children. In matters of education there should be no difference between men and women. History itself shows that many Muslim women were better scholars than their male contemporaries. Both halves of society should have equal access to education, otherwise society will not be able to maintain its balance.

 

As for modern education for Muslim children, we are all for it. We do not say that all Muslim children must enroll in full-time madrasas and spend five or six years training to become maulvis. Not at all. If in a locality there are just five or ten maulvis from whom people can get religious instruction it is enough. The other children can go to school and take up a range of professions, although every Muslim child should be taught the basics of his or her faith as well. After all, not all the companions of the Prophet were expert religious scholars. Many of them were traders or agriculturalists or workers. So, Islam is not a hurdle to acquiring modern education, contrary to what is sometimes alleged by some people.

 

 

                                                                      2

 

Maulana Asrar ul-Haq Qasmi, a graduate of the Deoband madrasa, is the founder and director of the Delhi-based All-India Talimi-o Milli Foundation, an organisation working for Muslim educational advance­ment. He is also the Assistant General Secretary of the All-India Milli Council and a former General Secretary of the Jamiat ul-Ulama-i Hind, both leading Indian Muslim organizations consisting mainly of Deobandi ulema.

 

Q: What do you feel about the allegations being levelled today that madrasas in India are engaged in spreading hatred against other communities?

A: Madrasas have had a long history in India, of almost a thousand years, and they are thus not a new phenomenon. They see themselves as preserving, transmitting and promot­ing the Islamic tradition. They also seek to instill in their stu­dents certain basic moral values. We believe, in accordance with the teachings of Islam, that God is the Lord of all the worlds and of all creatures. We also believe that God sent the Prophet Muhammad as the mercy for all. But we certainly do not teach our students to hate Hindus or people of other communities, for that would be going against the teachings of our faith. In fact, the Quran says that God does not stop you from befriending people of other faiths if they have not persecuted you on account of your faith. It also explicitly lays down that Muslims must not let the enmity of others lead them to swerve from the path of justice. On the other hand, right-wing Hindu groups run literally thousands of schools across India where they openly preach hatred for Muslims, Christians and others. Why is it that so few people talk about this and pick on the madrasas instead?

 

Q: If that is the case, then how do you account for this talk of 'terrorism' being allegedly promoted in the Indian madrasas?

A: As I see it, this campaign is motivated simply by political considerations, so that right-wing Hindu groups can there­by gain Hindu support by spreading baseless rumours about the madrasas. Let me give you a small example to show how successful they have been in poisoning the minds of ordinary Hindus. Some months ago, a group of students from the Deoband madrasa were travelling in a train. They started a conversation with some Hindu co-passengers, who, when they came to know that they were from Deoband, made all sorts of wild allegations about the madrasa, based on what they had read about it in the newspapers. The students then invited them to come with them to Deoband to see the madrasa for themselves. They, however, refused saying that they had heard that there was allegedly an underground cham­ber in the madrasa where Hindus are routinely killed! Of course there is no such thing in the madrasa, but see how ordinary people's minds have been so terribly poisoned by right-wing Hindu propaganda!

 

Q: What would you say about reports of some madrasas in India's bor­der areas being allegedly used by the Pakistani secret service agencies?

A: There is no evidence to suggest that any of these madrasas is engaged in any sort of conspiracy against the Indian state. Not a single madrasa in India provides military training to its students. Now, there is much talk about madrasas in Rajasthan along the border with Pakistan being allegedly used as training grounds for militants. When I first heard of these reports, I met the Chief Minister and the Governor of the state, and then I addressed a press conference. I told the jour­nalists who had come there, almost all of whom were Hindus, that I was going to inspect the madrasas along the border and I invited them to come with me to see if they were really engaged in 'anti-national' activities, as was being alleged. I told them that if I saw a single such madrasa I would destroy it myself, with my own hands!

 

After the press conference two journalists, both Hindus, came along with me to the Barmer district in Rajasthan, which adjoins Pakistan. We went unannounced, so that the journalists could be sure that nothing had been pre-arranged. After touring the madrasas there we found absolutely nothing incriminating at all. Then, one of the journalists asked me if he could address a gathering at a madrasa. He stood on the podium, tears stream­ing down his face, his hands folded, and said, 'Please forgive me, I've been writing against madrasas all this while, but I had never been to a madrasa before. I've now seen for myself the contribution that you are making, with your meagre resources, for promoting education in this area'.

 

Q: There have been several reports of madrasa students and teachers being harassed by police or intelligence agencies in some parts of the coun­try. What do you have to say about this?

A: Yes, this has happened at several places, and many perfect­ly innocent people have been wrongly targeted in this way. To give you an example, some years ago, a teacher of a madrasa in Uttar Pradesh was arrested by the police. The newspapers created a big sensation, claiming that he was an agent of Osama bin Laden. As was later dis­covered, this was a totally concocted story. Apparently, the teacher was arrested for something very different, for some problem in registering ownership of a plot of land. Later, the issue went to the High Court, and he was declared innocent. Meanwhile, his reputation had been totally damaged, with all these wild stories of his allegedly being a terrorist.

 

I'll give you another instance. Some years ago, intelligence agents came to a village in Hapur, a town in Uttar Pradesh, to question a young madrasa student, sus­pecting him of being involved with the Kashmiri militant group Hizb ul-Mujahidin. The boy was arrested and branded as a terrorist, and it was even claimed that he had been involved in a bomb blast in Bhopal in 1986. But at that time he boy would have been only 13 years old. So, we issued a statement challenging this allegation, saying that the charge was extremely doubtful as the boy would have been too young to engage in such an act. We took the matter to the Bhopal High Court, which later declared him innocent. Now, when he was first arrested, the newspapers claimed that he was a dread­ed terrorist, but when he was declared innocent no non-Muslim paper admitted that he was wrongly accused. No wonder, then, that many people who rely only on such newspapers for infor­mation think that madrasa students are all terrorists.

 

Q: How, then, can this campaign against the madrasas be countered?

A: We must make use of the media to put forward our voic­es and to explain to others what exactly the madrasas are all about. One way to do so, as I have suggested to my fellow ulema, is that madrasas must seek to highlight before others the great role played by the ulema in India's freedom struggle. This is itself a long story, going back to the Shah Abdul Aziz's fatwa of 1814 against the British, and then carrying on till 1947. All along, the majority of the Indian ulema were strong­ly opposed to the British and took an active part in the free­dom movement, even opposing the Partition of the country. But, today, how many people are aware of these facts? These must be brought to the notice of the wider public.

 

Also, I have suggested that madrasas must organise functions on occasions such as India's Independence and Republic Day, to which they should invite local Hindus, Muslims and others, as well as government officials. They should arrange for speeches on communal harmony and tolerance and so on, and must also explain to the public what exactly they teach and what their sources of income are, so that in this way they can counter the misunderstandings that some people might have about them.

 

Madrasas should also play a leading role in setting up peace committees, comprising responsible people of their locality from all religious communities. These committees must seek to resolve all contentious issues and disputes through negotiation. Also, madrasas must engage in inter-faith dialogue work to promote peace, understanding and good social relations between people of different faiths.

 

Q: How do you think this agenda of inter-religious dialogue can be promoted?

A: You don't need to be a profound thinker or theologian to do this. By citing small examples you can make a very deep impact. You must convince people that our country can only survive and prosper if all of us live together in peace, and only if we accept the multi-religious character of our society. Let me give you an example, which I often cite when I talk or write about inter-faith harmony. Some years ago, a Saudi plane collided with a Kazakh plane over the village of Charkhi Dadri in Haryana, causing the deaths of all the passengers. Most of the passengers were Muslims, and there was not a single Muslim in the village. Yet, when I got there the next day I saw the whole village in deep mourning. The local Hindus had made elaborate arrangements for providing food to the relatives of the deceased passengers who had gathered there. The vil­lage youth helped in lifting the corpses.

 

I also often refer to another similar incident, but this time the roles were reversed. A fire broke out during a school function at the village of Dabwali, killing several hundred people. Although no Muslims live in the village, at the time of the fire some Muslims had come to the local market to sell rice. When they heard about the fire they hurried to the scene to rescue the people who had been trapped. One of them rushed into the burning buildings seven times, each time rescuing one person. He suffered 75% burns and then died in hospital. Mind you, he must have known that none of those trapped in the fire were Muslims and yet he was willing to sacrifice his life for them. This passionate concern for others, irrespective of religion, is what I call the real strength of India.

                                                                       3

 

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.

 
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 in order 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'. 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 note that departments of English in universities also teach English classics, written centuries ago! 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, Hindi and so on. 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 specialised 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 organised 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. One 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 recognise and respect others as fellow human beings.

 

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. 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 or the thread that 'upper' caste Hindus wear. Other aspects of material culture of other communities are not forbidden to Muslims, provided 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 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 in India 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 empathy for others, not hostility. It has nothing 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 promoting 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 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 mobilisation. 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, or any other religion, 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, but 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 most 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, and in some senses this is a result of their changed class character.

 
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, he pointed out, 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 centralise the madrasa system. The problem, however, is of lack of healthy 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.

 

                                                                  4

 

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-Ulama madrasa in Lucknow, he
is presently Director of the Islamic Society of Greater Orlando, Florida, in the United States.

 
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 asimams in mosques, 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 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 at the Firanghi Mahal. Rather, students would come to him from different parts of India to learn from him in his mansion. 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, 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 Muslim 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 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 questions 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. In fact, I think the curriculum 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. My point is that 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 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 madrasas 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. Nor are we suggesting that they should teach secular subjects to such an extent that their Islamic identity is threatened. 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. 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 generalise 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 absurd 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.

Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/