Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

10: IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION

Jamal Malik

As we have seen, madrasas and Islamic learning traditions are the embodiment of a variety of resistance patterns. On the one hand, they appear to be the local resistance forces arrayed against the universalizing and homogenizing notions of secular modernity as stipulated by the state from above. On the other hand, they are exposed to the challenges of homogenizing and globalizing notions of Islam emerging within the religious discourses, that is to say, from below. These forms of resistance do have the potential to evolve into some radicalism, as the resistance adapts itself to the political economy of madrasas. On the positive side, however, these forms also provide for creative alternatives allowing accommodation and appeasement from within. Both aspects can be traced in the ideas proliferated in and about madrasas and Islamic learning.

Apart from the political economy argument which seems to put madrasas merely on the receiving end, one can witness tremendous internal dynamics in these institutions, rendering them active agents of political economy themselves. Interestingly enough, the language they speak is similar to the one imposed by the state: homogenizing and globalizing, yet pluralistic and localizing. Two extreme examples can display this tension, when, in the homogenizing discursive processes of identity formation, pluralistic tendencies can be traced as well. The strategically instituted different interpretations of texts as used by the Ahl-i Sunnatwa Jama’at seem to provide for multiple understanding and thus space for plurality, at least within the religious domain. Their homogenizing notions of Islam target and contest the Muslim Other rather than the non-Muslims. These sorts of skirmishes between local factions competing for scarce resources “from below” provide authoritative agency which seems to be necessary for the survival in the same religious domain. Outwardly, this might look as if these Islamic scholars were striving solely towards a universal Muslim identity. In the case of another Barelwi school, similar homogenizing tendencies are apparent, the motives being state recognition and economic factors. In their struggle for financial betterment they try to resist the centripetal and centrifugal forces of secular modernity when they stress their particular identity as being Muslims, Sunnis and Ahl-i Sunnatwa Jama’at (Barelwis). Again, it is in the contestation with other Muslim groups rather than non-Muslims that they engage in their own “homogenizing” forms of religious resistance. Similarly, the Jama’at-i Islami, far from being hostile to the homogenizing terms of secular modernity, comes up with a specific homogenizing notion of Islam. Historically, it evolved in the 1930s distinguishing itself both from the politically-dominant colonial sector and from adherents of Muslim traditions passed on from generation to generation. On the one hand Maududi’s vision of the Islamic system was fairly compatible with Western ideologies. On the other it calls for a return to the righteous society and for the reconstruction of an idealized pure, yet deculturalized, Islamic society. The aim is revival, tajdid – thought necessary to respond to the changes of modernity. This is possible only through the evolution of a unique, singular and synchronic Islamic identity produced in a pure Islamic education system. There is a clear universalizing contestation to the homogenization attempts of the state as well as those of traditionalist madrasas.

Hence, alternatives to these “homogenizing” forms of religious resistance do exist. The chapter that draws out this alternative most effectively is that on cinematic representations of Islam and Islamic learning in Bangladesh (Chapter 8). Here, the homogenizing pressures of the modern state and the various forms of resistance it produces are explicated in terms of the progression within East Bengal: from (a) resistance against the homogenizing colonial state culminating in the formation of homogenized Hindu and Muslim states (India and Pakistan); (b) resistance against the homogenizing Islam of “Pakistan” culminating in the formation of homogenized Urdu and Bengali-speaking states (Pakistan and Bangladesh); and, last but not least, (c) resistance against the homogenizing language of “Bengali” nationalism culminating in the formation of competing, “Islamic” and “Bengali Muslim” identities. It is revealed that these homogenizing forms of state-formation are not the only options. In fact, the cinematic representations conclude with an example in which this relentless homogenizing impulse is set aside, across lines of class and political power, to illuminate a more ambiguous (and satisfying) solution – one that remains open to shifting connections and diverse forms of religious understanding, when the madrasa is considered to be a space for actually unlearning homogeneity, forcing to learn to adopt and accept difference. Indeed, a set of tensions is shrewdly illuminated within which one homogenized (singular) identity eliminates the other only to be replaced by yet another homogenized identity. On the contrary, what is presented is a case in which Islamic education is able to accommodate, even embrace, a “third” option – one in which the tensions themselves remain in place; when Islam and Islamic learning is vernacularized to fit local needs in the widest sense.

This rare pluralist approach we encounter in The Clay Bird that finds precedents in Muslim history where the principle of pluralism was prevailing and commonly accepted, such as Islamic law: in fact, it was this law that evolved from long scholastic debates, bringing about a consensus that is adaptable enough to guarantee a life in accordance with Islam in many different ways, harking back to the science of disputation mentioned earlier. This development rendered the singular and normative religious dynamics and a central scholastic teaching institution superfluous. It implied that active engagement with plurality required participation, beyond mere tolerance, and it did not displace or eliminate deep religious commitments, rather it was the encounter of commitments.

A major discursive field to discuss these dynamics and pluralist as well as non-pluralist, globalizing as well as localizing tendencies is the pedagogy and subject matters that disseminate knowledge in madrasas. Mention has been made of the titles of major canonical texts and of the books added from time to time. But so far little academic effort has been invested to research the exact content of the texts taught in religious schools. What is required then is a careful look into the gradual changes in the subject matters. In contrast to the widespread perception that madrasa education is out-dated and in need of reform, it is contended here that there has been a process of between-the-line-changes to the major texts, which can be discerned from the classical texts that still enjoy universal popularity within the madrasa system. The changes lie not in the body of the main texts but in the explanatory commentaries, super-commentaries, glosses and super-glosses that have been written and re-written by contemporary scholars to make the core texts accessible and meaningful in different times. One may presume that these additions changed over the course of time, reflecting the context in which the core texts were to be re-read – as has been the case with Qur’anic interpretation, jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, and so on. So far, these specific additions and modifications to the subject matters in madrasas have hardly been studied properly. Hence, what is needed precisely is an indepth view into the curricular dynamics of madrasas before one can really come up with some plausible statement about what is being taught and what is to be reformed in these schools. Given the societal, religious and curricular dynamics in madrasas, these changes should not be too difficult to instal, once the tussle between and among different contenders from above and from below has taken on a constructive shape. For this to happen, however, the role of the state is crucial.