Maulana Kalbe Sadiq is perhaps India's best-known Shi'a Muslim scholar. He is also the Vice-President of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand he discusses a range of issues related to Islam, Muslims and inter-community relations.
Q: How, as an Islamic scholar, do you look at the issue of inter-faith relations?
A: There are, broadly, two ways of approaching this question. The first is to see it in terms of a so-called 'clash of civilisations'. Another way is to look at it as an opportunity and a challenge, to work for inter-faith dialogue, and that is what I personally believe in and have tried to follow. I have had numerous dialogues and discussions with Hindu religious leaders in India, and with several Sunni Muslim leaders in India, Pakistan and elsewhere. Dialogue through personal communication and contact, I believe, is the only way to clear misunderstandings and bring the different communities closer. There is really no other way out.
Q: How do you view the phenomenon of Islamism , that is so much talked about today?
A: See, the Islamic law or shari'ah rests on certain basic fundamentals:
intellectual development, spiritual development and production of life, and production of wealth. Now, a society which rests on these principles is a balanced one. If that is what people are struggling for, I support it. But this sort of thing cannot be imposed, because this is an age of dialogue. You cannot force something down people's throats. Instead, you need to convince them of your claims by the force of your personality and character. The Qur'an very clearly states that there can be no compulsion in religion. One also must understand how religion has been misused for narrow political ends, so not every state that claims to be 'Islamic' really is so. Is Pakistan really an 'Islamic' state? Are Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Iran? No, in my opinion, there is no state today which can claim to be truly 'Islamic' in the true sense of the term.
A truly Islamic society, as the Prophet Mohammad defined it, is one where there is complete social justice, which is not to be found in any of the so-called Islamic states in the world today. In my view, the basic purpose of God's sending to earth a succession of prophets and scriptures was to end oppression and establish social justice. So, as I see it, an ideal state would be one in which nobody, irrespective of religion, is oppressed. Any other sort of rule is not really 'Islamic'.
Q: To come back to the question inter-faith dialogue, how have the Indian 'ulama typically viewed Hinduism? I think this has been often in very negative terms, but do you see the possibility of a different way of looking at the issue?
A: I think the 'ulama must discuss this question. The Qur'an talks about the ahl-i kitab, or 'people of the book', whom it considers as 'protected people', such as Jews and Christians. It recognises that they have been recipients of holy scriptures. Now, in traditional Islamic jurisprudence there is another group of people who are seen as similar to the 'people of the book', such as the Zoroastrians, who also claim to have received divine scriptures. So, perhaps the Hindus can also be considered, from this juridical point of view, as similar to the Zoroastrians. I've read the Gita myself, and I can say that it preaches pure monotheism and is opposed to idolatry. Those who have read the Vedas also make the same point. And then, the Qur'an itself clearly says that God has sent messengers to every community, so it might well be that the Vedas were divinely revealed texts.
Q: What do you feel should be the role of the 'ulama in Muslim society? What are your own feelings about how the 'ulama function today?
A: A true 'alim, as Imam 'Ali once mentioned in a sermon, is one who struggles for the end of oppression and for the establishment of social justice. I do respect the present-day 'ulama, but I must say that, on the whole, they have cut themselves off from the public, from issues of contemporary social concern. Most of them do not have any interest in working to alleviate the sufferings of the people, as the Prophet did. I think that you cannot call yourself an 'alim if you do not help the distressed and the needy. Now, this sort of service is not to be limited simply to preaching the virtues of religion, but must also include providing people concrete services, setting up welfare organisations and so on. The mission of the 'ulama should be to help people, not to create more problems for them.
Q: What are your views about the ongoing debates on madrasa reforms? Critics argue that much that the madrasas teach is irrelevant in today's context and leaves their students ignorant of issues of pressing contemporary concern.
A: There is an immense stagnation of thought (jamud-i-fikri) in most of the madrasas, and this is a major problem. The major focus in the madrasas is on the nitty-gritty of ritual actions, and there is really no effort to provide the students with an awareness of the major issues in the wider world.
Q: Increasingly, in places such as Pakistan, there has been an alarming rise in Shi'a-Sunni clashes. How do you account for this and what can be done to stop the spread of sectarian conflict?
A: I do not believe that there is any inherent conflict between Shi'as and Sunnis. After all, there are no Shi'a-Sunni clashes in India. Even in Pakistan it is not really a Shi'a-Sunni conflict. Ordinary Shi'as and Sunnis in Pakistan live together in peace. The real cause of these incidents of violence is political, and politicians and some mullahs who claim to be religious leaders have a vested interest in instigating sectarian violence. It is the work of ignorant mullahs, who provoke their equally ignorant followers. I think President Musharraf is doing a good job in courageously trying to tackle this problem, for which he is facing considerable opposition and even threats to his life.
Q: At the theological level, how do you think Shi'a-Sunni differences can be resolved?
A: We cannot do away with all our differences, but we can narrow them down and learn to live with those that remain. These different sects (mazhab, maslak) are human creations, while true religion (din) is from God. That is why the Qur'an uses the word 'deen' and not 'mazhab' and 'maslak'. So, you can remain associated with whatever sect you want, but you must also remember that all the different sects are made by human beings. Since the 'deen' is divine, it must be primary, and only after that need one identify himself with one of the many sects if you wish. The problem arises when you reverse the order, and you place something that is a human product over and above that which is divine.
When I point this out in my lectures people realise the futility of sectarian violence and conflicts. You also have to appeal to people by your own character and through peaceful dialogue. Let me give you an example. It is said that some Ahl-i Hadith scholars consider the Shi'as as infidels. Once, I was travelling with Maulana Abdul Wahhab Khilji, a senior Indian Ahl-i Hadith leader, and I overheard him say to another maulvi that many of his friends were opposed to his friendship with me on account of my being a Shi'a. He, however, told his friends that he would be happy if I were to accept him like my own son!
The point I am trying to make is that people change their views not through polemical wars but by being influenced by the character and behaviour of others. If you show that you love them, they will express their love for you, too. Hatred only produces further hatred, making the problem even more intractable. And this principle is as valid in the case of intra-Muslim differences as it is, say, in the case of Hindu-Muslim relations.