Madrasa Education Myth And Reality
By Asghar Ali Engineer
04 February, 2009
Twocircles.net
Madrasas
have been at the centre of controversy since 9/11 attack on New York
towers. It was thought that attacks were planned by Taliban who were
students of madrasas run by Muslims of Wahabi ideology. Though as far
as 9/11 attack was concerned, the madrasas in focus were from North
West Frontier Province but in India too madrasas came under fire
especially from those who were politically motivated and also from a
section of media which took a biased view.
Most
of the views about madrasas were expressed by those who hardly had any
first hand knowledge of madrasa system or what is taught in these
madrasas. They just presumed that since these are Islamic institution
they must be teaching about jihad and war. Even responsible ministers
from NDA Government in those days made such statements. What is needed
is well informed and well studied opinion.
I
am glad that Ms. Saral Jhingran has made such an attempt to do
systematic study of madrasas system in historical perspective. The
other person who has made such an attempt is Yoginder Sikand. These
studies are most welcome to fight uninformed prejudices even among
scholars. These madrasas were set up to fulfill a religious need rather
than promote enmity with any community.
Islam
entered into India from earliest time, some maintain even during
Prophet's lifetime through Kerala, and a century later through Sindh in
North India. Both in South and North India hundreds of people converted
to Islam and hence right from earliest time there was need for madrasa
institution to teach religion and also to create 'Ulama who in turn
could teach others and also help perform prayers and other religious
rites.
Madrasa, an
Arabic word, literally means place of dars i.e. teaching. In Islamic
countries even institutions of higher learning are known as madrasas.
In Kolkata there was Madrasa 'Aliyah i.e. higher institution of
learning which now West Bengal government has given university status.
It is interesting to note that these madrasas were open to students of
other communities as well. Raja Rammohan Roy studied in Madrasa Aliyah
and was as much scholar of Persian and Arabic as that of Sanskrit and
Hindu religion.
In
many cases thus madrasas in fact fulfilled both religious and secular
needs and taught was necessary for secular as well as religious life.
These madrasas can be, in a way, compared with Christian seminaries
during medieval ages wherein too what was taught was to fulfill both
religious as well as secular needs. These institutions served in those
days vital scholarly needs.
The
question today is how relevant are these madrasas today? Some would say
they are highly relevant and should be abolished and replaced by modern
secular educational institutions. Those who subscribe to rational
secular point of view would easily subscribe to this position. However,
such complex questions cannot be reduced to such simplistic solutions.
Things in actual life are far more complex.
A
large number of Muslims in India, in fact a vast majority, is of poor
and illiterate variety. Most of them are converts from low Hindu caste
and still pursue their ancestral vocations. Very few have emerged
successfully from their inherited position to take up modern
professions. These poor Muslims cannot afford, even if they want, to
send their children to institutions of secular education.
Moreover
they have religious needs and madrasas can fulfill not only religious
needs but also provide free education and what is more, are
conveniently located. Also, we should not homogenize all madrasas. They
need to be divided into different categories i.e. preliminary known as
maktabs where only preliminary religious teaching is imparted. Then
comes middle level madrasas where Arabic language, Qur'an, commentary
on Qur'an, hadith etc. are taught.
Then
higher madrasas which can be compared with graduate and post-graduate
level studies where apart from Arabic literature, Islamic theology,
Kalam¸ philosophy and Greek sciences are taught. This syllabus in India
is based on what is known as dars-e-Nizami devised by Mulla Nizami in
eighteenth century is taught. Today there is debate on this issue
between orthodox and modernist Muslims whether Dars-e-Nizami should be
continued. There is a movement for modernization of madrasas and many
madrasas have gone for modernization.
Now
coming to Jhingran's study of madrasa, I should say it is quite
objective and systematic study of madrasas in India. In the first
chapter, 'Society, Religion, Education and Modernity' she defines and
discusses categories like society, religion, education and modernity.
This discussion imparts clarity to discussion. While defining religion,
particularly Islam, she observes in this chapter, "…Religion is a very
complex phenomenon, which is impossible to understand in a few pages.
In as much as our main interest here is in Islam, we can generally say
that it regards itself as; possessing God's final 'revelation', as well
as being a comprehensive whole which includes not only Holy Quran but
also the sunna as recorded in the Hadiths. As such religious education
is more important and detailed for Muslims, especially the orthodox
ones."
In the second
chapter Ms. Jhingran discusses, right at the outset the possible number
of Muslim children going to madrasas. She quotes various sources and
various estimates available. She is not satisfied by the estimate given
by Sachar Committee that about 4 per cent Muslim children go to
madrasas. She tries to work out her own estimate. She says, "The feed
back that I have got from my frequent talks with the madrasa pass outs,
now studying in JNU, or those who have roots in villages, puts the
number of madrasa going children much higher …Generally they estimate
that at least in villages about 15 to 30 % Muslim children go first to
maktabs than to madrasas, if only for a few years.
Well,
15 to 30 per cent is a wide variation and to me it appears to be on
higher side though at maktab level it may be so but not at higher
madrasa level. I do not think so many maktabs and madrasas are
available to that kind of number. But that is not important. What is
important is that madrasa continues to be an important institution for
poorer rural and to some extent urban Muslims.
The
author also discusses reasons for preference for madrasa education
among Muslims. Among reasons she points out are
1) paucity of modern
schools is Muslim majority areas;
2) lack of separate girls' schools
and even female teachers in common schools;
3) cost of modern education
and the poor quality of government schools;
4) poor quality of
education in government schools and
5) "genuine grievance of orthodox
Muslims is that there is a Hindu bias in school text books." Then she
comments, "Though such biases have tendency to creep up even in
supposedly objective statements, any such pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim
bias is unfortunate and must be avoided with utmost sincerity as it
would cause further resistance to modern education among a particular
section of Muslims."
This
chapter is quite important as Jhingran extensively discusses these
reasons for preference among a section of Muslims for madrasa
education. This chapter would remove many misunderstandings about
madrasa education among non-Muslims.
In
third chapter the author discusses historical background of madrasa
education. She traces the origin of madrasa right from the time of
Prophet of Islam as he established first such 'madrasa' in his mosque
where he would teach tenets of Islam and explain the contents of
revelation, which he received. The formal establishment of institution
of madrasa came into existence much later. At first formal madrasa was
established in Nishapur in Khurasan, and second was Nizamia madrasa in
Baghdad, both in 11th century. Al-Azhar, now famous Islamic university,
came into existence during Fatimid rule in Egypt around that time.
She
then discusses establishment of madrasas in India. She traces teaching
of rational sciences (ma'qulat) during Akbar's period by Fatehullah
Shirazi. He introduced, she says, and popularized various rational
sciences (ma'qulat) which became major part of madrasa curriculum. It
must be pointed out that rational sciences included astronomy,
geography, physics and philosophy, mostly derived from Greek sources.
Unfortunately all this continues to be taught even today under the
general rubric of ma'qulat though at best they are of only historical
importance now.
She
then discusses madrasa system from Aurangzeb's time to the coming of
the British in India. Jhingran says, "For the first time, Aurangzeb
(17th century) made a team of scholars to prepare a digest of Islamic
law, later on called Fataw-i-Alamgiri. Then he granted Nulla Nizamuddin
a mansion in Lucknow, known as Firangi Mahal where he established a
madrasa.
It was a predecessor of later madrasas and became a renowned
centre of Islamic learning." It was here that Mulla Nizamuddin
developed a systematic syllabus which is known as Dars-e-Nizami and is
still taught in most of the higher madrasas. Mulla Nizamuddin had tried
to create quite a balanced and flexible system by standards of that
time, it later on became quite rigid and no change was contemplated.
Ms.
Saral Jhingran then discusses madrasas after independence and also
devotes one chapter to madrasa nisabs (syllabus) and an effort to
understand them and a critique. Her critique is also well informed
about Islam. I must say on the whole the book is a learned and
scholarly study of madrasa system and what is taught in them, how
relevant those teachings are and what reforms are needed.
This
book will greatly help in dispelling many misunderstandings prevalent
among non-Muslims and to an extent among Muslims themselves. The
critique developed by her invites orthodox Muslims to reflect seriously
as to what modern madrasas should be like. Many Muslim modernists have
also developed such critique. This book on the whole will be quite
useful for scholars as well as for lay people.
Her
fear about madrasa system seems to be that it creates sense of separate
identity among Muslim children. While this criticism may be valid from
her point of view question is in a diverse and now polarized society
like India can we avoid such separate sense of identity? Our whole
political system is thriving on religious, caste, ethnic and linguistic
identities and sub-identities. Though there is nothing wrong with
separate identities what is wrong is its politicization.
