Download (1 MB) - Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations: Articles ...

78 CHAPTER 3all aspects of human life.” 87 Such a conception of Islam seems to contrastsharply with the effort to define and restrict the sphere of religion, whichwe noticed earlier. But the contrast is apparent only. That Islam regulatesall aspects of life, this-worldly as well as otherworldly, only supports thecase for the reform of the madrasas: for reform alone would enable the‘ulama to better participate in modern life, to play an active role in mattersof the world, as Islam itself enjoins upon them. The ‘ulama should not,moreover, have anything against the introduction of the modern sciencesin madrasas, since Islam recognizes no distinction between the religiousand the nonreligious. But precisely because the latter is the case, not onlyshould the modern disciplines be made part of the madrasa education,but (a point only implied) the madrasa should itself be integrated into thegeneral system of education.Neither the Report of 1962 nor that of 1979 actually says that madrasasshould therefore cease to exist, but both do recommend that religiouseducation be somehow brought within, and be regulated by concernssimilar to those of, the general stream of state-sponsored education.Whether the sphere of religion is so delimited as to create greater spacefor the modern disciplines, or conversely, is so extended as to becomeindistinguishable from other areas of life, the independence of the madrasaand the authority of its ‘ulama seem to be called into question or,at least, to be reshaped in ways that are not of the ‘ulama’s choosing.Even the Report of 1979, which offered the ‘ulama many perquisites (financialaid to madrasas, scholarships and various other amenities to students,government recognition of the degrees awarded by madrasas andhence the prospect of government employment) should they consent tothe reform of their madrasas and was generally more favorable to themthan any government initiative before or since, was nevertheless a challengeto their autonomy.Reform and Religious AuthorityThough few ‘ulama have failed to perceive the challenge to their autonomy,few were as strident in their response as Mawlana MuhammadYusuf Ludhianawi (d. 2000) in his detailed critique of the Report of 1979.Though the ‘ulama of different sectarian orientations (and even of thesame orientation) sometimes differ in their criticism of the governmentalinitiatives, I confine myself here to some aspects of the Deobandi critique.On the other hand, the following is not limited to works written specificallyas rejoinders to the reports of the reform committees; this discussionalso considers some of the other views expressed in defense of the madrasa