Dars E Nizami Syllabus
Akinlolu Bellotti
There is much to ponder about in this interview and much to learn from. May Allah reward the Mawlana for his efforts and put blessing in his noble endeavors. I have written some comments on this interview that were published on the old attalib blog years ago. Meant to balance the critique offered by Mawlana Tariq Rasheed, my comments now appear on the defensive. If I was to comment on the article again in the present, perhaps my comments would differ significantly. In any case, the next post will include my commentary. I hope that both posts will benefit the interested reader and student of educational reform in the madrasah system.
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 Nizami madrasas.
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 or Hadith, Islamic Jurisprudence or Fiqh and Sufism. Those who passed through this course of study went on to assume a variety of careers, not just as imams and qazis, but also as bureaucrats in the courts of various princely states. And 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. What a contrast this is 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 unlike in most madrasas today, where questioning is strongly discouraged.
A: Mulla Nizamuddin did not establish a madrasa in Firanghi Mahal. Rather, students would come to him from different parts of India to learn from him in his house in the Firanghi Mahal. 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, and a disciple of the noted Qadri saint Shah Abdur Razak Bansavi.
A: Partition hit our family very badly. Around half of the Firanghi Mahali family migrated to Pakistan. From there, many of them settled in Europe and America. Most of them, like the rest of the family who remained in India, gave up the tradition of Islamic scholarship and took to Western learning. The family was bereft of feudal patrons in the new set-up, and that was also a major cause for the decline of our scholarly tradition. And then those who are the legal heirs of the structure where the Madrasa-e Nizamia once stood are not interested in refurbishing it, although I tried to do so some years ago. Consequently, the structure is now in ruins, in a state of complete neglect.
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 well, how do you react to this argument?
So, this argument that the dars-i nizami should not be revised, on the lines that I have suggested, is completely absurd. I think it should be revised every thirty to forty years in accordance with changing conditions if it is to retain its relevance.
I think 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 Firanghi Mahali 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. 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, many madrasas that have come up insist on keeping Urdu, rather than English, as the medium of instruction, although few young North American Muslims 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.
I strongly think that reforms in the curriculum and methods of teaching are essential to help madrasas relate better to others, including non-Muslims, the media and the government, and also to counter misunderstandings that many people have about them. Only then will people come to realise that madrasas are constructive, not destructive, institutions. For that we also need to encourage tolerance for other points of view, for other understandings of Islam and for other religions and their adherents.
A: I think vocational training is very important. Ideally, although this is not always the case, one
should choose to become an alim not for the sake of a job but as a religious calling. In other words, ideally, imamat in a mosque or delivering sermons should not be a paid profession. It should be an honorary, voluntary thing. This is how it was in the distant past. For instance, Imam Abu Hanifa, whose school of law most South Asian Sunni Muslims follow, was not a professional alim; he earned his livelihood as a businessman. Today, however, the general feeling is that large sections of the ulema live off the donations of others. If one is dependent on others how will one earn the respect due to him? The ulema can gain proper respect only when they are seen as providing benefits, in terms of proper leadership and guidance, to others, rather than, as now, benefiting from them. And, for that, financial independence of the ulema is a must, and hence the need for introducing vocational training in the madrasas.
I think 9/11 came as a major wake-up call for us in America. We are much more active now in inter-faith dialogue and outreach work than we ever were before. Earlier, we adopted the same approach that the ulema in India continue to adopt; we were satisfied living in own little cocoons and not making the effort to reach out to people of other faiths, to listen to them and to speak to them. This is what 9/11 forced us to wake up to. And, based on my own experiences in the field of dialogue in the last few years, I must say that the vast majority of Americans are indeed tolerant and willing to listen to what we say, if approached properly.
A: I think this is pure hypocrisy. Many of those who make this claim would be the first to migrate to America if they were provided with an American passport or visa! There are numerous fiercely anti-American Muslims, including even some mullahs, whose own children live comfortably in America! I may not agree with some aspects of the foreign policy of the present American government or the attitude of sections of the American media, but nor do millions of non-Muslim Americans. You cannot equate the American government with the American people. The averageAmerican on the street cannot be said to be anti-Islam. We have over three thousand mosques in America and enjoy freedom to practise our faith.
I think all of us, Muslims and others, urgently need to shed our parochialism, and seek to reach out to each other if the world is to be saved from catastrophe in the name of religion. Needless to add, there are well-meaning people in every community and in every country, America included, and our task is to work together with them for the sake of our common humanity.
Shaykh Abdal Wajid is an experienced teacher of the Islam Sciences. The Shaykh began his studies 16 years ago, spending 5 years in Syria studying Arabic grammar, Fiqh, Usul, Aqida, Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah and other subjects. After returning from Syria, the Shaykh then spent a further 5 years studying the traditional subcontinental dars-e-nizami syllabus in the UK as well as spending some time studying in Pakistan. Shaykh Abdal Wajid has been teaching Islamic Sciences at Alimiyyah level for over 10 years.
c80f0f1006