It is remarkable that while some Muslim groups in India today are engaged ina limited form of dialogue with people of other faiths (often for a missionarypurpose), no single Muslim organization is engaged in promoting genuine (asopposed to cosmetic) dialogue between the different Muslim maslaks. At most,appeals are issued from time to time for Muslims, irrespective of maslak, toclose their ranks and present a united front against what are routinelydenounced as ‘enemies of Islam’. This, of course, in no way, constitutesinter-maslak dialogue in the true sense of the term.
The hostility of large sections of the traditionalist ulama to intra-maslakdialogue has to do, in large measure, with simple mundane bread-and-butterissues. Unlike Catholicism, Islam does not have a church that lays down theofficial doctrine. This opens the way for diverse, even mutually opposed,interpretations of Islam, each of which purports to represent the singlenormative Islamic tradition. The ulama of the rival maslaks claim to be theauthorities or representatives of the single ‘genuinely’ Islamic sect, andit is on this claim that their authority and influence rests. This claimis sought to be further bolstered by routine denunciations of rival Muslimsects, amply evident in the writings and fatwas of the ulama, and in thecurriculum of the madrasas, each of which is associated with one maslak or theother.
Sectarian rivalries among the traditionalist ulama reflect a fundamentalinability to come to terms with the theological ‘other’. Whether it be thenon-Muslim ‘other’ or the sectarian Muslim ‘other’, they are alltypically seen and defined as ‘enemies’ or ‘deviants’, threatening thepurity of the faith, which comes to be reduced to a narrowly defined sectarianvision of Islam. This explains why the ulama in general have shown little or nointerest at all in promoting Muslim genuine ecumenism. This also explains whythe Board has been unable to solve the sectarian problem within its own ranksthat has lead finally to multiple splits in the Board itself.
I
n addition to the inability of the Board to sensitivelyhandle the sectarian question is the hostility of many of its members to anylegal reform that might help mitigate the plight of Muslim women. The setting upof a women’s Muslim Personal Law Board reflects a growing protest on the partof at least some Indian Muslim women against the deeply rooted patriarchalprejudice of the traditionalist ulama, which cuts across sectarian lines. Itdirectly questions the claims of the traditionalist ulama on the Board to speakon behalf of all Muslims, women included.