Please Spare Us The AIMPLB Edicts

The latest inanity from the head of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)—onfamily planning, no less—only goes to show how irrelevant the organization is and how irresponsible itspresident can be. As the press reports had it:: "Board president Maulana Rabey Hasan Nadvi said "Allahne jiska paida hona tai kiya hai usko rokna theek naheen hai" (It is not proper to stop the birth ofthose whom God has destined to be born). He termed adopting family planning as "gair zaroori"(not necessary).’

I am not surprised that ‘our lord and master’—for that is what maulana means—did not think itfit to mention even incidentally what the Prophet of Islam neither approved nor prohibited but left to people’sjudgment, namely ‘azl or coitus interruptus. ‘Lords and masters’ don’t seek to enlighten people, andfar be it from them to try and lighten people’s burden. Their only concern is that they must appear in fulland sole authority—all the time. And so when the president was reminded of his lapse, he reportedly saidthat while ‘azl was allowed in Islam it was the ‘new technologies’ that were not allowed.

I wish the reporter had then asked: what about the new technologies that save people’s lives? Are theyalso ‘prohibited innovations’? Are you telling Muslims not to seek benefit from them because ‘Allahne jiska marna tai kiya hai usko rokna theek naheen hai’ (It’s not proper to stop the death of thosewhom God has destined to die)? I doubt if any of these ‘lords and masters’ put that much trust in God.(Only mystics and other true men of God do that.) Medicine and medical treatment of the latest kind, themaulanas will assuredly declare, are most zaruuri. And, no doubt, they will then remind us of the Prophet’sremark to a bedouin that he should first tether his camel securely and only afterward put his trust in God.Heads they win, tails we lose, that’s the way it goes with these learned men.

In any case, I truly fear there was a different motive behind the Maulana’s statement, and a mischievousone, to say the least. According to the newspaper report, ‘When Maulana Rabey's attention was drawn towardsthe success of family planning in Iran, he said there was no need for Muslims in India to follow the edicts ofother countries. "Muslims in Iran are different from Muslims in India," he said.’ Now the letterurging the Board to give some consideration to the issue of family planning was written by Maulana Kalbe Sadiq,a Shi’ah scholar who lives only about three miles away from the Nadva where Maulana Rabey resides. Is he notIndian and Muslim enough for the President of the AIMPLB? Much to my regret and shame I fear that may well bethe case. And had the rector of Nadva been more forthcoming he could possibly have said: ‘Iranians are Shi’ahs,and I am a Sunni; I do not regard them as Muslims.’ He would still have been perverse but, nevertheless,honest to himself.

As is well-known to those who read Urdu, many people associated with the Nadva have long engaged in anti-Iranand anti-Shi’ah polemic and propaganda. For example Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani, who was much encouraged byMaulana Ali Mian, the former rector of Nadva and the present rector’s uncle. The latter even wrote a highlyadmiring introduction to the former’s most vitriolic book, Irani Inqilab, Imam Khomeini aur Shi’iyat.Thanks to Saudi patronage, Wahabism of the worst kind has spread in South Asia, and since 1979 it has includeda prominent trend of anti-Iran and anti-Shi’ah sentiment. Its horrific results have been evident in Pakistanfor some time. The chief reason it has not so blatantly showed itself in India is the secular stance of theIndian state, no matter how faulty the latter may seem sometimes. But this sectarian poison remains a strongundercurrent in the Muslim religious elite, even in such a seemingly peaceful movement as the Tablighi Jama’at.‘Live and let live’ is what most Muslims, like most of their compatriots, follow in their daily lives.Sadly, it’s a rare religious ‘leader’ who does so now.

***

We must never forget that AIMPLB brought itself into prominence by blocking thepitifully small financial relief that India’s Supreme Court had granted to an elderly Muslim divorcee, ShahBano. The Board succeeded because Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and a coterie of people around him chosepolitical expediency over social justice. (The same bunch then unlocked the doors in Ayodhya, thus opening asecond Pandora’s box.) Since then the Board has gained a totally misplaced importance only due to theattention it has received from the press.

This fact cannot be overemphasized. Should the reporters stop going to the Board for a change, it wouldimmediately become clear that Indian Muslims have diverse—in some matters, even disparate—ways andopinions. They go about their lives peaceably just like other Indians, and when they need guidance in anymatter where they feel a religious perspective is needed they ask someone locally. They then follow or rejectthe given advice much as they feel. They do not rush to the Board for guidance. A vast majority of IndianMuslims may not even know that it exists.

The ratio of women to men in the Muslim population in India is roughly 9 to 10. We hear ad nauseum from theseMuslim ‘leaders’, particularly from those who sit in Delhi, that Muslims should be given representation inevery sphere—e.g. jobs, college admissions, and legislative seats—proportionate to their percentage inIndia’s population. The same people, however, turn mute if it is suggested that Muslim women should be givenproportionate representation in all Muslim waqf authorities and educational institutions, and, yes, on theAIMPLB too.

After all most of the issues the maulanas of the Board pontificate upon expressly effect women. Ifquestioned, they will no doubt respond, ‘There are not enough qualified women.’ Unfortunately the pressnever asks these men: whose fault is it, and what steps have you, the masters of Deoband and Nadva, taken toameliorate the situation? How many Muslim women have you trained in religious learning? To put it bluntly,Muslim religious trusts and schools have abysmally failed to serve Muslim women despite the fact that womenconstitute almost one half of the population whose support these institutions draw upon. Does that bother ‘ourlords and masters’? Shouldn’t it?

***

How obdurate the Board has been becomes clear if we examine its act of commissionconcerning Muslim marriages and its act of omission concerning the use of mosque spaces by Muslim women. Thefirst issue is very much in the news presently in India and not for the first time, while the second is lessso. It is quite prominent an issue now in the United States. However, the issue first appeared twice in Keralaa few years back, then came up in Tamil Nadu and also in Lucknow. It is likely to become more prominent with thepassage of time.

As is well known, marriage in Islam is a legal contract and not a sacrament. It does not entail a declarationthat the two persons have been ‘joined by God’ and therefore none should separate them. The ceremonyrequires neither the presence of a mulla nor the premises of a mosque. The only requirements are that the twoparties must consent to the marriage freely, and that the groom should pay a mehr or bride-money to the bride—notto her parents—before the marriage is consummated.

Needless to say, in the name of ‘tradition’ or ‘local practice’—why do they always favour thegroom?—the two requirements have been diluted beyond recognition to serve the purpose of Muslim patriarchy.Now any non-adult female can be given away in marriage by her father. In fact, even an adult female cannot nowgive or deny her consent directly but must have a vakil to represent her. As for the requirement of the mehrbeing paid directly and promptly to the bride, it can now be delayed, paid only partially, ‘forgiven’ bythe wife, set too low to be of any use, set too high to be realistically payable, or simply litigated out ofexistence. Don’t try asking the Board members about mehr; it doesn’t interest them, though it is of coursecritical for one-half of the Muslim population they allegedly represent. It is the male prerogative of ‘giving’a divorce that is of utmost concern to ‘our lords and masters’ of the Board.

Remember, they originally came together exclusively as a band of men, and only to protect a man from payingto his divorced wife what the law of the nation required. Later the Board expanded itself grudgingly andincluded a handful of women. However it continued to act the way it always had. It took its own sweet time todiscuss a uniform and equitable marriage contract, then scuttled what the efforts of those few women hadbrought about. Here is how the logic of these ‘lords and masters’ worked: it is not very nice when mendivorce their wives by saying talaq three times but they must have the right to do so; on the other hand,women may have a legal right in Islam to get a divorce—note that they can only ‘get’ a divorce, not ‘give’a divorce—it won’t be very nice to make that right actually enforceable through the marriage contract!

***

Let us now turn to the second issue: should Muslim women participate incongregational prayers and occupy mosque spaces on an equal footing with Muslim men? Muslims do not need apriest or imam to fulfill the fundamental requirement of five daily prayers. Any believer can pray by herselfor himself. However, Muslims are urged to say the required prayers collectively—in jama’a. Collectiveprayers led by an imam are considered more rewarding religiously. According to some hadith, twenty-five timesmore rewarding. The imam, however, can be any ordinary Muslim who is perceived by the group or congregation asbeing more virtuous or ‘knowing more of the Qur’an’ than the rest.

In other words, no specifically ordained or trained person is required. Unlike Christianity, there areneither monks nor priests in Islam. Muslim women of the Prophet’s time freely attended the prayers in hismosque. At his most restrictive he is reported to have said: ‘Do not prevent your women from visiting themosques, but their houses are better for them.’ In another hadith, he reportedly said: ‘Allow women tovisit the mosque at night.’ Clearly the women of Medina attended the prayers in the Prophet’s mosquewithout any restriction. Were they assigned a permanent separate space within that mosque? I doubt if that wasthe case. After all, Muslim men and Muslim women even now perform the rituals of Hajj side by side—the womenwith fully exposed faces—both groups observing the same rules of modesty and humility. What for centurieshas been allowed in God’s ‘House’ could not have been prohibited in the Prophet’s mosque.

According to a well-known hadith preserved in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and accepted as valid by all SunniMuslims, the Prophet was asked by a woman, Umm Waraqah, if she could have the call for prayers said at herhouse, i.e. if she could hold congregational prayers at her house. Apparently she lived at some distance fromthe Prophet’s mosque in Medina. The Prophet not only gave her the permission but also asked her to lead theinmates of her house in prayers. The ‘inmates’ of her house included at least two males, the muaddhin whomade the call and the one slave who later killed her. This is what the late great scholar Dr. MuhammadHamidullah had to say about this hadith:

‘I am not prepared to accept that [Umm Waraqah] was made the imam of only the women. The word ahl used inthe hadith is not restricted to mean women alone. [She had a muaddhin and several slaves] Obviously theslaves performed their prayers with her as the imam. In short her imamat was not for women alone, it was alsofor men.’

We also know that two of the Prophet’s wives, Hazrat ‘A’isha and Hazrat Umm Salama, are reported tohave held congregational prayers—though exclusively for women—which they separately led. Thesecongregational prayers must have been performed within the Prophet’s mosque, for that is where the twovenerable ladies lived. (I was pleasingly surprised to read recently that the late Maulana Maududi’s wifeused to hold congregational prayers for women at their house in Karachi, where she led the prayers and readthe khutba.)

It would appear then that the existing severe exclusion of women from mosque spaces developed later. It couldhave been due to any number of reasons which are really not of any concern. The question for us is: are womento be denied those spaces now and forever? A couple of years back, a group of women in Kerala raised thisissue twice and, unless I remember wrongly, in one case they were able to prevail. I would, however, put amore modest question before the dignitaries of the Board: if congregational prayers are indeed religiouslymore rewarding then what have you done to ensure that Muslim women of your own acquaintance and neighborhoodobtain that reward? I would be the first to applaud them if they have in fact held or encouraged similarall-women congregational prayers at their homes and at the mosques they control.

***

One thing, however, I am quite sure of. Despite their piously urging Muslim males topray together and thus garner a greater reward, these ‘lords and masters’ of the Board will no doubtregard my question as ‘un-Islamic’, and the idea of Muslim females having the same right as the males asinful bid’at or ‘innovation’—the worst abuse in their rich vocabulary. That is what they always do,for that is all they seem to have learned to do. They only command, deny, reject, or denounce. Don’t expectthem to share, co-operate, compromise, and give-and-take. Theirs is not an examined life; they believe only inunexamined acceptance, both for themselves and others.

The other strong belief they seem to share is in the exceptional quality of their genes. Knowledge andauthority are hereditary traits and male prerogatives for these ‘lords and masters’. Consider the Nadvaitself. A school started by an organization of Muslim scholars from all over India, since 1915 it has mostlybeen controlled by the members of just one family. Will the present rector care to inform the Muslim communitywhat effort he or his three elders ever made to educate Muslim women in religious knowledge? Are not Muslimmales and females together enjoined to seek ‘ilm? And shouldn’t an ‘alim be fair and equitable insharing his knowledge with the members of his community?

Again a cry will most likely go up: no, that will be a bid’at. We will be told that religious learningcomes in two kinds, of which only one, that of a very limited nature, is necessary for women to fulfill their‘assigned’ role in the world. Sadly, but not surprisingly, with regard to the propagation of even thatlimited ‘ilm to Muslim women the record of the Nadva and the assorted individuals controlling the Board isshamefully poor. Does that bother them? Not at all. They have greater things to worry about, such as makingsure that an elderly Muslim woman should not get any aid under the 'prevention of
indigence' clauses of the Indian Penal Code.

The AIMPLB is not a representative body; nor is it a democratic body. It created itself, and its members haveheld on to their seats to serve their own agendas. More ominously over the years it has tried to expand itsself-proclaimed authority—vide its brief flirting with the perilous idea of an out-of-court settlement ofthe Babri Mosque issue. In its existence the Board has done nothing to improve the lot of Muslim women whoconstitute roughly one-half of the community. Many of its members have little individual distinction of theirown, and are there only because they gained some hereditary position. It is about time the Indian press gaveIndian Muslims a break. Ignoring the Board may be best, but that may not be possible. In that case, the pressshould give the AIMPLB only the due it actually deserves within the secular polity of the Indian nation—oneamong many Muslim organizations and not one bit more authoritative than others.

C. M. Naim is Professor. Emeritus, South Asian Languages & Civilizations, University of Chicago