The making of the modern maulvi — XIV

The role of maulvis has turned into declaring who in specific situations can give his daughter in marriage to whom.

Mufti Shafi Usmani’s risala — booklet — on a system of hierarchy of castes in his view of the Islamic sharia was published in a volume along with Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s supporting text titled Wasl-us Sabab fi Fasl-un Nasab. Both these writings were in line with the Deoband stand on the issue of caste differentiation and the ‘system of graded inequality’ that it entails. I must, however, clarify here that the Deoband school was not alone in this view; all other sects — Sunni (labelled by others as ‘Barelvi’), Ahle Hadith, Shia, Ahmadi (called ‘Qadiani’ by their detractors) and so on — that proliferated as the profession of maulvi changed in the era of the new modes of communication, held exactly the same view.

The literature on this subject brings it out that the matter of a particular caste group’s place in the complicated hierarchy was a subject of serious discussion on two important counts in the social life of Muslim communities: whether one caste could have a relationship of roti and beti with the other caste, which roughly means whether one can sit on the same dastarkhwan — dining table, if you will — with them and whether one can give one’s daughter in marriage to someone from the other caste. With the changing profile of urban living, the question of who to sit with on the table has declined in importance, although in our rural, more traditional milieu, a mirasi, a nai or a kanjar can hardly imagine himself breaking bread with a chaudhry, a malik, a khan or a wadera even today. The other question gave rise to a plethora of fatwas issued by all kinds of maulvis declaring who in specific situations can give his daughter in marriage to whom. This has resulted in two significant trends in the Muslim society of the northern subcontinent in the background of the socio-economic change outlines before. One, a belief in the desirability of segregation of communities on the basis of sectarian, ethnic, linguistic, tribal or other differences that refer to the accident of birth rather than political values. Two, an insistence on the part of each small caste community to marry their daughters within the biradari. This latter trend has made life extremely difficult for a large number of young females in our society who cannot be kept away from the influences of literacy, education, exposure to mass media and mobile technology but are not given space to make decisions about their life according to their modern aspirations. Since maulvis of all hues — and Thanvi enjoys a big following here — put the weight of their fatwas behind the male authority in this regard, the common view is that the decision of a young woman’s marriage has to be made by her male guardian for it to have religious validity. In many cases, such conflicts have caused young women to be brutally murdered by their male relatives. Police and the local administration in such situations are usually seen supporting the murderers. Shamefully, some of our courts of law have also openly sided with this view on certain occasions; more often, they take a lenient view of the crime on the basis of the caste-based concept of honour or ghairat.

Thanvi has made very clear pronouncements on the subject of caste hierarchy in his view of sharia. In the 20^th volume of his collection of sermons — Mawa’iz-e Ashrafia — he says that for Shurafa to be proud of one’s high birth is takabbur and haram. He further says that for non-Shurafa, even to think themselves equal to the high-born Shurafa constitutes takabbur, which, again, is haram. He plainly asks, “Who can obliterate the difference that Allah has created?” (p.193)

In the seventh volume of the same series, Thanvi narrates an interesting incident: “A Maulvi Sahib, who was a Syed, arrived in Qanoj and stayed with Manhiars [bangle-makers] in their neighbourhood. He started saying, to please his hosts and to gain monetarily, that there is no such thing as sharafat based on high birth and that all descendants of Adam are equal. The Shaikhs of the town found this talk not agreeable at all and they started a rumour campaign, saying that the Syed Maulvi Sahib was going to give his daughter in marriage to Manhiars. One clever man put this question publicly to the Maulvi. Maulvi Sahib got enraged on this outrageous suggestion and said: Who is the haramzada [bastard] who says this? He was told that since according to his views there is no sharafat based on one’s lineage he had no reason to feel offended on this suggestion. That day, the Maulvi Sahib’s eyes got opened.” (p.266-7).

Another revealing anecdote appears in a book called Kamalaat-e Ashrafia, a volume of hagiography put together by one of Thanvi’s khalifas, Maulana Eisa Allahabadi. When printed books became the order of the day and writers fell short of texts to be printed to cater to the growing demand, prominent maulvis began the practice of getting their verbal sayings collected and published under the category of malfoozat. Thanvi himself has a large number of such volumes to his credit. One of Thanvi’s disciples and khalifas, a maulvi who belonged to the Ansari caste (the biradari of cloth-weavers who had adopted this surname in the face of strong opposition of Shurafa Maulvis and others who insisted on calling them Julahas) liked this idea, collected his own malfoozat and got them printed as a book. Thanvi got angered by this and strictly reprimanded the fellow. What is more, the poor man was instructed to stand up every day after Maghrib prayers and announce to the congregation in the following words: “Sahibo, since I belong to that low caste, I could not conduct myself in a reserved manner, got carried away because of my patron’s kindness and started considering myself a big man. I am being punished for this misconduct. You should learn from my example and always keep away from takabbur.”

Published in The Express Tribune, November 19^th,  2011.