Society and Citizenship in an Age of Contested Cosmologies

Nepal Summer Intensive 2017

The significance of the summer intensive in Nepal lies in its objectives and its design that duly correspond to the prime motives of the Madrasa Discourses project. Experts know that the madrasa curriculum tends to inculcate the traditional Islamic cosmologies to the students. Learning and growing into such a curriculum within the confines of a madrasa, a student fails to understand the other worldviews and cosmologies, rather he proudly subscribes to the idea of Islamic supremacism. It implies that the other worldviews or cosmologies, that are not Islamic, are un-Islamic and a challenge to the idea Islamic supremacism. Even today, the concept of Umma occupies the central position in the Muslim political theology, and, though, the idea of human rights exists in Muslim theology, it is still categorized into Muslim and non-Muslim, or Muslim nation and non-Muslim nation.

First in the history of the South Asian madrasas, it was a unique experience for madrasa graduates to learn about the world that has been existing around them for years. In their own created world within the confines of the madrasa, they believe that modernity and secularism are the antireligious ideologies, and aim to expel religion from the active and social life.

With relation to the common misconceptions about secularism and modernity in madrasas, the address of Prof Scott Appleby’s address could draw particularly the attention of the madrasa graduates. Because India is a secular state, madrasa students from India were aware of the concept of secularism, but, paradoxically, they believed, as is pointed out by Mushirul Haq in his book, ‘Islam in Secular India’, ‘Many of them seems to believe that the state must remain secular but the Muslim should be saved from secularism’.

Appleby’s lectures, the assigned readings, and discussions with the students helped them to remove the clot of misconception from their minds. Scott tried to convince the students that secularism can possibly dialogue with religion. It will not only help to nurture the secular but the religious values as well. His idea of cultivating secularist ideals along with the religious ones in a society or a state might be far radical for some orthodox, but the prior engagement with the Madrasa Discourses faculties in the online classrooms had supported the students to value it. His talk on modernity and its characteristics and fundamentals was also very enlightening. I would rather say that he, actually, smashed the old stereotypes projecting modernity and secularism as the embodiments of evil. While listening to him, students seemed very curious and excited. However, studying Christian experience with modernity could be alarming and dangerous for a traditional Islamic mind-set, as it believed that Catholicism had long ago lost its authenticity and could be vulnerable to the onslaught of modernity and secularism. And Islam, being an authentic religion, can never tread the same path. Fortunately, this point led the students to a new but interesting discussion of authenticity of tradition and change.

Prof Ebrahim Moosa’s heroic entry could be considered as a shift of the on-going discussion to the concept of Shariah, and how to identify common good through it. Shariah aims to nurture the innate ethical values, and it does so in the light of the human experiences. As human experiences vary in different times and places, there must be a variety within the readings of the Sharia law. Moreover, he demanded madrasa students, as they are experts in Islamic law, to look into the Sharia laws that have lost their validity in the modern world. Engaging with Prof Moosa’s ideas was more easy and convenient for the students also because he explained to them in Urdu, the native language of the students.

In the last three days of this program, Prof Mohammad Fadel intellectually expressed his views on the possible alignment and adjustment of the secular ideals and the Sharai laws. He established that the Islamic rules could not contradict with the ‘public reason’. Hence, there is a room for reform in the old Sharia laws like slavery, polygamy, and the disciplinary power of husband over wife. Likewise, there can be debate on the ordinances related to the inheritance and penal code in Islam that whether they can be enacted if they are acceptable to ‘public reason’ and the masses. He also explained to the students that the apostasy law is contradictory to ‘public reason’ and can be reformed on the basis of the Islamic fundamentals. He, brilliantly, related a story of the Umayyad Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz illustrating the principle that the Shariah laws can only be enacted in a positive environment.

With relation to religion and ethics, Prof Leela Prasad’s talks were moving and thought-provoking. The establishment of the dynamism of social ethics and the fundamentals of ‘co-being’, she emphasised, are necessary for the development of the essential values of a multicultural society. We also had chance to have two local guest lecturers, Prakash Bhattacharya, and Shubham Amatya. Mr Bhattacharya enlightened us about the pleasant change Nepal has experienced immediately after the democratic revolution, and how the NGOs and youth organizations are working together to build a modern and secular society in Nepal. While Mrs Amatya talked to the students about the gender inclusion and social justice in Nepalese societies. Since the Nepalese and the Indo-Pak societies share some resemblance, knowing the fact that youths are playing an important role in building up the Nepalese society could be inspirational for the young generation of the madrasa graduates.

Characteristics

• The most important thing that I want to mention here is the selection of the appropriate topics for the The lectures on the given topics were highly helpful in understanding the contemporary ideological structure and its fundamentals in the modern world. In the light of the debates and discussions in the seminars, the madrasa graduates had an opportunity to compare and analyse their own old understanding of the modern world.
• Another significance of this program was marked by the discussions on the different contentious ideologies. It was an ingenious attempt to mix and divide the students coming from three different parts of the world and debating and discussing one/two given question/questions every day in the fourth session of the seminars. It was a unique experience, both for the faculties and the students. Should a state be secular or theocratic? Questions of this sort were very provocative for the madrasa students. It is not easy and safe for them to talk and discuss these kinds of topics in their own societies, but they were not hesitant about talking about them in the environment the Madrasa Discourses project provided them. As an observer, I used to monitor the groups along with the other faculties, and I found them as the open participants in the discussions. This change did not happen at once. The credit goes to the online classrooms of the Madrasa Discourses where they had been trained for months to discuss openly these kinds of topics.
• The madrasa students are usually not familiar with the texts they were assigned for the intensive program, instead they are accustomed to reading the traditional mind-set scholars. These texts appeared to be a new world for them. I assume that dreaming about a plural society necessitates an introduction of plurality of texts in the readings of the young generations. By reading the texts of the liberal and secular writers, they might have encouraged to get familiar with the more scientific writings that are intended to resolve the socio-political issues in the light of the human experiences.
• This program had created a multicultural space, where people from different countries adhering to different faiths and ideologies were sitting together. It was an opportunity to know each other, to make friendships and eliminate the stereotypes.
• Pertaining to the English language, the madrasa students have learned English, they get very less chances to talk to the native people though. In Nepal, they could interact with the American students and the scholars. And they avail the opportunity to enhance their listening and speaking ability.