IRST Institute of Religious & Social Thoughts
An Interview with Waris Mazhari
Yoginder Sikand
Muslims to actively participate in inter-faith dialogue work. How would this impact on the ways in which the ‘ulama have generally viewed people of other faiths?
A: We need to considerably revise our ways of looking at the theological ‘other’, and of notions such as hijrat and jihad, because today the world has been radically transformed. No longer is it possible to conceive of the world as divided into the ‘abode of Islam’ (dar ul-islam) and the ‘abode of war’ (dar ul-harb). Today, all Muslim countries are members of the United Nations and are bound by agreements with other countries that they must honour. Hence, in place of the categories of the ‘abode of Islam’ and the ‘abode of war’, I prefer to speak of the entire world as an ‘abode of agreement’ (dar ul-mu’ahida).
In turn, this points to the pressing need for radically revising how we look at people of other faiths. Some Muslims, including sections of the ‘ulama, regard all non-Muslims as enemies of Islam. As I see it, this is not at all Islamic. The primary duty of a Muslim is tabligh—to convey the truth of Islam to others. Our task is simply to tell others about Islam in our capacity of being ‘witnesses to all humankind’ (shuhada ala an-nas). Others are free to choose whether to accept our message or not, for the Qur’an lays down that there can be no compulsion in religious matters. Now, how can Muslims communicate the message of Islam to others if they consider and treat them all as their enemies? The Qur’an very clearly distinguishes between two groups of non-Muslims—those who actively persecute Muslims on account of their faith, on the one hand, and those who harbour no such ill will against them, on the other. It stresses that Muslims should relate to the latter in a spirit of love and concern. Hence, from the Islamic point of view, it is completely wrong to consider all non-Muslims as necessarily enemies. Rather, we should see them as the ‘ummat ul-da‘awat’ (‘the community of invitation’), fellow human beings who should be invited to Islam, and for this, as the Qur’an says, they should be addressed through kind words and deeds. This is precisely what many Sufis themselves did. One could disagree with some of their beliefs, but we need to learn from their basic approach to people of other faiths. It was their message of love, social emancipation and equality that won the hearts of large numbers of people, and it was through their efforts that Islam spread over much of India. They related to Hindus at a purely human level, building relations of love and friendship, leaving aside religious differences. Their non-Muslim followers saw the love that infused and inspired them, and it was because of this, and not through any sort of polemical debates that many Muslim writers today excel in, that large numbers of Hindus were eventually drawn to Islam. The Sufis actively sought to interact with Hindus on a personal plane. This is in complete contrast to some Muslims today who say that Hindus are ‘unclean’ and that therefore Muslims must carefully shun them.
Q: Would you agree that this spirit of love and concern and appreciation for people of other faiths appears to be distinctly lacking among the ‘ulama, and is hardly evident in what students of madrasas are taught?
A: I would agree with you to some extent. Not all, but certainly many ‘ulama as well as other Muslims, do see others, such as Jews or Hindus as a whole, as enemies of Islam. They look at what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians or what the RSS is doing to the Indian Muslims and then conclude that all Jews or all Hindus are united in some sort of alleged grand global anti-Islamic conspiracy. Now, this sort of wild generalisation is not only incorrect but also reflects a profoundly un-Islamic stance. It completely ignores the fact that many non-Muslims are actually working to help Muslims in large parts of the world, a fact that often foes unacknowledged. Further, this sort of approach poses a major hurdle in the path of Muslim missionary work.
Tabligh being a principal duty of the Muslims, instead of branding all non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, Muslims should seek to dispassionately understand them and seek to build bridges of friendship and dialogue with them. Unfortunately, few contemporary ‘ulama are engaged in this sort of work.
A major reason for this is that the madrasas have little or no contact with the wider society, and the ‘ulama are cocooned in their own narrow circles, lacking any awareness of the demands of the contemporary world. This is a vicious circle—the madrasas train their students in such a way that they are insulated from the world around them, and these students, when they graduate as ‘ulama, come back to the madrasas to teach and thus perpetuate the same system. They have little or no knowledge of other faiths, which is a must for the task of tabligh or even simply for building good relations with others. Hardly any madrasas teach their students about other religions. Hence, their graduates are incapable of interacting with others, and some are even scared of doing so. Even if they try to communicate with others, they generally fail, because they cannot communicate with them in an appropriate mode, being ignorant of their traditions, beliefs, cultures, histories, languages and ways of thinking.
Q: Some larger Indian madrasas do teach about other religions. What do you feel about the way in which this is done?
A: There are very few madrasas in the country that arrange for their students to learn about other religions, and even in their case this is restricted to a few students at the specialisation (takhhasus) level. It is generally only a one-year course, which cannot provide the students with a detailed understanding of other faiths. Further, the method of teaching leaves much to be desired. Rather than studying about other faiths dispassionately, and seeking to understand them as their followers themselves do, the focus is simply on seeking to rebut them. This is similar to the polemical approach that most madrasas adopt in teaching about other, rival Islamic schools of thought.
Q: What reforms would you suggest in this regard?
A: I feel that larger madrasas should set up special research centres to study the religious beliefs, history, and language of other communities. The approach must also change from charged polemics to serious research and genuine dialogue. Overall, however, I feel that dialogue, for the sake both of tabligh as well as promoting communal harmony, must not be limited simply to theological discussions and exchanges between religious specialists. Equally important is the need for practical action for the sake of the poor and the marginalized, irrespective of religion. Islam positively commands Muslims to help the needy, no matter what their faith. Even prior to his being appointed by God as a prophet, Muhammad is said to have been actively involved in assisting the poor of Mecca, all of who were at that time non-Muslims. He played a key role in a committee set up by the Qur’aish, the hulf-i fizul, to help the needy. Likewise, after the Prophet shifted to Medina, he drew up a charter with the Jews and polytheists of the town, according to which all the denizens of the town, irrespective of religion, were to cooperate with each other for common purposes such as defence. Muslims need to heed seriously the Prophetic example in this regard. Helping the needy of other communities, as the Prophet did, must receive the attention that it deserves, this task being almost entirely neglected today. This could today take the form of setting up quality institutions such as schools and hospitals that would serve not just Muslims alone but others as well. In this way, others would be forced to reconsider they ways in which they look at Muslims, seeing them as genuinely concerned about the problems of others, and not simply as problem-makers. However, today Muslims have few such institutions, and unfortunately very few of these actually help people of other faiths.
Q: Some Muslim writers argue that Hindus, not being traditionally considered as ‘people of the book’ (ahl-i kitab), and hence as zimmis (‘protected people’), should be viewed by Muslims as similar to the Arab Qur’aish polytheists (mushrikin) of the Prophet’s time, and hence must be regarded as enemies. What do you feel about this argument?
A: I completely disagree with this. While the Hindus and the pre-Islamic Qur’aish could be said to be both mushrikin, the commandments (ahkam) related to both are quite different. This is because the context is so very different in the two cases. The Qur’aish were violently opposed to Islam and the Muslims. They launched several bloody wars against the Prophet and his companions. The commandments in the Qur’an and the Hadith about the polytheists, such as warning Muslims to shun them or consider them as enemies, must be seen as related to that context. At a time when the life of the Prophet and the future of his mission were under grave and violent threat, naturally such strictures had to be imposed and followed. However, the case of the Hindus today is entirely different. As a community, the Hindus are not violently opposed to Islam, although some individual Hindus undoubtedly are. Further, even those Hindus who are vehemently opposed to Islam do not pose a threat to its very existence, as was the case with the Qur’aish when Muhammad launched his mission, since Islam is now a well-established global religion. Then again, while the early Muslims had to suffer religious persecution, in India today Muslims, like other people, enjoy religious freedom. This suggests that although both the pre-Islamic Qur’aish and the Hindus could be considered to be mushrikin in religious terms, the rules that govern relations between Muslims and them must be different. In contrast to their relations with the pre-Islamic Quraish, Muslims need to relate to the Hindus through dialogue. We need to build relations of friendship, and work with them on issues of common concern, while also carrying on with the task of tabligh.
This said, I must admit that some ‘ulama wrongly treat the pre-Islamic Qur’aish and the present-day Hindus as identical in terms of the rules (ahkamat) that ought to govern the ways in which Muslims relate to them. Thus, for instance, they argue that the Qur’anic commandment to the Muslims to fight the unbelievers until persecution is no more and religion is only for Allah applies in the case of the Hindus, too, while actually, as I understand it, it refers specifically to the early Muslim community suffering the persecution of the Quraish mushrikin, who posed a real and major threat to the very existence of the Prophet and the movement that he had launched. It certainly does not mean, as some Muslim scholars claim, that Muslims must today wield the sword against all non-Muslims in order to establish Islam. Islam cannot be imposed on anyone, and in any case the Qur’an allows for violence only in defence. It is sheer foolishness, in addition to being wholly un-Islamic, to imagine that Islam can be established through violent or offensive means. The only proper method for conveying the Islamic message is through peaceful persuasion or tabligh. In the Indian context, this calls for Muslims to work towards building better relations with Hindus, rather than branding all Hindus as necessarily enemies of Islam.
Q: You seem to argue that armed jihad is allowed for only when Muslims face a threat to their life and religion. How then do you look at self-styled jihad-ist groups, such as the Lashkar-i Tayyeba, who are calling for what they call as a jihad against ‘Hindu’ India?
A: The classical scholars of Islamic jurisprudence (fuqaha) have clearly laid down that only the amir or leader of an established state can issue a declaration of jihad. Private individuals or groups do not have the right to do so, and so the Lashkar’s self-styled jihad has no Islamic legitimacy. Furthermore, Islamic law lays down that Muslims must honour the agreements that they enter into with others, and if they wish to disengage from these agreements they must openly declare so. This rules out proxy war on the part of a Muslim state. Now, Pakistan has diplomatic relations with India, which means that, in theory, both countries have undertaken to respect the sovereignty of each other. This being the case, the support given by the Pakistani establishment to self-styled jihad-ist groups in Kashmir to wage war against India is a violation of Islam because it constitutes a proxy or undeclared war.
Q: Groups such as the Lashkar and the Jama‘at-i Islami insist that Islam remains incomplete in the absence of an Islamic state that imposes the shari‘ah as the law of the land. They argue that the principal duty of all Muslims is to actively struggle for the establishment of such a state. How do you see this?
A: This is a political interpretation of Islam. My own reading of the Qur’an provides me with a different perspective. Muslim tradition has it that God has sent some 1,24,000 prophets to the world, but the Qur’an mentions only three prophets—Moses, David, and Solomon, besides Muhammad—who either established their own political authority or else directly struggled against established rulers. The other prophets are not mentioned as having done this. Jesus is said to have openly declared that what was Caesar’s should be left to him. He is said to have told his followers to desist from confrontation with the Romans, and, instead, to focus their energies on their missionary task. Noah is said to have faced great opposition from his own people while calling them to God’s path, but the Qur’an does not speak of him attempting to capture political power in order to impose God’s will. This suggests that political power must not be actively struggled for. It is simply one among several means to promote God’s will, and is not an end in itself. It is given by God to whom He wills as a reward. Hence, capturing political power must not be our main aim. The Qur’an very clearly suggests this when it refers to the Prophet and says that he cannot force people to believe, and that his task is simply to convey the message of Islam to others. His only aim was to present Islam to the world, and God gave him political authority only later in the course of his life, and that too simply as a reward. He did not actively seek or struggle for political authority himself.
What this means for Muslims is that they should simply concern themselves with the work of tabligh among others as well as leading proper Islamic lives themselves. If God is pleased with them he might grant them political authority, but He just as well might not. This work of tabligh and reform must begin at the individual level, and gradually spread out to the wider society. Then, if a majority of the people in any country choose to live according to Islamic laws, an Islamic state would automatically come into being.
Q: The Afghan Taliban, who claimed to be linked to the Deobandi tradition with which you yourself are associated, followed a very different approach and sought to capture political power and establish what they called an Islamic state by force. Many Deobandi ‘ulama also supported their endeavour. What do you have to say about that?
A: I think this approach was fundamentally wrong. You cannot forcibly impose Islamic laws on an unwilling people. The Taliban forced the Afghans to abide by their version of Islamic law, and many people did so, not out of conviction, but simply out of fear. In this way, Islam was reduced to a cruel joke. Hence, it was but natural that many Afghans resisted the Taliban, and the regime finally collapsed. Had the Taliban sought to first convince the Afghans of the need to be ruled by Islamic law, and, after preparing public opinion and gaining mass support, sought to establish political authority, they would probably have succeeded.
I myself opposed the way that the Taliban was going about trying to forcibly impose its will. I must admit, though, that many ‘ulama did support the Taliban. As I see it, this is a reflection of the lamentable fact that many contemporary ‘ulama see the world from a basically political, rather than purely spiritual or religious, perspective. Now, since Muslims are politically marginalized at the global level, when a movement arises that talks about Muslim political empowerment it reminds many Muslims of the power and the glory of the Muslim medieval ages. It leads them to believe that such a movement is the harbinger of the renaissance of Muslim global authority and of Islamic revival, and so they willingly lend it their uncritical support, turning a blind eye to all its faults. Furthermore, since they also believe that the West is actively conspiring against Islam, they accept any movement that rants and raves against the West as genuinely Islamic. The feeling of revenge that drives them to settle scores against the West for what it has done to the Muslim world also leads them to believe that anyone who speaks out against the West is somehow a great champion of Islam.
I would be the last to deny the oppression that many Muslim peoples and countries have suffered, and continue to suffer, at the hands of the West, but I do not feel this is the way to counter Western hegemony. In fact, it is positively counter-productive. To subvert Western dominance, Muslims must learn the secrets of Western strength, which lie in organisation, science and technology. It is because of this, rather than because of any supposed anti-Islamic conspiracy, that the West has been able to subjugate the Muslim world. It is only by mastering modern sciences that Muslims can effectively resist Western domination. However, Muslims lag far behind others in this regard, and some ‘ulama have only made the situation more precarious with their claims that modern science will lead Muslims away from the path of the faith. This is completely incorrect.
Q: Despite the rhetoric of Muslim unity, Muslims, particularly the ‘ulama, are fiercely divided on sectarian (maslaki) lines. How do you think that this issue of intra-Muslim disputes can be addressed?
A: These differences have become so deeply rooted over time that, frankly, I feel we cannot do away with them entirely even if we want to. But what we can, and should, do is to help promote respect for all the maslaks while following our own maslaks, and even while considering our own particular interpretation of Islam and Islamic law as better or more authentically Islamic than the others. We must realise that there have historically always been differences in the ways in which the Muslims have understood the Qur’an and the Hadith, the corpus of traditions attributed to the Prophet, and these must be accepted. Some things are said clearly and explicitly in the Qur’an, while other statements are allegorical (mutashabihat). Naturally, there are differences in the ways in which the latter have been interpreted. Some of the Prophet’s statements were also allegorical or figurative, as people at that time did not have the capacity to fully understand what he meant. There is thus the possibility for new meanings to be read into some of these statements as the stock of human knowledge expands. In turn, this points to the possibility for differences in understanding and interpretation.
Followers of the different maslaks must peacefully coexist with each other despite their differences and cease from condemning other maslaks. In place of the sharp polemical exchanges between them, that sometimes take the form of hurdling fatwas of infidelity against each other, they must learn to relate to each other through peaceful dialogue. For this it is essential that the ‘ulama of the different maslaks desist from raking controversial (ikhtilafi) and minor (furu‘i) issues, and focus instead on the larger issues facing the entire Muslim community as a whole, such as education, poverty, social inequalities, violence, the challenge of the West or Hindutva and so on, about which the ‘ulama, at least in India, know little, if at all, and about which they do next to nothing about in concrete, practical terms. If they were to focus their energies on these larger issues they would have no time for peripheral sectarian matters. They must also put an immediate halt to sectarian polemical literature. This sort of literature has been around for more than a thousand years, and so much of this sort of writing exists that it is not possible to add anything new to it. Hence, it must be stopped at once.
Q: Are any efforts being made to promote inter-maslak dialogue in India today?
A: As far as I am aware, unfortunately nothing of this sort is happening. There are no efforts being made, particularly among the ‘ulama and in the madrasas, to seek to understand the beliefs of other Muslim maslaks in a dispassionate, non-polemical way. Many ‘ulama simply do not possess a universal understanding of Islam that goes beyond the narrow boundaries of their own maslak. They also have a vested interest in perpetuating and promoting sectarianism as it gives them the authority to speak for their own flock. In turn, this brings them rich rewards, in concrete financial and political terms. They seek to magnify the differences between the maslaks all out of proportion, focussing on minor issues (furu‘i masa’il), particularly those related to external rituals, as if these were really vital questions. They deliberately seek to project these minor differences as really serious, and as leading the other maslaks outside the pale of Islam. They deliberately ignore the fact that what is common to all the maslaks and what unites them—basic beliefs such as faith in God and the prophethood of Muhammad, which makes them all Muslim in a fundamental sense —far outweighs their differences.
Were the ‘ulama, who have invested so heavily in sectarian polemics, to begin to actively work to end sectarian rivalry, their own vested interests would be seriously undermined. Further, if an ‘alim of a particular maslak were to seriously seek to promote dialogue, as opposed to polemical debate, with other maslaks, other ‘ulama of his own maslak would be sure to condemn him or even brand him as an enemy of the faith or an agent of those opposed to Islam. Such is the sectarian narrow-mindedness that characterises many of the ‘ulama today. This is reflected in the madrasa system itself, where students are trained in the art of munazra, of debating with other Muslim maslaks in order to condemn them as aberrant and to seek to prove that one’s own maslak is the only one that can claim to be truly Islamic.
I feel this is a totally wrong way of relating to other maslaks, and rather than helping to win over followers of other maslaks to one’s own maslak, it only works to further reinforce their mutual opposition, leading to extremism on all sides. Take for instance the fierce debates that are now raging between the Deobandis and the Ahl-i Hadith, with ‘ulama of both groups accusing each other of un-Islamic beliefs. I do not think that a single Deobandi has become an Ahl-i Hadith or vice versa because of these debates, which have only succeeded in dividing Muslims even further and creating much avoidable acrimony. Moreover, sectarian disputes like this have consumed enormous resources of the Muslim community, which could have been used for far more constructive purposes instead. As a largely poor community, this we can ill-afford.
Q: As the editor of an Islamic journal, what do you feel about the sort of fierce sectarianism that characterises much of the literature produced by the madrasas?
A: Many Muslim bookshops and publishing houses specialise in sectarian literature that brands other Muslim sects as non-Muslim or even as agents of anti-Islamic forces. This sort of literature that floods the market simply provides an outlet for the burning sense of hatred for other maslaks that inspires the authors of such books. It also has a crucial economic aspect. Such literature brings in large profits to both the publishers as well as authors, there being a vicious nexus between the two. The publishers pay the authors to write sharp diatribes against other Muslim maslaks, catering to a readership that revels in these sorts of meaningless controversies. Most of these writers are teachers at madrasas, who willingly accept the offers of the publishers as the meagre salaries that they get from the madrasas are inadequate to meet their needs. It also fulfils their desire to be known as ‘great’ scholars and ‘defenders’ of their maslaks, which they present as the only true Islamic sect. It promotes their ambitions of being recognised as leaders of the community, which then helps them rake in money and power. Given the sort of education that that they have received they can write only about such meaningless, petty things. Such is the mindset that is created in the madrasas that many of them simply cannot write about anything else. They have been so carefully insulated from the real world outside, from interaction with people of other faiths and other maslaks that they simply cannot deal with relate to them other than in a polemical or defensive mode.
Q: If madrasas are not making any efforts to promote inter-maslak dialogue, what about other Muslim organisations or individuals?
A: Here, too, little such effort is in evidence. Take the case of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, one of the few country-wide organisations with representation of all the various Muslim maslaks. It could have considered this issue but it has failed to. Some individuals are indeed trying to do this sort of work, but this is happening at a very local level and these efforts are so isolated and un-coordinated that they have not had a wider impact. On the whole, I would say, there is a distinct lack of any organised efforts to promote serious, non-polemical, dialogue between the different Muslim maslaks. True, from time to time, one hears calls for Muslims to sink their differences in order to unite against what are said to be threats to Islam. Now, this sort of approach, premised as it is on a shared perception of threat, can lead only to an illusory sense of unity, which is necessarily only very temporary, and is not constructive or sustainable in the long run. I do not ignore the importance of this sort of effort, but I also recognise that, while it might bring in short term benefits, it eventually diverts attention from the need to solve our own internal problems and differences. Once the perceived external threat is overcome maslaki differences are sure to emerge once again. Hence, this way to promote unity cannot have a lasting influence.
I strongly feel the need for Muslims, particularly the ‘ulama, to directly address the issue of intra-Muslim maslaki strife rather than try to ignore this by evoking the notion of an external threat or enemy. The Qur’an tells us that God never changes the condition of any community unless it changes itself. This means that we must make efforts to deal with the sectarian issue head-on, instead of simply wishing it away or ignoring it. Many of our problems are internal, rather than a result of an external plot, as many Muslims would like to believe. As the Qur’an says, the root of strife (fasad) is one’s own doings (‘amal). A community’s downfall comes about basically because of its own bad actions, not so much because of the efforts of others. Hence, if we were to change our own selves, and were to seriously address our own burning internal problems, sectarianism included, many of the external challenges that we are confronted with would by themselves be solved to a large extent.
Q: How has the sectarianism promoted by large sections of the ‘ulama impacted on the general Indian Muslim populace?
A: On the whole, this impact has been very negative. It has resulted in a complete distortion of community priorities. The ‘ulama engaged in fanning sectarian rivalry have made minor differences appear so major that many Muslims now believe that working for Islam is synonymous with crusading for the cause of one’s own maslak against other Muslim groups. Hence, their attention is now absorbed by minor issues on which the various maslaks disagree, effectively sidelining the basic essence of Islam—the worship of the one God and the struggle for social justice. Maslaki rivalry has also narrowed down people’s understandings and interpretations of Islam. Islam pays equal importance to the ‘rights of God’ (huquq allah), issues such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and so on, on the one hand, and the ‘rights of creatures’ (huquq ul-ibad), on the other. Now what the ‘ulama engaged in fanning sectarian hatred have done, deliberately or otherwise, is to focus their energies only on the former, disputing with each other about such issues as the details about the rituals of prayer etc., while completely remaining silent on the latter. So, you will see that those who present themselves as the greatest champions of the cause of their maslak are the least concerned with the plight of the poor and the needy. It is as if Islam is simply a set of complicated rituals, and that it has nothing to do with social affairs as such. By reducing Islam to a body of external rituals, the spirit of Islam is effectively eclipsed, and what is a universal movement for social emancipation is made to appear as the manifesto of a set of mutually bickering sects. This is, in part, an outcome of the sort of education that the ‘ulama receive in the madrasas, where great stress is paid to teaching students about such issues as the length of the beard, the right method of performing their ablutions, and so on, while the Islamic duty of working for the real-world issues of the needy, such as poverty, hunger, war and unemployment, are totally ignored.
Q: Rival maslaks often quote a hadith, according to which the Prophet reportedly said that after his death his community would be divided into 73 sects, of which 72 would go to hell and only one, the ‘saved sect’ (firqa al-najiyya), would be destined for heaven. What do you feel about the way in which this hadith is used to fan sectarian rivalry?
A: This hadith describes the firqa al-najiyya as the sect that abides by the Qur’an and the Prophet’s example (sunna). Each of the many sects claim to be that one chosen group! Now, as I put it, while I can say that I consider my maslak to the firqa al-najiyya, I cannot say that others do not belong to this group as well. As a Sunni I would say that all the various Sunni groups, despite their differences on certain matters (masa‘il), share the same basic beliefs (‘aqa’id) and hence are all Muslims, because the matters on which they differ are not so major as to cause one to go out of the fold of Islam.
Q: This is as far as the different Sunni groups are concerned. What about the Shi’as?
A: The matter is a little more complicated here, as there are certain Shi’a groups with whom we Sunnis differ on matters of basic beliefs. Some Shi’a sects believe that the Qur’an has been distorted or that Imam Ali was God. Naturally, we cannot consider them as Muslims. On the other hand, many other Shi’as, particularly the largest Shi’a group, the Twelve Imami or Ithna Ashari Shi’as, do not hold such views and, in many matters of basic beliefs are much closer to the Sunnis despite their differences in understanding Islamic history and jurisprudence That is why some leading Deobandi ‘ulama, such as Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Mahmud ul-Hasan Gangohi, considered them as fellow Muslims. True, some Deobandis in Pakistan insist that the Ithna Asharis be declared non-Muslims, but not all Deobandis, even in Pakistan, hold that opinion. As a Sunni I don’t accept all the beliefs of the Ithna Ashari Shi’as as valid, but I still consider them to be part of the wider Muslim ummat, and hence feel the need for us to work together on issues of common concern.