Understanding Islam Better

NOTWITHSTANDING Edward Said's powerful critique, Islam has been well served by "Orientalist" researches over the last century. Scores of German, French and British writers translated and edited the Islamic texts, analysed different aspects of Islamic beliefs, and explored various facets of Muslim societies. Some created and helped to perpetuate the colonial "myth" and stereotypes about Islam and its followers; many others, on the other hand, attempted to understand, appreciate and place into perspective the depth, richness and variety of the Islamic civilisations.

You can tell the difference by comparing the volume and quality of such writings with the scholarly literature produced in India. Consider the history of medieval rule from 1206 to 1757 (officially 1857), the large Muslim population in the subcontinent and their presence, so to speak, as a major component in the evolution of India's society, polity and economy. Consider, too, the chequered history of inter-community relations leading to the partition of the subcontinent on August 15, 1947, and the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.

Yet the literature on these and other related historical themes is either inadequate and sketchy or marred by a majoritarian perspective. The upper castes, convinced of their own superiority in the realm of ideas and thought, considered Islam as a rather crude approach to the problems of philosophy and metaphysics. There were, consequently, no serious interpreters of Indian Islam, no counterparts of Al-Beruni, Amir Khusro, Abul Fazl, Abdur Rahim and Dara Shikoh. The Muslim intrusion wastreated as a break in the continuity of Brahmanical traditions; Indian culture was equated with Vedic culture, Indian philosophy with Vedanta, Puranas and the Upanishads, and Indian religions equated with Hinduism.

Islam had no Max Mueller to detail how its dogmas and tenets were gradually incorporated into regional and local belief structures and rituals; how Muslims, most converted to Islam at different points of time and for different reasons, were integrated with the rest of the population. In the few works that exist, Islam is mistakenly viewed as part of the Great Tradition—codified, rigid and unchanging, insular and closed to external influences. Its followers, whether converted or not, are cast in a specifically Muslim/Islamic mould. Their identity is understood, defined and described, regardless of economic status, caste, language and region, in strictly textual terms.

The essential notions of Islam have been repudiated by quite a few scholars in the West. Annemarie Schimmel, professor at Harvard University for over 25 years, is one of them. I listened to and benefited from her lectures, especially at the Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi. I have gained insight from reading Gabriel's Wing: A Study into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, and A Dance of Sparks: Ghalib's Imaginary. The pioneering study on Iqbal, published in 1973, is by far the most authoritative work in English. Her writings on SufiIslam are meticulously researched. They have raised the standard of debate on a theme that suffers from serious neglect in our educational institutions.

Most of Schimmel's monographs reflect her depth and range ofscholarship and her engagement with a cultural and intellectual history that so few of us in the subcontinent have either understood or come to terms with. She has uncovered the variety and diversity of the Muslim/Islamic traditions and shed light on its interaction with other cultural values and streams of thought.

For the 73-year-old scholar of such standing, it must be disconcerting to be drawn into a recent controversy. Over 200 German scholars, including the celebrated Gunter Grass, have not taken kindly to the award of Germany's highest peace prize to Schimmel (The Times of India , November 5). Why? Because she is a "welcome guest in totalitarian Islamic states who ignored human rights violation". Second, that she was not as harsh as other German intellectuals in her criticism of Iran's fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

On close reflection, the critique of her approach, methodology and interpretation is legitimate. But why grudge the award? As a historian of ideas, she has earned it through her consistent and long-standing scholarly contributions. Her linkages with Iran or the other "unpopular regimes" are not widely known in this country, but one must recognise the hazards and constraints of researching in "hostile" countries. It is easy, for example, to organise "goodwill" missions to, say, Pakistan or India. But it is a nightmare for a solitary researcher, with no institutional or media backing, to obtain a visa for research. So, you either abandon your area of specialisation or wait endlessly for the denial of an entry permit.

The Rushdie affair has to be treated on a different footing. We do not yet know what Schimmel said or wrote. As a keen observer of Muslim societies, both past and present, she would have appreciated the sense of anger and outrage. If she distanced herself from the controversy over the Satanic Verses and its author, it was probably because she was convinced that Rushdie tried to malign, denigrate and caricature Islam, its Prophet and other holy men. In a way, she echoed the hurt feelings of those Muslim communities who have been the subject of her researches.

The standards set by Gunter Grass & Co would embarrass many sections of our liberal and left intelligentsia. Our governments ban books periodically. Yet, this does not cause a flutter in the media or in academic circles. A professor in Jamia Millia Islamia has been vilified and denied entry into the campus for three years. Who cares? Consider, too, how the Rajya Sabha and the West Bengal Assembly condemned a high-profile journalist-author for his comments on Tagore. Yet the champions of free speech and intellectual freedom swallowed the bitter pill. There was much hue and cry over the banning of Satanic Verses . But there is total silence over the banning of Rushdie's most recent novel. Why?

In a nutshell, the issue is not Rushdie or Tagore or the merit of their creative writings, but to uphold, defend and preserve the democratic and secular values at the risk of being "indiscreet". So many individuals and groups learnt this simple lesson the hard way during India's liberation struggle

Schimmel is in the news for wrong reasons. But the storm would blow over. Her work will survive and inspire scholars of "Indo-Muslim" society, religion and culture. She has many friends and admirers in this country who wish her well. She could well be reciting a verse of Ghalib, one of her favourite poets:

Ham kahan ke dana the kis hunar me ekta the
Besabad hua Ghalib dushman Aasmaan apna.