Fatwas and the Fabric of Law: Shariah in Practice in India

Arun Shourie’s monumental work The World of Fatwas or The Shariah in Action represents one of the most comprehensive scholarly examinations of Islamic jurisprudence in practice within the Indian subcontinent. This book, drawing from over 18,000 pages of primary source material across forty volumes of fatwa collections, provides an unprecedented window into the mechanism by which Islamic religious law operates at the grassroots level.

Shourie’s work is particularly significant for its methodical analysis of five major fatwa collections spanning different Islamic schools of thought – the Barelvi Fatawa-i-Rizvia, the Deobandi Fatawa-i-Ulema Dar al-Ulum, and others. This comprehensive approach allows readers to understand not merely isolated religious pronouncements, but the systematic worldview that underpins Islamic jurisprudence as practiced in India.

The Exclusionary Nature of Fatwa Literature

Theological Foundations of Separation

The fatwa literature reveals a consistent pattern of religious exclusivity that Shourie demonstrates through meticulous documentation. The fundamental principle underlying many fatwas is the concept of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ (loyalty and disavowal), which creates an unbridgeable theological divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. This manifests in various practical prohibitions that effectively create parallel societies.

Women and Social Hierarchies: The fatwas consistently portray women as sources of fitna (trial or temptation), with one collection declaring them “the greatest affliction”. This extends to complex regulations governing their participation in social, economic, and religious life, effectively creating a system where women’s agency is severely curtailed under religious sanction.

The Cow Slaughter Question: Particularly relevant to the Indian context is the elevation of cow slaughter to the status of a “great Islamic act,” despite the Quran’s silence on this matter. This demonstrates how local political and religious considerations can be elevated to scriptural importance through the fatwa mechanism, creating artificial points of conflict with Hindu communities.

Fatwas During the Freedom Struggle: The Gandhi Controversy

Ahmad Riza Khan’s Opposition to Hindu-Muslim Unity

The most historically significant aspect of Shourie’s work concerns the fatwas issued during India’s independence movement, particularly those targeting Mahatma Gandhi and the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity. Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi (1856-1921), whose Fatawa-i-Rizvia forms a central pillar of Shourie’s analysis, emerged as one of the most vociferous opponents of cooperation with Hindu leaders.

The Theological Justification: Ahmad Riza Khan’s opposition to Gandhi was rooted in the Islamic concept of kafir (infidel) and the prohibition against Muslims accepting leadership from non-Muslims. In his fatwa al muhajjat al mutamana (1920), he declared that cooperation with Hindus, whom he described as katilin, zalimin, kafirin (killers, oppressors, and infidels), was haram (forbidden) and that making such cooperation a religious duty was tantamount to making the forbidden into an farz qati (absolute religious obligation).

Practical Consequences: This theological stance had immediate political ramifications. When Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, leaders of the Khilafat Movement, approached Ahmad Riza Khan to endorse the non-cooperation movement, he explicitly rejected their request, stating: “There is a difference between your politics and mine. You are in favor of Hindu-Muslim unity and I am against it”. This theological opposition fractured Muslim unity during a crucial phase of the independence struggle.

The Mechanics of Religious Authority

Shourie’s analysis reveals how religious authority operates through the fatwa system to maintain ideological control. Ahmad Riza Khan’s influence was so extensive that “no other scholar of the sub-continent could have had such an influence on his followers”. His fatwas didn’t merely address theological questions but actively shaped political behavior, demonstrating the intersection of religious and temporal power.

The scholar’s approach to the Khilafat Movement exemplifies this dynamic. While supporting the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, he categorically refused to endorse Gandhi’s leadership, arguing that accepting a kafir’s guidance violated fundamental Islamic principles. This position effectively meant that for orthodox Muslims following his interpretation, participation in the broader independence movement under Gandhi’s leadership was religiously prohibited.

Religious Micromanagement of Daily Life: Shourie’s analysis reveals how fatwa literature extends religious authority into the most intimate aspects of personal hygiene and bodily functions. The collections document detailed prescriptions covering everything from personal grooming practices to bathroom etiquette, demonstrating how religious jurisprudence seeks to regulate even the most private human activities. This level of control reflects a theological worldview that sees no distinction between sacred and secular domains, with religious authorities claiming jurisdiction over matters that modern societies typically consider personal choice.

Regulations on Sexual Conduct: The fatwa literature that Shourie examines contains disturbing provisions regarding permissible sexual practices that extend beyond conventional human relationships. These rulings, derived from medieval jurisprudential texts, reflect interpretations that modern ethical frameworks would find deeply problematic. Shourie’s documentation of these materials serves to illustrate the concerning aspects of literal adherence to certain jurisprudential traditions, though such practices would clearly violate contemporary legal and ethical standards in democratic societies.

Historical Documentation and Academic Rigor

Primary Source Analysis

Shourie’s methodology represents exemplary historical scholarship. Rather than relying on secondary interpretations or sanitized summaries, he draws directly from the authoritative fatwa collections that serve as the “Islamic version of Supreme Court Reports” within Muslim communities. This approach ensures that his analysis reflects the actual content of Islamic jurisprudence rather than apologetic reformulations.

The Deoband Collection: The Fatawa-i-Ulema Dar al-Ulum from Deoband, often called “the Al-Azhar of India,” provides particularly valuable insights. Established in 1866 as an explicitly anti-Western, anti-modern institution, Deoband’s fatwas reveal the systematic opposition to accommodation with non-Islamic societies and values.

Contemporary Relevance: The fatwas examined by Shourie aren’t historical curiosities but living documents that continue to influence contemporary Muslim society. The twelve-volume Deoband collection, published between 1962-1985, demonstrates the continuity of medieval jurisprudential thinking into the modern era.

Scholarly Validation

The academic rigor of Shourie’s work has been acknowledged even by Islamic scholars. Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, one of the most influential Islamic authorities in modern India and chairman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has commended similar fatwa collections for their scholarly value. This validation from within the Islamic scholarly community lends credibility to Shourie’s analytical framework.

The Question of Reform and Modernity

Intellectual Stagnation

One of Shourie’s most significant contributions is documenting what he terms the “closed, self-perpetuating circle” of Islamic jurisprudence. The fatwa system, by constantly referring back to medieval precedents and refusing to engage with modern realities, creates an intellectual framework that is inherently resistant to reform or reinterpretation.

The Continuity Problem: Shourie demonstrates this through specific examples, such as the persistence of “conditional divorce” practices from the 12th-century Fatawa-i-Qazi Khan through contemporary Indian court rulings. This represents not theological consistency but intellectual paralysis – an inability to distinguish between eternal principles and time-bound applications.

The Challenge to Secular Democracy

The implications of this system extend beyond religious communities to challenge the foundations of secular democratic governance. When religious authorities issue fatwas that effectively nullify individual rights or create parallel legal systems, they undermine the constitutional framework that governs modern nation-states.

Contemporary Manifestations: Recent examples include fatwas excommunicating Muslims who participate in secular political activities or adopt practices deemed un-Islamic, such as the 2017 fatwa against a Bihar legislator for chanting “Jai Shri Ram”. These incidents demonstrate that the exclusionary mindset documented by Shourie continues to operate in contemporary India.

Intellectual Courage and Scholarly Responsibility

Breaking Academic Taboos

Shourie’s work exemplifies intellectual courage in addressing topics that most academics avoid due to political sensitivities. His observation that Indian intellectuals engage primarily in “writing footnotes to work being done in the West” rather than examining indigenous religious and social systems represents a crucial critique of contemporary scholarship.

The Derivative Scholarship Problem: The lack of serious academic engagement with fatwa literature, despite its obvious importance in understanding Muslim society, reflects what Shourie identifies as the derivative nature of Indian intellectual work. This scholarly negligence has practical consequences, as policy makers and social commentators lack accurate information about the actual content of Islamic jurisprudence as practiced in India.

Historical Responsibility

By documenting the actual content of fatwa collections rather than idealized versions of Islamic law, Shourie performs a crucial historical service. His work provides future scholars and policy makers with accurate data about the theological and jurisprudential foundations that continue to influence significant segments of Indian society.

Implications for Understanding: The detailed documentation of anti-Gandhi fatwas and the theological justifications for opposing Hindu-Muslim cooperation provides essential context for understanding the complexities of Indian independence movement and subsequent communal relations.

Conclusion

Arun Shourie’s The World of Fatwas transcends the boundaries of historical scholarship to provide essential insights into contemporary challenges facing pluralistic societies. By documenting the systematic exclusionary principles embedded in traditional Islamic jurisprudence, particularly as manifested during the freedom struggle, Shourie illuminates the theological roots of communal separation that continue to influence Indian society.

The work’s particular strength lies in its unflinching examination of how religious authority operates to maintain ideological boundaries, even when such boundaries conflict with broader national or humanitarian objectives. The documentation of fatwas opposing Gandhi’s leadership reveals not mere political disagreement but fundamental theological incompatibility with the concept of multi-religious cooperation under non-Muslim leadership.

For contemporary readers, Shourie’s analysis provides crucial historical context for understanding persistent challenges to secular governance and inter-community relations in India. Rather than dismissing these challenges as artifacts of “extremism” or “fundamentalism,” his work demonstrates their deep theological roots and systematic character. This understanding is essential for any serious engagement with the complexities of religious diversity in modern democratic societies.

The scholarly rigor evident in Shourie’s methodology – drawing from primary sources, acknowledging diverse viewpoints within Islamic jurisprudence, and maintaining analytical objectivity while addressing sensitive topics – serves as a model for academic inquiry into contentious religious and social issues. His work demonstrates that authentic historical understanding requires examining actual beliefs and practices rather than idealized representations, however uncomfortable such examination might prove for contemporary sensibilities.