American Madrasahs

A couple of weeks ago I posted a short plea on the plight of the Fulbright program, with a further promise to follow up with a more extended series of thoughts about what is often called ‘external funding’ of scholarship in law schools.  As an entry into that discussion, and also because I thought it was neat to recently come across the following material, I wanted to share with readers the dilemmas that the founders of the Darul Uloom in Deoband faced in the middle of the 19^th century when contemplating how to fund their untraditional Islamic seminary.

Deoband, as many readers know, is a town in northern India which in the mid-19^th century witnessed the founding and rapid growth of one of the most influential strands of (Sunni) Islamic thought and practice seen in recent times.  In any event, as I was rereading Islamic Revival in British India:  Deoband, 1860-1900, the path-breaking work by Barbara Metcalf (the well-known scholar of South Asian Islam) on the creation of the Darul Uloom in Deoband, I came across the following passages concerning the funding of this innovative and famous Islamic seminary—some of which bears on contemporary discussions of law school funding.  Here’s just a taste of what can be found in Metcalf’s work:

1)  “A second cluster of principles [concerning the new seminary] dealt with the new system of financing.  The system arose in part because the founders [of Deoband] had no option but to find an alternative to the increasingly insecure princely grants.  Muslim princes of [relatively autonomous] states such as Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Rampur did, to be sure, patronize learning and extend their bounty across the border to their fellows in British India.  Large landlords in the United Provinces [now Uttar Pradesh] did dispense some of their wealth for religious causes.  But such contributions could never be as substantial as those of the days of Mughal rule, nor could they be as certain in a period of economic, social, and administrative flux.  Nor were the ‘ulama willing to accept British grants-in-aid, for such help was precarious and carried the taint of its non-Muslim source.  Instead [the founders of Deoband] created a network of donors who formed a base not only for financial support but for dissemination of their teachings.” (pp. 96-97)

 

2)  Metcalf quotes one of the main founders of the Islamic seminary at Deoband stating the following about how this seminary (or madrasah) should be financed:  “As long as the madrasah has no fixed sources of income, it will, God willing, operate as desired.  And if it gain any fixed income . . . then the madrasah will lose the fear and hope that inspire submission to God and will lose His hidden help.  Disputes will begin among the workers.  In matters of income and buildings . . . let there be a sort of deprivation.” (pp. 97-98)

3)  “In fact, many wealthy people were among the donors, and many no doubt did expect and receive recognition in return.  Still the system of popular support was effective, both financially and symbolically, and became a model for new religious schools.  Other schools, like Farangi Mahall, which clung to support from landed wealth, have in part for this reason disappeared.” (p. 98)

More on all this soon.