in India. But there were at least four different schools of Sunnı ̄ interpretation
of which the two most liberal are to be found in India: the H.anafı ̄s and the
Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s.
The H.anafı ̄s were traditionally the most “rationalistic” of the interpretive
schools. Influenced by Aristotelian philosophy, they argued that revelation
was to be tested and verified by reason. Somewhat pragmatic, their ‘ulama ̄‘s
tended to be less strict in interpreting the h.adı ̄th. The H.anafı ̄s were the
school of choice in the heyday of the ‘Abba ̄sid caliphate in Baghdad in the
mid-ninth century. It was the Sunnı ̄ school most commonly associated with
the Mughal court. Further, many South Indian Muslims today identify
themselves as H.anafı ̄ Sunnı ̄s without knowing the nuances of what that
entails. In fact, each ‘ulama ̄‘ offered its own particular consensus (ijma ̄‘)in
interpreting the tradition, building on rulings from the past. Each region in
India could have several ‘ulama ̄‘sand hence several possible interpretations
of the tradition. It should be noted that, at least by the seventeenth century,
lay Indian Sunnı ̄ Muslims were less likely to look to Mecca or Persia or the
Middle East for their interpretations of Islamic practice – they looked rather
to their regional ‘ulama ̄‘s, that is, to councils in Tamil or Benga ̄lı ̄ areas, for
example.
The other major Sunnı ̄ school on the subcontinent was the Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s. The
Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s were more conservative than the H.anafı ̄s. Originating in Egypt, the
Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s tended to mediate between the H.anafı ̄s and the more conserva-
tive Sunnı ̄ schools known as the Ma ̄likas and the H.anbalis. The Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s
emphasized the h.adı ̄th(the works and actions of the Prophet) as the basis
for Islamic practice, yet argued that critical reasoning was appropriate
in specific circumstances when “reasonable” rulings were needed. Relatively
pacific in their understandings of the sharı ̄‘a, they tended to be more
scholastic or neo-classical in their interpretations. More specifically, the
Sha ̄fi‘ı ̄s had contributed several principles to Islamic jurisprudence, most
importantlyfiqh(“intelligence”), which indicates the importance of linking
reason to the intimations of the Qur‘a ̄n and h.adı ̄th, and ijma ̄‘(“consensus”),
which indicates the importance of making decisions through the consensus
of the ‘ulama ̄‘ – the specialists in legal interpretation.^13
Shı ̄‘ı ̄s
Shı ̄ism is a second major form of Islam on the subcontinent. Shı ̄ites, of
course, were those who considered the ima ̄mthe appropriate interpreter of
the Qur‘a ̄n and h.adı ̄thin both religious and political matters. Two schools
of Shı ̄ites, in particular, influenced the subcontinent. The Ithna ̄ ‘Asharı ̄s,
also known as the “twelvers,” started in Persia but were found in Mughal
India and in such centers as Lucknow. The Ithna ̄ ‘Asharı ̄s believed that in
132 The Coming of Islam