Cast-like Structure among Kerala Muslims

 INTRODUCTION 

Islam emphasizes more equivalency and fraternity among believers. Islam rejects inequality grounded on birth, lineage and social status etc. But Muslim communities in India including Kerala practically involve stratified social systems that image the caste hierarchy of the larger Hindu society. Islam started to spread in South Indian by Muslim traders. Arab Muslims came into North Indian in 711 A.D. (92 A.H.). After two and half centuries of the entrance of Arab Muslim in North India, non-Arab Muslims came here. When Islam came in India, because of these teachings of equality and brotherhood, many Hindus especially Dalits and other ‘low’ castes, embraced Islam being victims of the Hindu caste system. The Kerala’s engagement with Arab traders and its maritime economy together shaped the social association of Muslims. The Mappila Muslims of Kerala, evolved as a community that reflects both Islamic and indigenous social patterns. While Islam entered Kerala through trade and peaceful conversion, the resulting Muslim society was not vulnerable to the socio-cultural hierarchies of the region. Over time, a hierarchical system developed within the community as dividing Muslims into groups based on descent, occupation and social status etc. 

ORIGIN OF MUSLIM CASTEISM 

The Arab world free from caste-based superiority and inferiority but it was divided into a society of upper and lower class in pre- Islamic era. When Islam started spreading in the land, it by rule prohibited any kind of discrimination on the base of tribe, clan, caste or class and declared it as haram (prohibited). Islam proclaimed equality among every human being. It emphasized on the deeds of a person to decide one’s nobility, no one was high or low except on the basis of good deeds and bad deeds. Some scholars say that in the period of Usman (R) a Jew Abdullah bin Saba embraced Islam and he started tribe-based discrimination among Muslims. He expostulated on Hazrat Usman’s capability to get caliphate on the basis of tribal affiliation and argued that since Āli (R) was son-in-law of prophet (PBUH) and belonged to his family, he was more suitable of the post. His thoughts spread among whole of the Persian area like a wild fire and infected the already jealous people of the area who had problems with Arab. As a consequence of this, Usman (R) was murdered. But more acceptable history is that the time of the expansion of Islam, as we have already mentioned, there were two strong empires in the Near and Middle East - Byzantine and Persia. The cultural achievement of the peoples, the Byzantine and the Persian, were also far more advanced than those of the tribal Arabian. Both these empires had the tradition of strong monarchies; after the contact with these people the tribal form of democracy could not long endure within the complex of Islam. Soon after the death of the four Caliph the democracy of Islam was overthrown by the monarchy. The Caliph Muawiya (661-680 A.D) altered the democratic Caliphate into a monarchy, though the title of ‘Caliph’ was retained. From that time the caliphate became a hereditary office rather than elective one; Caliph monarchs aquitard autocratic functions and enveloped an analogous form of rule. Within the fall of the Republican Caliphate social equality was automatically reduced to the status of a mere concept or ideal: the practice of social inequality returned to its previous condition. Islamic society in Persia remained divided. In this region Islam was accepted as a religion, yet the ideas of Islam, as far as social reforms were concerned, could not be substantially enforced and put into practice. The pre-Islamic social hierarchy, for example, continued even though an overwhelming majority of the Persian had embraced Islam. In Persia, though Islam came as the religion of conquerors (Arabs), it was molded in due course of time to the standards of the conquered (Persians). The Islam of Arabia was overcome by Persian influence; “the Caliphate became more a reanimation of Iranian authoritarianism and lower an Arabian Sheikhdom. In fact, Iran was functioned by caste system before Islam. Iranian Arya and Indian Arya were living as one community. Iranian society was divided in four groups in these ages. These groups were religious group, army group, public and slaves. This was similar to Indian caste system. In the period of Sasanians (from 3rd century to 7th century) the society was dived in four groups. Iran also launched “Sho’uobiyah” movement against Arab Muslims. The followers of this movement preferred pre-Islamic Iranian history, traditions on Islamic teachings. According to that, contact of Muslims with Persian society, caste-based discrimination started among Muslims. During Abbasid period, Abbasid dynasty finds its root of establishment in caste system itself. The main campaigner of this dynasty was Abu Muslim Khurasani, who formally had a grudge against the teaching of Islam. The caste system was on its highest of peaks, during this period. Even Abbasids and Fatmites (people of Ahle bait) commented on each other caste on a regular basis, trying to prove one another of a lower status. The facile practice of regarding all hierarchies in the Islamic world as a substratum from pre-Islamic societies does not always work. Hierarchies exist even in places like Yemen and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. 

ORIGIN OF CASTEISM IN INDIAN MUSLIMS 

The Indian Muslim history states that Arab Muslim traders landed in South India i.e. Kerala, Malabar etc. The army of Raja Dahir (king of Sindh) captured seven Islamic ships which were coming from Sarandeep to Iraq and there were Muslim male and female in it. Because of this Mohammad Bin Qassim attacked north India in 711 A.D. (92 A.H.) and captured Sind and its joining places. The casteism among Indian Muslims was actually started by Sulthan Shamsuddin Iltutmish [10 April 1236AD]. Sultan Shamshuddin Iltutmish, didn’t allow ‘low caste’ Muslims to get the high posts i.e. Khachgi, Musharrafi, or Mudabberi in his period. He enquired the castes of his officials and dismissed 33 ‘low caste’ people from their posts. It is already mentioned above that in the Abbasid period, the compilation of fiqh (jurisprudence) was started, and there are many castes-based fatwas in it. When the non-arab Muslim rulers conquered India, the Muslim scholars and Sufis followed their path and entered along with them. They brought a totally new subculture, lifestyle and literature. Among many books, Fiqh books (jurisprudence books) also came with these scholars. The Ḥanafī Fiqh was the official book for religious matter. The Indian land was already diseased by caste-based society, making it the best suitable place for the caste-based fatwas. As a result, Muslims inherited casteism in their society as well, like Hindus. In the centuries of Muslim rule in India, the ‘ashraf’ and ‘high’ caste Hindu converts played a key role in the nation management, as advisors, ministers, governors, army officials, and estates managers, as well as sufis and ulama. On the other hand, despite their conversion to Islam, the social and financial conditions of the mass of the ‘ajlaf’ and ‘arzal’ Muslims modified and they remained tied all the way down to their traditional occupations as, peasants, Laboure’s etc.

MUSLIMS CASTE-LIKE STRUCTURE IN KERALA

Roland E. Miller (1976) and Imtiaz Ahmad (1973)who provide both empirical and theoretical perspectives on the persistence of social hierarchies within Indian Islam. But they mainly focusing on northern region Muslim casteism in India. dismissed as a mere remnant of Hindu influence but must be studied as a structural adaptation of Islam to the South Asian social context. Ahmad introduces the Ashraf–Ajlaf–Arzal typology. Where, Ashraf denotes Muslims of foreign descent or higher status, Ajlaf includes local converts of intermediate status, and Arzal represents those considered socially inferior or occupationally impure. Applying Ahmad’s framework to Kerala, the Thangals correspond to the Ashraf, the Arabi’s to the Ajlaf, and the Pusalars or converts to the Arzal. According to Miller, Islam in Kerala evolved not in isolation but in continuous interaction with the Hindu social environment. which was characterized by rigid caste divisions. Consequently, while Islamic principles theoretically rejected caste, the Mappila social order absorbed hierarchical features from the surrounding Hindu society. M.N Srinivashighlights that processes similar to Sanskritization operated among Muslims, where groups claiming noble or religious ancestry assumed higher social positions, while others, especially occupational groups, remained subordinate. These distinctions affected marriage patterns, communal interactions, and access to resources, and status consciousness akin to Hindu caste practices. 

CONCLUSION

 Islam promotes equality and oppose distinctions based on lineage or birth. But historical and cultural factors have led to the emergence of caste-like divisions among Muslims in India. The primary factors consist of the interaction between Islam and Persian and Indian social frameworks, the effect of pre-Islamic customs such aspersion culture and the influence of Hindu caste systems on converts. The hierarchical administration during the Abbasid era and the governance of rulers such as Iltutmish reinforced this structure. In Kerala, the Mappila Muslim community integrated Islamic and regional traditions formed internal structures like Thangals, Malabaris, Pusalars, among others. Consequently, the caste-like hierarchy within Muslims developed primarily from the fusion of Islamic principles with established social structures