How Islamic Reform Movements Gave Rise to Militancy and Sectarianism: The Indian Experience with Deobandi, Barailvi, Ahl-e-Hadith and Aligarh Movements

Islamic reform movements have typically been with the hope of improving religion, improving morals, and restoring religious values. However, over time—and especially in India—most of them have generated unforeseen problems: group violence, political fighting, and cultural segregation. While some sought to modernize Islamic thinking and facilitate peaceful coexistence, others became inflexible and intolerant and produced schisms within the Muslim community and social unrest.

This article discusses how reform movements across Indian Islam, from the British colonial era to the current era, have created positive change and tensions. It explains why some reformers turned to violence or to strict religious views, discusses moderate reform movements, and analyses the diverse beliefs in Indian Islam. It is not intended to condemn all reform but to admire the tensions between religion, identity, power, and change across India's Muslim communities.

Colonial Anxiety and the Reasons for Change

The origins of Islamic reform in India go back to the colossal social, political, and cultural upheavals of the 18th and 19th centuries. Indian Muslims were in disarray as British supremacy increased and the Mughal Empire declined. The majority of them interpreted the decline of Muslim authority as an act of God's vengeance for not following the true Islam. It created a demand for reform.

Decline of Islamic political authority, expansion of Western knowledge, and increasing influence of Christian missionaries all brought concern to Muslim scholars and intellectuals. Their responses were different. Some encouraged modern reforms to adapt to new times. Others desired to return to an idealized form of Islamic past.

During these decades, a number of Islamic reform movements emerged. Some of them, like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's Aligarh Movement, were aimed at coexistence and learning. Others, like the Deobandi or Ahl-e-Hadith movements, were aimed at religious purity and revival. It is in this latter category that seeds of sectarianism and subsequent militancy were sown.

Deoband: Purification, Not Pluralism

Established in 1866 in Uttar Pradesh, the Darul Uloom Deoband became South Asia's most powerful Islamic school. The Deoband movement was a reaction to British authority and the perception that Muslim education was being altered by Hindu customs and Sufi traditions.

Deoband did not accept shrine worship, saint veneration, or local traditions, condemning them as Bid’ah (innovations) and un-Islamic. Its thinkers supported a puritan school of Islam based on the Hanafi school and emphasized the Ulama (religious scholars) as being highly important. Although the movement was anti-colonial and largely peaceful in its early years, it gave rise to a mentality that was wary of diversity and hostile to syncretism.

In time, the Deobandi movement served to further divide Muslim communities in India by criticizing and condemning others, most prominently the Barelwis (followers of an even Sufi-based Islam) and Shias. They were issued fatwas against, and mosques were divided along religious lines. The Deobandi-Barelwi schism continues to be a potent cause of tension among Indian Muslims today.

Ahl-e-Hadith: Literalism and the Saudi Connection

The other major movement was the Ahl-e-Hadith, which started towards the end of the 19th century. They opposed all the traditional Islamic schools of law, including the Hanafi school, and wanted to return directly to the Quran and Hadith. They had been influenced by Wahhabism from Arabia and strongly condemned Sufism and practices like celebrating the birthday of the Prophet or going to shrines.

Ahl-e-Hadith scholars were numerically few but highly vocal. They propagated their thoughts in pamphlets, sermons, and debates, challenging the religious authority of others. They harshly criticized the Sufi saints, imams, and even the companions of the Prophet, repelling other Muslim communities. Though they were not violent, their words were virulent, helping pave the path to intolerance in the future.

At the end of the 20th century, the Indian Ahl-e-Hadith movement had drawn closer to Saudi Salafi groups ideologically and financially. This alignment introduced a more political and more ascetic kind of Islam to Indian society.

Jamaat-e-Islami: Political Islam in Indian Attire

Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in 1941 by Abul Ala Maududi. It was to introduce a new kind of reform. Islam, in Maududi's view, was not a religion; it was a political concept that needed to govern all aspects of life—law, culture, education, and the economy.

Jamaat's activism in India was more intellectual than militant. It had magazines, study circles, and student groups such as the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But gradually, particularly after the post-1992 Babri Masjid demolition and the 2002 Gujarat riots, some of these sections within the networks were radicalized.

SIMI started out as Jamaat's student wing. It was banned in 2001 for being linked with militant activities. Though Jamaat announced that it was not involved in violent activities, its own ideology—where Islam is the ideal way of life and all other religions are said to be in the wrong—has caused alienation and suspicion from communities.

Barelwis: Sufi supporters, but also intolerant

The Barelwi movement, founded by Ahmed Raza Khan in the late 19th century, arose as a response to the Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith campaigns against Sufi practices. Barelwis defended shrine culture, spiritual intermediaries, and veneration of the Prophet. They upheld a deeply emotional and cultural Islam connected with Indian soil.

Although Barelwis as a whole are regarded as moderate, they have also been the cause of group splits. Barelwi scholars have issued fatwas against Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, and even Shias. They have been in favour of blasphemy laws and mob violence at times. Although they rarely indulge in violence in India, their intolerance in belief promotes division among Muslims.

Shia-Sunni Conflicts and Foreign Ideas

Another significant consequence of reformism has been the heightening of Shia-Sunni tensions. Shias and Sunnis coexisted peacefully in pre-partition India. But as soon as sectarian reformism, particularly by Saudi Arabia, gained ground, certain Sunni elements began to treat Shias as heretics.

In urban areas such as Lucknow, where most Shia citizens reside, riots have been staged on Muharram parades. Shia customs are opposed by Sunni communities, who claim they are not Islamic. Deobandis and Salafis have been accused by Shia clerics of disliking the Prophet's family. In recent years, these religious tensions have become more politicized.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Saudi-Iranian competition solidified sectarian identities. Religious clerics in Indian Muslims began to get scholarships and grants from both sides. International sectarianism impacted Indian madrassas, Friday sermons, and even WhatsApp groups, creating clear ideological communities.

How Reform Went Radical

The main aim of Islamic reform was the elimination of corruption from religion, returning to the correct teachings, and reinforcing the Muslim morals. In the long run, though, these aims developed into firm convictions with no room for other views or disagreement.

There were a number of reasons why this was such a drastic shift. First, fear of losing their culture made reformers very defensive. Second, the use of religion to build political identity made individuals think in "us versus them" terms. Third, foreign money and influence—like Saudi Arabia or Iran—imposed foreign hatreds upon local society.

When Islamic reform is overemphasized in terms of power and purity, it ultimately results in violence and exclusion. The line between defending religion and attacking others becomes extremely blurred.

From Preachers to Fighters: When Ideas Turn Violent

The majority of the reform movements in India started as religious movements, but some spawned violent groups. The emergence of terrorist groups like the Indian Mujahideen in the 2000s and Indian youth connections with global jihadist movements like ISIS cannot be accounted for except through an understanding of the dogmatic principles that were put in place by dogmatic reformism.

Extremist movements recruit with religious rhetoric, photographs of Muslim suffering across the globe, and appeals to "purify" Islam. Young men, bitter over poverty, discrimination, or violence between groups, are easy targets. Most Muslims who resist such groups, their ideology does not develop in a vacuum—it takes root in soil cultivated by selective religious interpretations.

Moderate Reform Movements: A New Path

Not all Islamic changes have resulted in violence or communal conflicts. Some have been meant to improve the religion and have people live in harmony.

A good example of this is the Aligarh Movement, founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in the 19th century. Sir Syed, as opposed to Deoband, advocated for modern education, reason, and cooperation with the British. He founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (now Aligarh Muslim University) with the purpose of bringing up a new generation of educated Muslims. Sir Syed's ideas influenced the Indian Muslim middle class in spite of conservative opposition.

Another such example is the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a Deobandi-influenced organization against the establishment of Pakistan and for secular India. Although formed in orthodox Islam, the Jamiat was against political separatism.

Now, such thinkers as Wahiduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer advocated peaceful reform in Islam. Wahiduddin emphasized spiritual growth and dialogue, while Engineer was engaged in women's empowerment and democratic thought. Their voices were usually drowned out by louder religious leaders, but their work is still worth it.

Such groups as Tablighi Jamaat have maintained an aloofness from politics and violence, too, and concentrated on individual piety and religious evangelization. While criticized for an egoistic approach, they have shunned sectarian violence.

The Government and News Media Role

The Indian government has tended to handle Islamic reform badly. It has failed to support moderate voices, permitted Saudi funds for extremist madrasas, and at times appeased hard-line clerics for votes. The media also carries sensational news and gives more attention to radicals than to reformers.

Policies of the government have been liable to failing to comprehend the diversity of the Muslims. Deobandi spokesmen have too often been taken to speak for all Indian Muslims. This empowers hardline elements and overlooks those who preach nonviolent transformation.

Conclusion: Reform with Compassion, Not Conflict

Islamic reform is not necessarily dangerous. All religions develop through intellect and reflection. But where reform is used to exclude, purify, and dominate, it can become violent and lead to schisms. India's experience shows that dogmatic belief, outside influence, and political domination can convert faith into violence. India requires a new kind of Islamic reform in the contemporary world. It has to be based on the moral values of the Quran, promote dialogue, and rejoice in differences. It has to be a reform that originates from the community itself and is also supported by society as a whole. Madrasas have to reform, but so must state policy and popular opinion.

India can steer clear of additional divisiveness by holding equitable and beneficial visions of Islam. For this purpose, education, books, artwork, and young leaders will play a very significant role. Reform is not possible by distancing oneself from the past or fighting the present. It has to be about reclaiming the essence of Islam: justice, mercy, and wisdom. Without those, any movement—however noble—will turn into a sword, not a bridge.