Teaching Islam will not curb extremism

Published on Thursday 7 June 2007 01:22

WHEN Tony Blair spoke at the Islam conference on Monday this week, he did not say much that most of the participants, Muslim or otherwise would disagree with.

His sympathetic tone towards Islam resonated well with muftis, clerics and activists alike.

However, in the midst of his support for "moderate" and "true teachings of Islam", my ears pricked up when I heard that the government was pledging 1 million to improve the teaching of Islamic studies at universities.

As I sat pondering whether any of this money might come my way, my optimism was kept in check by the other element to this conference - the launch of the education department-funded report on Islamic studies in universities in England. I was consulted about this issue in Glasgow so I presume this is a UK-wide reflection.

I, along with other academics, had the opportunity to talk with Ataullah Siddiqui directly about the findings. Although I have had only a quick glance at the long and rather repetitive report, it confuses several issues and, on balance, Bill Rammell's defence of the report is weak.

The most obvious weakness is the implication that an "accurate delivery of Islamic studies" will curb violent extremism. Violent extremists do not do Islamic studies at universities, and nor does university education radicalise students.

The reality of the situation is that the majority of students who do Islamic studies at university are not Muslim. They are students who study Islam like they study Hinduism or Buddhism; they have a general interest in religion and take the degree as part of a humanities course. In all my years at Glasgow, I have seen about a dozen students at undergraduate level who are Muslim and interested in Islamic studies.

Most students who are studying Islam as an undergraduate are doing so as part of a humanities degree and leave with a much deeper awareness of the religion and an openness to critical thinking about faith from multiple perspectives. Any serious scholar of Islam, Muslim or non-Muslim, does not see their role as driving a "correct" view of the faith.

The other criticism is that those who teach Islamic studies are oblivious to the complexities arising from multi-cultural Britain. Aside from my own teaching, as an external examiner in several universities, I am well aware of what is being taught in many places; students are obsessed with contemporary Islam. Issues of jihad, veiling, pluralism and gender are the substance of most undergraduate teaching on Islam.

Yet, reflecting on the contemporary alone does not provide the student with a balanced and deeper understanding of the theological, philosophical and historical legacy of any faith tradition. We are already seeing much of the rigour in Islamic studies under some threat as many students work only from secondary sources, and labelling some subjects as part of the "colonial legacy" will dilute the intellectual edge of the religion even further.

The UK government has been much slower than the United States to put money into Islamic studies in the hope of curbing extremism. But in both cases, the rationale is skewed.

Yes, there should be a more systematic approach to the training of qualified and sensitive imams who could work within universities, as recognised staff liaising between academics and students on aspects of worship and pastoral care; but they cannot be substitutes for teaching staff. Where would quality control go? Who would monitor what and how they teach?

I seriously doubt that we would be flooded with numbers of Muslims wanting to pursue a degree in Islamic studies if we had traditional imams in place of academic staff. Most Muslims want to pursue a degree that will get them a job in the end: medicine, dentistry, accountancy or engineering.

Those people who want a more traditional approach to Islam will be reluctant to come to secular universities; they will go places where they feel they are learning from "authentic" scholars who are more preachers than teachers.

Working in a department which has remained committed to the training of Church of Scotland ministers, I frequently see the tension candidates experience in balancing their more devotional approach to Christianity with the demands of remaining open to diverse and critical scholarly approaches. Religious faith is not narrowed, but enlarged, through contact with other faiths and voices.

Underlying all these initiatives is the government's hope: "If we teach moderate Islam, we will wipe out radicalism."

Unfortunately, this is a flawed premise. Radicalism or militancy among some youths has arisen from personal, spiritual and political issues and we still have little concrete sense of the lethal cocktail driving people to commit murderous acts.

Muslim students on campus do a variety of courses, form their own networks and practise Islam in a variety of ways; most of them are oblivious to what is being taught in Islamic studies departments.

If the government really wants to inject money into Islamic studies, 1 million will not go very far. I fear that most academics will remain indifferent or critical of this current report; what they will not do is reassess their own teaching.

• Mona Siddiqui is professor of Islamic studies and public understanding at the University of Glasgow.