The Australian is running with the story today that a new $8 million dollar National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies is being established as part of a government attempt to confront ‘extremism’.
From next year, university students at Melbourne, Griffith and Western Sydney will be offered accredited courses ranging from Muslim theology to art and commerce as part of the federal Government’s $35 million strategy to fight extremism.
“The centre’s religious teachings will be taught in an objective manner and produce homegrown imams,” Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs Andrew Robb said yesterday.
The centre is cast in the article as providing some ‘alternative’ to the likes of Sheikh Feiz and, in the words of the Courier Mail, “Muslim firebrands who preach intolerance and hate.” Teachers will naturally be subjected to a “proper background check” to make sure the program isn’t infiltrated by extremists or other reactionary forces.
Yasmin Khan, a member of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Reference Group, yesterday said proper background checks would be needed to make sure it was not hijacked by radicals.
“I would hate to think that was a remote possibility,” she said.
The course will offer a “western perspective” on Islam, and provide an alternative for people who might otherwise have gone to study abroad at the Islamic University of Medina, in Pakistan or elsewhere.
At the moment, anyone seeking advanced knowledge and understanding of Islam has to travel to the Middle East.
The idea that a local alternative is needed is, of course, predicated on the belief that overseas study is problematic. However, this is generally not the case — particularly when it is Western students going abroad to study as opposed to merely importing people. Indeed, even in the case of a so-called ‘conservative’ institution such as the Islamic University of Medina, the overwhelming majority of graduates do not return to Australia breathing fire and brimstone. The fact that a number of the individuals involved in overseeing this project are themselves graduates of Umm al-Qurra and Medina puts this idea to rest.
A possible problem with this approach is that people overlook the reasons for the appeal of the so-called “radical sheikhs” and that is that these people are offering what their followers perceive, rightly or wrongly, as a more authentic expression of Islam. These figures speak Arabic, can often quote Qu’ran and hadith chapter and verse, and seem to have a depth of religious knowledge that many perceived moderates do not. If any local institution is going to be successful, it will need to produce people of an equivalent or greater level; which means, at the very least, it will need to produce people fluent in Arabic because without Arabic it is impossible for someone to access the classical texts from which authenticity and authority is derived in this religion. The importance of Arabic to scholarship cannot be understated when even a book such as Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani’s Fath ul-Bari, an explanation of Sahih Bukhari, is available only in Arabic.
A further possible problem is that there is a contention between what the government sees as moderation and what many, even nominal, Muslims will see as the moderate Islamic position. Given this is being born out of an effort to confront religious extremism and will therefore, one can assume, be measured against its funding objective, would the government tolerate or be satisfied with positions which, although Islamically valid, may seem ‘extreme’ compared to the majority-held values of the community?
And, given the project has been linked quite clearly to the government’s campaign against ‘extremism’, how would religious figures — schooled in such a project — be perceived by communities for whom animus against the government and government foreign policy is one of the principle attractions of the independent ‘radicals’? There could end up two classes of scholar or leader: the ones who are seen as ‘government scholars’ produced as part of this program; and others who remain independent.
There is nothing wrong with offering university degrees or courses in Islamic sciences, but perhaps it would be better and more effective if these courses were not linked to the War on Terror and were not, somewhat unrealistically, being cast as schools capable of producing Imams and scholars.
33 comments ↓
There are several issues here that are interesting
the first is that there is no concept of an “Imam” as religious leader amongsts Muslims. There are religious scholars who are entirely different.
The second is that kaffirs teaching Muslims Islam at non Muslim universities is the height of absurdity.
The third is that the best way to undermine a religious leader is to say that he is government approved, government trained or government sponsored. The graduates of this program will be all three.
I think it is more media spin/misunderstanding on the story. From what I have heard on the grapevine, quite a few knowledgeable academically trained (and traditionally trained!) Shaykhs were trying to put something together that would combine traditional knowledge with the ability to conduct research ala “academia”. This is something entirely different to the botched majlis idea that happened a few months ago.
Why shouldn’t we have our own seminaries which also give recognised tertiary and postgradualte level qualifications for those investing years in to study?
Many of the Shuyukh here nowadays are graduates of various Universities anyway - the Hijaz, Turkey, Malaysia and even Azhar use a degree structure for study. Many of those having postgrad qualifications in research related areas. We should take advantage of them!
I don’t see anything wrong with learning Arabic and other non-faith related things from non-Muslims in the first place; it is not only Muslims who speak Arabic - the majority don’t!
Sydney University, for example, has had an established Islamic Studies course for going on 20yrs, and like it/him or not, the head of department is Muslim (some would say only nominally Muslim). Sure, some people have personal quibbles about the course, but from what I have read and seen, the department has good resources and has produced some sound academic work.
Then again, this specific department is not even part of the University list on the article anyway… :-/
Looking at the quotes from Dr. Saeed in the Australian, who is Medina trained amongst other things, as well as the other information on the government website, I am not sure exactly what the issue is. This is an interesting initiative, and sure, things need to be ironed out and a curriculum constructed etc. but at least the ball is rolling! If Shuyukh and others with relevant experience and qualification are involved - lets give them our support!
Perhaps in theory, but anyway this is just semantics. Of course imams are leaders. While we don’t really have a clergy-like structure, in a practical sense, imams are a point of reference and guidance for Muslims and assume a leadership role in doing so.
The point isn’t that an institution like this is being created. If the government decided to fund existing faculties or even create new faculties or research chairs, I wouldn’t care. Certainly, nobody is suggesting that Prof. Abdullah Saeed isn’t qualified to head an initiative such as this or that they won’t end up recruiting qualified people. Given the success of the Melbourne University program he oversees, I think the government probably made the right decision in recruiting him.
However, the main issue here isn’t the choice of people, but that the government objective behind it is to combat what it perceives as religious extremism in the Muslim community; and it (the government) sees this as a means of creating new home-grown and suitably moderate leaders for the Muslim community.
So, if the objective is to provide a “home grown” alternative to the likes of Sh Feiz and so on, then it is difficult to see how this will meet that goal because people don’t just turn to these more conservative leaders because there is a poor supply of moderate, Western-trained leaders. There is also the likely side-effect that the government’s touting of the centre as a means of fighting extremism and churning out moderate leaders, is going to actually bolster the arguments of the more conservative or extreme elements who choose to remain outside these structures.
Thank you Sara ,
In some situations I think that there is a big difference. Imams in the west not leaders in any sense beyond leading the prayer. In Mosque structures they have no authority to do anything. The President of the Mosque association has the only real authority, as he often controls the Imam’s pay-packet.
The imam in many mosques does not even give the weekly sermon. Any Muslim male can be an imam or can give a khutbah. So whilst it may appear from a distance like they have some leadership role, their influence is nebulous at best
Religious scholarship is where real authority lies in Islam. Wherever one is in the world it is straightforward to access Islamic scholars over the internet and listen to their lectures. people may pray behind their local imam but they look globally for true Islamic scholarship. People will follow scholarship based on its fidelity to religion
http://austrolabe.com/2006/06/.....-on-error/
This academy is an 18th century solution to a 21-century situation. One can train as many “Imams” as you like but in a free world where real scholarship is only a click away, Muslims will not listen to John Howard’s favorite Imam. The iriony is that the free choice that is at the center of conservtism that Howard subscribes to is the reason that few will heed his “model” of imam.
It is also naive to believe (as the government does) that global terrorism is simply a result of a mistake of religious interpretation, that can be cured with a diet cola imam.
Yes, scholarship and imamate are two different things and one doesn’t necessarily require the other. However, I think what Sara means is that, for most mosques today, the community look to the “official Imam” for leadership and advice on religious issues.
That said, when the government speaks about training “imams” it is not talking merely about training people in the mechanics of prayer or giving a khutbah but rather about training people to provide religious guidance and instruction in their communities.
For sure Amir, and I agree with this. But one of the main issues we need to tackle in Australia is what Dr. Sherman Jackson calls “Islamic literacy” - being able to approach the multitude and varied texts contained within the collective Islamic heritage, as well as being able to have a strong foundation to develop our identity as Australian Muslims, participating in this society. Because, quite simply, we are - no matter if we like it or not - Australian Muslims (or Muslim Australians, depending on the context).
I completely agree with your discussion as to the roots of the “extremist” problem, and am quite sure that it will not simply go away. But, and it is a big but, if the community on the whole can become more “literate”, then it will perhaps be a good start in this matter - from what we as everyday people, and as Muslims, can do. The various initiatives running from within the community shows that this is beginning to take place. I mean, lets get real here, apart from bashing the media and Aussie government, there are plenty of issues in our own back yard that rile me up - and I am sure plenty of others feel the same way. “Extremism” being one of them. Having people grab media attention when they don’t represent me/us, or are fringe is another.
From looking at the government website I linked, it is unclear how much of a role the government is actually going to have in this, besides providing some start-up funding and grants - which it has done for a wide variety of religious and non-religious community initiatives. Sure, I don’t want people who don’t have a clue meddling and trying to create an “Australian friendly” Islam - because I don’t think it is Islam which is the problem at all. I honestly don’t see how they can meddle in setting a curriculum or whatever when they have absolutely no expertise in the area. This is why people like Dr. Saeed and the others are important in this regard. So I see it as our job (as a community) to make sure that those who know their stuff are involved in this process.
It is not like they are going to be teaching young Aussie Muslims tactics of irregular warfare and the like, is it? I mean come on… lets be serious here. It seems like it will be a place to study and get a wide overview of the various Islamic subjects, as well as issues relating to being a community worker. This is all very useful and needed within the community (as well as outside)!
Well, I guess it is pretty clear where I stand on it all… and minus the “meddling” aspect, I will support it all the way.
Taken from here. Like I said, I feel this needs more time to be elaborated upon, and away from the media hype.
Yes, thank you, Amir. That’s exactly what I was trying to say.
This will fail.
1/ $4 million spread over three years is nothing. It’s not enough to run a quality course. It won’t be self-sustaining.
2/ There are 40 HECS places and this will increase to approx 100. The demand for new imams in Australian mosques is less than 3 a year if that.
3/ As this is government funded and has been promoted as a way of fighting terrorism/extremism, any lecturer who gets involved with subject to a massive amount of media scrutiny. The project will become bogged down in controversy.
I think AAR raised a key point. Producing ‘home grown Imams’ is one thing. But how are they going to actually get these Imams to have any real relevance in the community. Most of the mosques in Melbourne haven’t changed who their Imams are in the past 20-40 years. Alot of mosques are controlled by particular racial groups/ideologies. I don’t see them relinquishing those ideas/cultures to have a home-grown Imam lead them.
I am not clear on whether this is meant to produce religious scholars or produce spokespeople? Religious scholarship is not going to occur in that particular environment. Biggest problem is that you can’t be taken seriously as someone with authority to discuss fiqh issues if you can’t understand Arabic. Arabic is the key here.
Second issue will be what teachers they employ. Will they employ non-Muslim teachers to teach Islamic sciences? I don’t think there is a great deal of Muslim teachers available in Australia to teach subjects at university level.
And thirdly, do they really believe that having a home grown program will rival the programs overseas (which have been established for a long time with teachers who are known in their fields) and deter people who would otherwise study overseas? I really don’t think that is going to happen no matter how good the program is. People will continue to go to the Muslim countries to study - to places like Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, India, Yemen etc.
It’ll be interesting to see where this will all go in the next few years and how the program will be set up.
Baybers: The majority of people go get their religious advice from their local Imam. Probably the younger generation now is more into the whole going online and searching for fatwas. But I don’t believe that is the majority.
Fatima: The Islamic Studies courses on offer already have a high concentration in Arabic. The University of Sydney, for example, has one of the best Semitic languages courses, definitely in the country, if not wider as well. At advanced levels it is tailored to suit the individual students research interest - though focusses on MSA at the Bachelor level. Melbourne is similar in this regard too.
Dr. Saeed has taught Islamic Studies for many years, and is well regarded as a published scholar/academic in the English language. He also has close ties with the International Islamic University of Malaysia, and elsewhere, and has contributed to many conferences there, as well as other places in the Muslim world.
Just because someone is not Arab, does not mean they don’t have legitimate qualifications and authority to teach Islamic subjects. Even if it is in a “secular” University.
We have a great many resources here that can be used for the good of this program. Those Turkish Shuyukh that I have met, for example, all studied in the Faculty of Divinity back in Turkey, and most all have at least Masters level qualifications, if not Ph.D’s. Is this somehow not “Islamic” enough? I have met some who are Hafiz with a focus on Tajweed, or specialise in Fiqh, Usul, ‘Aqida and other areas. I am sure there are also numerous other people within the community who have similar qualifications - even if they are not acting as Imams or “Shaykhs” right now - from all over the Muslim community. Nigeria, for example, has a strong Islamic studies background, as does Sudan and Somalia… Pakistan too, and there are plenty of other places, including those from our near-neighbours that we can take advantage from.
The article linked mentioned close contact with established Islamic insitutions worldwide anyway, so this surely is a good thing…
I guess we will have to wait until there are more details and less media speculation on this. I support it all the way.
There are some notable Shaikhs who do work as Imams and are valued for the depth of their scholarship. These people are sought out by the community for their advice on many matters.
If the US can have places such as the Islamic American University, then why not Australia? It will take time to become established, but surely this is a good thing? Or is it the “University” type status that is the problem? Why don’t we work more towards a seminary type structure like Zaytuna then?
Dezhen I agree it is inevitable that we do so if we wish to have a community in the west. But there is one big difference, the University was not setup by the American government to teach “moderate” Islam and improve community relations, it was setup by Muslims for muslims.
Zaytuna is also a great idea along similar lines
I could not agree with you more.
But like I linked in the other post - it is unclear exactly how much of a role the government is playing in this. It seems like a startup grant and some basic funding (kinda like hecs?) for 40 students. What’s wrong with this if it gets things off the ground?
All we are going on is a hastily produced media article, we know how they twist things already anyway, so why rely on their wording to make the call? We surely need more information about this. This gives slightly more. Apart from a couple of choice sound-bytes, there is not much there from the government.
“Just because someone is not Arab, does not mean they don’t have legitimate qualifications and authority to teach Islamic subjects. Even if it is in a “secular” University.”
Dezhen,
Fatima mentioned knowledge of “Arabic” not “arab”. Arabic is essential to the study of Islam. If you don’t know Arabic there is no way you can be a scholar of Islam, no matter how much you know, because you rely on translations. Allah says in Qur’an that we’ve revealed this Qur’an in Arabic that you may understand. A non-Arabic speaker cannot understand even the Qur’an - the primary source of Islamic guidance, law, etc. without understanding Arabic.
Similarly, just because someone has a Phd in Islamic sciences doesn’t make them a scholar. How many orientalists have doctorates in Islamic law, etc?
As an example. How can one possibly divine fiqh rulings without relying on the Arabic text of the Qur’an. The Yusuf Ali translation of Qur’an is *not* an legal authority in Islam.
A non-Arab can speak Arabic and study Islam. Look at the great scholars of the past, look at the Sahabah even! Bilal, Salman al-Farisi, Suhaib ar-Rumi - none of these Sahabah were Arabs and yet they amassed a great knowledge of Islam only because they could speak Arabic.
The Arabic language is the key to furthering one’s knowledge in Islam.
What do Australian Muslims think of the Radical Middle Way, a government sponsored project in the UK?
BB: What is your beef?
Melbourne University, and elsewhere like Sydney Uni and UWS have had long established programs teaching Arabic (MSA and later you can delve more in to classical). The head of the department in Melbourne studied in Medina, so is no strangert to classical Arabic. The head of dept. in Sydney studied “adab” (literature) in Damascus, so I am assuming is no stranger to classical Arabic either - considering what his Ph.D. thesis was on (have you read it?) There are few universities outside the Middle East who have comparable programs, and I would suggest only a handful may be better. From what I and friends have seen.
Obviously, if this is to train religious workers - Imams, Shuyukh, whatever - then the curriculum will need to be different to the ones currently taught in the “west”. No one is denying this, least of all me. You guys seem to just be blustering over every single point I have made, repeatedly.
I think you would also be surprised at who is doing Islamic Studies and who gets Ph.D’s these days though. The days of “orientalists” are long gone - Schacht, Goldziher and all these crooners are dead. A new wave of Islamic Studies people have been around for a while - including many Muslims who know about their religion. Umar Faruq ‘Abd Allah, Sherman Jackson, Mohammad Fadel, Mustafa Ceric (Reis al-’Ulema’ in Bosnia), Jonathan Brown, Scott Lucas… the list goes on. They are all Ph.D. graduates from the University of Chicago (apart from Dr. Jackson which was UPenn). All have had “traditional” training, as well as “western” training, and are hardly orientalists. Historians rather than Shuyukh maybe, but definitely not orientalists. Check out this lecture by Umar Faruq ‘Abd Allah and Sherman Jackson on Maqasid, for example - hardly “orientalist” stuff.
To deny that there is any useful work being done in English is to deny the fact that Muslims in the West can contribute anything to their own religious understanding and heritage.
But this is detracting from the topic at hand.
I hope this post gets through the spam filter.
ma’a salama
Thabet: I was disappointed that Sheik AHM was involved, so I have been trying to forget that website, and pretend that it never happened,
thanks for bringing it up
Institutes like al-Kauthar are a step in the right direction and inshaAllah they can soon grow into what we see in the US.
I do not think the Australian Islamic Community really needs much prodding by the government on such issues. The community is making its way on its own alhumdulilah.
Dezhen,
I said you cannot be considered a proper scholar without having a good knowledge of the Arabic knowledge. You can study all you like, but you aren’t a scholar if you only work with translated material.
I think you need to read my post properly and with an open mind before you post. It’s quite a simple concept really. Think then post.
Cheers
Shadower, I quite agree. The al-Kauthar Institute really is making strides and they’re method is truly effective. The Australian government should support programs like these.
It almost makes me wish I lived in Britain/Australia just so I can take those seminars!
I agree that Al Khautar is an excellent project and one that the community should support by attending the courses.
It does not however make scholars, rather it educates Muslims in the basics of their religion, something that would have occurred in a classical Islamic schooling. Therefore it makes its students appreciative of and responsive to scholarship.
Dezhen is correct to desire an Australian Islamic institute to train ulema here, but this government proposal will not be it.
BB: Did you even look at my post? The Universities involved in the project have a very high standard of Arabic teaching, with at least 2 of those specifically teaching “Islamic Studies” (regardless of what you think the content, the Arabic is clearly more towards Islamic knowledge than say “media” or “literature”). So I don’t think anyone would be lacking on the Arabic side, let alone anything else. Plus, of course, they would need to get even further expertise on the matter if it is going to be a “centre of excellence” as they say.
As I posted multiple times before, the person being marked as the organiser of this project is a Medina graduate, as well as having strong connections with the likes of Malaysia and Indonesia. If you have even taken a cursory look at his published works, you will clearly see that he is a scholar of some talent. Not only that, but you would see that the curriculum of the University, as well as recent graduates are versed in at least some “traditional” based knowledge, as well as historical/politcal and more modern issues.
As I have said repeatedly, “Islamic Studies” has moved on a lot from the times of Schacht and Goldziher. Check out those I mentioned above and you should clearly see that.
So, is it the fact that he and the others are published in English that is your problem? Or that they are getting a start-up grant from the government that is the problem?
The more you think the government are boogey-men, the more they become so. Why not take a start-up grant from them in order to get things moving? Every other faith based and ethnic community also gets this if they apply; it is one of the perks of living in a secular state - regardless of what we think of the current political climate. We are Australians, so have every right to ask our government to help us pursue our goal. This is what we pay taxes for!
From the link I posted days ago, it is clear that the funding would not even cover what needs to be done, but just provides some capital to get started. It is more like a token gesture than anything serious.
I for one would like to see a detailed proposal before making any judgement on this. They may even be utilising those already working within the community - who knows? The press had a little blurb, but there have been no major announcements from those involved, nor a detailed proposal made available for viewing.
Dr Abdullah Saeed has no formal qualifications in shariah law. He didn’t graduate from the shariah faculty at Medina.
dezhen
I agree with your sentiments that Islamic scholarship must be offered locally at a high level, but I disagree that government funding is innocuous and does not come with strings attached,
do you think that that the government is going to fund something that it fundamentally disagrees with or indeed it is at war with ? That is wrong to think so. It has clearly and repeatedly stated that this is part of a raft of measures aimed to foster Muslim integration into Australia, if it has to be at the expense of our religious authenticity, they are not going to shed tears about that.
As for your point about ‘this is why we pay taxes”
This is precisely why tax dollars must not be spent funding religion, if the govt is paying for religious teachers, they clearly have overtaxed the country. I would be just as incensed if the govt used the 50 cents in a dollar it takes from me (as well as GST), to fund worship of the yellow bellied parrot, or to fund an expedition to look for the hidden shia imam or to send a probe out into space to see if it could reach the outer limit of budda’s hand.
This is simply not the business of government to waste taxpayers dollars funding what it deems acceptable forms of religion. It is exactly what a secular state does not do.
BB: Did you even look at my post?
Dezhen,
Your post was a reply to my original post.
You’re applying my very general comment about Arabic and scholarship to Arabic studies at an Australian University and a proposed Islamic studies program.
Please read over my original post. I’m sure all will make sense if you do.
Why make a general statement if it is not applied to the thread at hand? The topic and discussion is very clear.
a. An appreciation of comparative religion should be demanded of clerics from all religions.
b. I’m pretty sure the “right wing fundamentalists” from all faiths would fail every essay at first-year-level the demanded a solid understanding of their own scriptures. Think about the theologically contradiction of “prosperity gospellers” and the Sermon on the Mount, or the Islamist bombers versus Mohammed’s requirement to avoid battle wherever possible especially on holy days, and if you must make way, take extreme care to protect non-combatants.
David, thank you for your comments
I agree that all religious leaders should have a working understanding of society, but I disagree that it should be compulsory. Mandatory ideological cleansing has been tried (notably by the central committee of the chinese communist party in 1966. The cultural revolution.
But also locally, A decade of compulsory or near compulsory gender and race and cultural training has created an Australia where people display the opposite sentiments, often with glee.
The other issue is of course what religions one teaches, do we teach scientology, or the moonies or what about the exclusive brethren. Do we want to teach people to appreciate these faiths?
Your second point is very strong. The best way to counter extremism is to debate it, an expose the contradictions and the hypocrisy.
Leave a Comment