In comments on my thread about the beat up on the Griffith “madrassas” and subsequent own goal from Vice-Chancellor Ian O’Connor, Andrew Bartlett made a very telling point:
The sick irony is that The Australian’s anti-Muslim fear-mongering is being directed at an Institute that has sought to do precisely what heaps of hectoring politicians and pontificating media pundits (including a number from The Australian) have demanded Muslims do - get engaged in public debate, build links with the wider community and seek to honestly confront some of the challenges of Islam in the modern world. And yet they are prepared to run major pieces, most of them containing gross distortions, five days running, attacking this Unit despite not any evidence that it is actually promoting Wahhabism.
It’s very true that we heard an awful lot in the Howard years about the need to encourage “moderate Islam”. I don’t cavil with that, but I think it’s based on a fundamental misconception - that pluralism doesn’t exist in Islam, but rather there’s one essence of the faith that can be clung to either more fervently or less strictly. That ties in with all the claims that Islam is violent, etc. What it does is completely efface the diversity within Islam and Islamic communities, and actually plays into the hands of the Wahhabi mob who want to impose a unitary version (I almost wrote “unitarian” - heh!) of their views and reinvent Islam as a monolith. Perhaps The Australian should run a “shock! horror!” expose on itself. All that is a prologue to a link to a post at The Immanent Frame, written by John Bowen on Harvard Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na‘im’s new book Islam and the Secular State.
An Indonesian Muslim friend once told me how happy they were to have Abdullahi an-Na`im travel to Indonesia and give talks to local Muslims. My friend works for Islamic reform along feminist and pluralistic lines, and has been labeled overly “secularist,” but, as he explained, “an-Na`im makes us all look to be part of the mainstream!” Indeed, an-Na`im has toured the world of Muslim-majority countries campaigning to change how Muslims understand scripture and the state. A student of the assassinated Sudanese scholar Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, an-Na`im has pursued his teacher’s argument that Muslims should distinguish between the universal message of Islam, most clearly set forth in the earlier revelations to Muhammad during his travails at Mecca, and the later verses, some of which were tied to the task of governing Medina. Many Muslim scholars urge that the historical contexts of revelation be part of the interpretive apparatus, but Taha’s and an-Na`im’s message, to take only some of the Qur’an as directly applicable today, was especially controversial. His openness and generosity as a scholar and a fellow human being has, however, given him an audience throughout the world.In his new book, which he says will be his final statement on these issues, an-Na`im argues that Muslims need a secular state to live their religious lives.
Please read the rest of the post.
If it’s this sort of thought and debate that Griffith’s Islamic Research Unit is disseminating to the Islamic and wider communities of Australia, we should be jumping for joy rather than cowering in fear. Perhaps the distortion of the Unit’s work - and I know from what he’s written previously that Andrew Bartlett has taken a close interest in it so I’m happy to take his word on it rather than some stuffy District Court judge’s - reflects an underlying fear that Islam might turn out not to be so scary after all…
Kim posted (inter alia):
“the need to encourage “moderate Islam”. I don’t cavil with that, but I think it’s based on a fundamental misconception - that pluralism doesn’t exist in Islam, but rather there’s one essence of the faith that can be clung to either more fervently or less strictly.”
ummmm, don’t know much about Islam, but I thought this view and suggestion was based on the conception that pluralism DOES exist within Islam, and that the Govt and people of Australia should encourage “moderate” voices and adherents of a non-violent strand of Islam.
“Fervent/less strict”
wasn’t the distinction being drawn (as in Strongly Held Catholicism vs Weak adherence to the Faith of Our Fathers) IMHO. I thought it was more a distinction between
* Islam-that-preaches-peace-and-tolerance-and-understands-jihad-as-personal-spiritual-journey/struggle vs
* Islam-that-justifies-suicide-bombings-and-hates-infidels-and-advocates-jihad-with-gelignite
but then, maybe I misunderstood what PM Howard’s intentions and claims were, on this topic???
que sera sera
Let me see if I can explain myself, Ambigulous.
The first premise is that Islam is not akin to Catholicism - no central authority, no authoritative interpretation of the law (and Catholicism, along with Judaism, is also a very legalist religion) but rather a range of intepretative traditions and schools which are internally also somewhat diverse. Then there are different forms of religious authority within different varieties of Islam - and nothing like a unified clergy (arguably no clergy at all, but the Shi’a come close). In the past, religious authority has had its boundaries circumscribed by the state - for instance, in the Ottoman Empire. But again, we’re just talking about one part of the world, and one part of history.
What I’m objecting to is the essentialisation of Islam - as if there were uncontested core elements to Islamic faith which necessarily implied intolerance, violence, or whatever. We used to see a lot of that in the Howard era with various ignoramuses like Mark Steyn and the like ignorantly mining texts for “proof”. The implication, I think, is that this mob were saying - “there is just one Islam” - just as the Wahabbis were. If we continue with the misunderstanding of applying a Catholic frame, it’s something like saying “oh well, you claim to respect the Pope but you don’t go to confession or support the Church’s teaching on abortion” - ie you’re somehow less of a Catholic than the Pope. I think the same way of thinking was applied to “moderate” Muslims - they’re not really as true to Islam as the violent terrsts who are what Islam really is about - which Osama Bin Laden would fully endorse.
So in other words there isn’t a violent “core” from which people move away. Rather there are many Islamic traditions and ways of living Islam.
Hence also debates about whether there could be a “reformation” in Islam - which again implies an overthrow of a unitary authority and tradition (as with the Pope and Catholicism) rather than the reality - a diverse range of traditions, some of which have quite distinct takes on authority which are much closer to our concept of secularism.
There’s another level of misunderstanding about the status of the Q’uran. As if it were the Bible for Protestants. In fact, Islamic scripture is layered - just like Jewish scripture where you have the Hebrew Bible (the Torah), the Talmud, etc, the Oral and Written Torah, and layers upon layers of Rabbinical interpretation which is internally contestible but still hangs together as one religious tradition.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Thus you get a very rich tradition of interpretation and commentary in Judaism and a whole range of pluralistic practices and modes of living as a Jew. Islam is much the same, except more fissiparous because split by the Sunni/Shi’a schism, and also containing movements such as Sufism which have Jewish parallels as well.
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at with your post here Kim.
Although, I do think the entire concept of “moderate Islam” is balone and a political construction. I think we have some agreement there.
Personally though, I think it is completely inappropriate for a public university like Griffith to promote any form of Islam or any other religion. The thin line between the academic study of religion and theological training is a difficult one and I’m not convinced that the Griffith Institute is indeed interested in the academic study of Islam - which is SORELY needed in Australia. To the extent that the Saudi regime would like to fund Islamic studies in the public academy, I have no objection so long as the funding is for the ACADEMIC study of Islam.
How can I say this? What classical Islamic languages are taught at Griffith? Arabic, Persian, Turkish? Nope. What academic study of the Qur’an takes place there, if any? I would argue that it is very difficult to study Islam without an academic knowledge of Qur’anic Arabic. Does the academic study of Qur’anic Arabic take place at Griffith? Nope. Even putting aside the study of the Qur’an, how many trained sociologists work at the institute studying what “Muslims” actually do?
Sure, there is pluralism and diversity in the Islamic community, but if the entire exercise is designed to encourage Karl Barth-style pluralist and process theology amongst the Islamic community, then I believe the project will be a complete failure - if not an attempt at theological hegemony from non-Muslim politicians.
If however private money from the Islamic community is put towards setting up a tertiary education institution offering the study of Islamic theology then I would have no problem with it. However, to blur the line between the ACADEMIC painstaking work of textual analysis, historical reconstruction and sociological mapping and theological training is a very poor outcome for religious studies. I would argue that it is fallacious to presume that the “insider” study of Islamic theology yields any critical insight into what “Islam” is all about or what “Muslims” actually think.
For further references on the problems with the “insider” academic study of religion see eg: Donald Wiebe’s “The Politics of Religious Studies” (1998) and from the specific perspective of Islamic Studies see eg: Aaron Hughes’ “Situating Islam : the past and future of an academic discipline” (2007).
I’m not sure that the mission of the IRU is to “promote” Islam, Antonio, I think it’s to promote dialogue and the study of Islam.
I take your points, though. It may be that the initiative is still in its early days and hasn’t yet got the funding or staff to do the things you identify as necessary.
The actual mission of the Unit is identified here:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/arts-languages-criminology/griffith-islamic-research-unit
It may be that it’s more of an educational/outreach project than a research institute per se. Universities are getting into the former as well as the latter, in part, I suspect, because of a confluence between the former RQF’s emphasis on “impact” and in part because of a desire to have a public mission that extends beyond the academy. Whether that’s a worthy thing for them to be doing is maybe a separate issue.
Well Kim, their homepage of their website says:
“The central aim of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit is to promote a Wasatiyya or balanced and contextualised understanding of Islam and Muslims.”
In effect, they are promoting a CERTAIN understanding of Islam.
Further they more explicitly state the centre http://www.griffith.edu.au/arts-languages-criminology/griffith-islamic-research-unit/research:
* Actively promotes co-operation between scholars interested in promoting a ‘moderate’ Islam.
I’m afraid it’s right there in their own mission statement Kim!
Error in the last link: http://www.griffith.edu.au/arts-languages-criminology/griffith-islamic-research-unit/research
There you go! Well Andrew did say they’d fallen in line with the Howard and media agenda.
In effect, the mission of the centre is to host some scholars interesting in promoting a particular form of Islam.
Again, as far as I’m concerned, this is not acceptable for a public institution.
Imagine a Religion department’s whose mission was to:
“Actively promotes co-operation between scholars interested in promoting a ‘moderate’ Christianity.”
Or even a politics school whose mission was to:
“Actively promotes co-operation between scholars interested in promoting a ‘moderate’ social-democratic society.”
Or even a school of environmental science whose mission was to:
“Actively promotes co-operation between scholars interested in promoting a ‘moderate’ view of climate-change.”
I have no objection to such centres existing, but they can’t really be called academic or pluralist. The explicit promotion of any ideology or religion by a public University is completely not on in my book.
What’s more it dilutes the credibility of the Academy in matters of critical inquiry and analysis unbeholden to sectional interests.
My take on the whole thing is that Griffith saw an opportunity to grab international student money and grasped it with both hands. As far as I can tell this has a lot to do with overt political agendas and social engineering yet almost nothing to do with the academic study of Islam - which IS SORELY NEEDED!
Well I understand I think, what you are saying, and I think you are spot on. What exactly, does the methodist from Boise, Idaho, have in common with the catholic from the 5th Arrondissment in Paris, France? What does the faith practiced by a Pentacostalist in Nigeria have in common with the Anglican Liberal Party MP in Australia? You tell me! Nothing much at all I would venture to suggest, and to try and draw some essentialist notion of what these actual people do and believe, from being told they are all practising christians, simply illustrates the essentially crude propaganda that is being ‘run’ on the issue of ‘moderate islam’ v ‘the bad islam’. This whole effort from the whack jobs and nuts who infest the think tanks and the echo chambers in News Ltd, is nothing more than a bunch of scoundrels seeking to run cold war 2, this time with islam as the enemy within and without.
Yep, amused, that’s what I’m saying.
Kim, I must apologise for attempting to use an analogy with Catholicism. It may have confused you. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that any reasonable person can “map” features of Islam one-to-one onto features of Catholicism.
As in understand it, “interpretation is all” in Islam.
I’m not sure to what extent PM Howard misunderstood or misrepresented the many practices, beliefs, social and religious structures of today’s Islam, because my knowledge of Islam is too deficient.
Well said Antonio.
It’s not up to a public institution to attempt to pontificate on what is and what is not an acceptable reading of any religious tradition.
Such a project is beneath the dignity of an institution that aspires to a sound epistemological basis for its curriculum in the broadest sense of the word.
Note, I am not criticising religious studies per se for theology and cosmology and scriptural studies are important for self-knowledge.
But for an institution of higher learning to pronounce that a jihadist will not get 72 virgins post-self-fragmentation, or that Wahhabists have perverted understanding of the Koran strays out of scholarship into the barren realms of moralising.
Agreed, Katz.
Universities as institutions should seek knowledge.
So investigate what jihadists believe, but avoid proselytising for them. Investigate the myriad worlds of cosmology or theology, but don’t become a partisan of one strand of thought.
Leave the partisanship to advertisers, preachers, politicians, and bloggers.
Life member, Irrelevant Contrarians Assoc.
Antonio,
A “balanced” view of Islam would not be just one view, in the same way that a “balanced” view of philosophy would cover everything from Marx to Mills - not just some wishy-washy centralist construct of whoever was running the institute at the time.
Islam has has a diversity of views on (just about) all topics since the death of Muhammad (for any Muslims reading, PBUH). In Sunni jurisprudence, for example, there are four mainstream schols, of which only one (the Hanbali) would be considered extreme to outsiders. Shi’a jurisprudence adds another school and there are any number of sects surrounding Islam that may have differing views.
A balanced view of Islam would have to take all this into account.
As a balanced study on Western philosophy greatly informs you on the origins of Western society, a balanced perspective on Islam is essential to the understanding of the Middle East.
Andrew Reynolds,
As someone who tries to academically study religion, I have to be honest. I’m not really interested in a “balanced” view of “Islam”. As far as I’m concerned, academia isn’t journalism. Critical analysis doesn’t need to be balanced.
I think that in the academic study of religion that it is important to be respectful to religious adherents. I don’t believe that this respect should impede scholarly investigation and publication of original research.
I don’t think that the purpose of the academy is to teach “balanced views”. In the humanities, our purpose should be to critique, dissect and analyse all views and texts from as many perspectives as are available to us (philological, historical, anthropological, philosophical etc).
Sure, of course there is great diversity in the “Islamic” community. But who is a muslim and what is Islam? Are the Druze - who believe in reincarnation Muslims? What about the Alawites (eg. Bashir Al-Assad)? And the Ahmadiyya - who are now being prosecuted in Indonesia? What about the Shi’a? Are “Twelver” or “Sevener” Shi’ites Muslims? What about Sunni muslims who engage in saint veneration? How about members of Sufi orders? Certainly the answer as to what is kufr in the “Islamic” world is a very open and crucial question.
To teach in western universities that there are “sects” in Islam is to impose a western-Christian approach to the problem of diversity of belief amongst a group of individuals referring to themselves as “muslims” - almost all of whom (with the possible exception of certain Sufi schools) hold to a strong belief in non-negotiable, absolute truth. I would contend that in Islamic history - Judaism, Christianity (and to a lesser extent Zoroastrianism and Mandeanism) have been far greater tolerated by “Islamic” communities than groups labelling themselves as “muslim” yet possessing minority/divergent views.
Anyway, what I am trying to emphasise is the need to avoid pedagogical soteriologies like “teaching a balanced view” in favour of teaching analysis and critical thinking. I reckon that the area of Islamic studies is long overdue for some of this analysis and critical thinking based on some rigorous research!
Paul NOrton posted a piece on Saudia Arabian Human Rights abuses two months ago on this blog. He linked to this regular update from Amnesty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/west-gulf/saudi-arabiaI've been thinking alot about this over the week, and the more i read about the country and the House of Saud, the less i'm inclined to believe the country really has an agenda of wanting to stimulate discussion and understanding of 'moderate' islam in Universities outside Saudi Arabia.)
My recollections are that Ian O'Connor is actually a genuinely nice guy. I've also been impressed by Mohommed Abdullah when i've heard him speak, including (if i recall it was also him) once upstairs in the Mens Only prayer room during an interfaith visit to the Kuraby Mosque to observe Friday nite prayers. (Very very intersting experience btw)
I'm postulating however, that possibly the fact that some of the main players in this debate are genuinely lovely people, a more critical and detached analysis of the issue funding sources isn't going to occur.
A few years back i was solicting for funding for a domestic violence project I was setting up, and was offered a sum of money from a particular Multinational that would have been brilliant from a financial and marketing persective.
After some deliberation, i actually turned it down due to some ethical issues (which had nothing to do with DV or religion btw), that i feel would impinge on the the freedom of the project to work with other corps and not for profits. It was a tough decision, but ultimately the right one. I'm not saying these issues are easy, but the question should always be whether the means justifies the end.
Maybe i'm being too suspicious. I just wouldn't trade intellectual freedom in a State University away easily. It would be different if it was a Private instiution.
I would be very keen to know more about the research thats coming out of the centre, and how thats informing practice on the ground. I'm open to being convinced. Must look into it a bit more. All links welcome.
Ambigulous at 12, no need to apologise, because I think the analogy with Catholicism is tied up in the popular and political construct of Islam. I was hoping, as well as making that case further, to explain exactly how and why Islam is more pluralistic in my comment at 2.
Once again I find myself agreeing with Kim (heh) but also Antonio. I’d guess the mission statement came out of the pitch to the Howard government when they were looking for tenders to set up the Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies. I was helping with the Australian Imams Conference and I remember discussion about the need for an Australian institution/s that would provide training for home-grown Imams, rather than importing them from overseas. This was so that Imams could better understand the Australian culture and context in which they lived and worked (which is actually a prerequisite for Islamic scholarship from an Islamic POV anyway).
Should Howard et. al. have been involved in setting up an institution to train clergy? Probably not, but hey - you gets wot you can gets these days if you’re in academia.
I did my Master of Islamic Studies (and my undergraduate in Arabic & Islamic studies too) under Prof. Saeed (who heads the NCEIS at Melbourne Uni.) so I can speak with a little authority about what they might be teaching and it is not aimed at providing an apologetic approach to Islam by any means. I occasionally had to field comments from aggrieved undergrads who were concerned about the inclusion of Orientalist material (i.e. Juynboll, Schact etc.). I told them that understanding Orientalist approaches to the study of Islam is important whether or not you agree with them, if only to refute them better.
Anyway, back to Kim’s excellent point about differentiating between the huge variety of diverse interpretations of Islam. It gets back to the old question of what is religion. Is it what believers do? Is it what they say? Does it include ‘folk’ religion? Does it have to conform to an orthodoxy? Whose orthodoxy? If you can get your students thinking about these issues, then half the job’s done
Yasmin, I sort of agree with Antonio too! But my main point was to make the point about how the construct of “moderate” Islam does its work in the world.
Howard had a simple line in his ‘us versus them’ political strategy: Muslims = Terrorists.
What he actually did was give oxygen to the psychopathic end of the spectrum.
People of Islam faith are great people one on one.
As soon as another Islam person enters the area, I’m forgotten.
That’s my 5c worth.