Study: Enhance religious ed for U.S. Muslims
Earlier this week, there were news reports about a study finding that the threat of “homegrown” Islamist terrorism is often exaggerated. The study was funded by the Justice Department and conducted by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina. Time reported:
Titled “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim American Communities,” the report says the community has successfully limited radicalization by policing itself. It cites denunciations of terrorism, internal self-policing, community building, government-funded support services and political engagement as some of the ways the community has limited the spread of radicalization. “Many community leaders have come to recognize that [tackling radicalization] is a matter of survival,” says Ebrahim Moosa, a professor of religion at Duke and a co-author of the report. “They know that radicalization threatens the community at large and are working hard to defeat it.” The researchers recommend that the government reinforce these efforts.
One interesting aspect not mentioned in the news coverage I saw is that the study urges better education in Islam for Muslims:
“Most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. At the same time, we have observed, as have others, an increased religiosity among Muslim-Americans. This is to be welcomed, not feared. Muslim-Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to be radicalized than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete.”
The study offers a refreshing break from the claims so often made that Islam and organized religion in general are a source of violence.
Confirmation that the Muslim Americans are fighting radicalization of their young peole is good news. But the suggestion that the government encourage specifically Islamic studies sounds like a First Amendment threat to me, though it doesn’t seem intended that way.
I am not a Muslim.
Thus, it would be the height of arrogance — and would border on religious imperialism — were I to say that this view of Islam is the correct one and that view is the wrong one. Who the hell am I — or any non-Muslim — to say that Osama bin Laden’s conception of Islam is wrong??
And specific to this proposal — what the hell is GOVERNMENT doing proposing (i.e. establishing) one view of a particular religion over another?
There is an undeniable violent history in the Abrahamic religions which demands more analysis. In the past century the two world wars involved mainly Christians while the constant wars nowadays involve Muslims and Jews. Not a great resume. One might say that the perpetrators were not really religious people or their leaders. What is troubling is how supportive the religious leaders were of these wars or how silent they were/are about them.
One Muslim scholar mentioned that American Muslims are better educated, more middle class than British Muslims who are mostly decended from poor Pakistani garment workers immigrating 50 years ago. Their children have issues about British class resentment. And With close to 2 billion Muslims worldwide, to complain about US government trying to limit radicalization in Muslim communities is PC carried to irrational heights.
‘were I to say that this view of Islam is the correct one and that view is the wrong one. Who the hell am I — or any non-Muslim — to say that Osama bin Laden’s conception of Islam is wrong??
The government bashers posting here should look to how successful the US taught my Catholic immigrant ancestors that American democracy and a classless society was so much better than the European Catholic distain for democracy and worship of an aristocracy., and were ‘ordered’ drop any Catholic royalist sympathies. ‘Let us thank the Lord..’
Ed,
Nobody is saying don’t try to minimize Muslim radicalism. But to suspend the First Amendment out of fear is not consistent with the American Constitution.
Bear in mind that the Constitution is not a product of European aristocrats, it is a product of American non-aristocrats. Look carefully at why the First Amendment was the *first* one they drew up.
And specific to this proposal — what the hell is GOVERNMENT doing proposing (i.e. establishing) one view of a particular religion over another?
Where in the report itself (as opposed to Paul Moses’ summary of it) is such a proposal made?
Here’s what the report itself has to say on the matter:
It would not be appropriate for the government to
play a leading role in this area. The Muslim-American
community itself should invest in developing seminaries
and programs for its own leadership. On-line education
is a fairly inexpensive way to run courses that can be
offered to Muslim leaders across the country. Foundations
and universities may be willing to assist in the development
of courses that address theological issues to
assist in countering radical thought. Scholarship resources
should be made available for graduate and doctoral
work in these areas.
You can read the whole thing at:
http://www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf
Saudi Arabia run a highly regarded extremist rehabilitation program.
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Roughly 3,000 prisoners have participated in Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation campaign—which seeks to address the underlying factors that facilitate extremism and prevent further violent Islamism. Saudi authorities claim a rehabilitation success rate of 80 to 90 percent, having re-arrested only 35 individuals for security offenses.”
The program also includes prevention through education about, yes, the “wrong” kind of Islam. When Mecca is one of your nation’s cities, I guess it’s easier to make those kind of pronouncements. If Saudi authorities really do carry that much weight regarding the right practice of Islam, I would suggest we ask for their assistance.
It seems to me that we need something like that in the US for all kinds of religions. Unfortunately, it needs to be first instituted in the military. In Iraq, my friends have been addressed by officers saying that, “we are here to make this country safe for democracy and the New Testament.” The religious atmosphere at the US Air Force Academy out in Colorado offers another example of this mindset. Also, Erick Prince, Blackwater CEO, converted to Catholicism because of his admiration of the Crusades(!). No attempt to claim that the US is not at war with Islam will succeed in the face of these depressing facts.
Bill M.,
Have you read Bruce Chilton’s Abraham’s Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
Canada’s public education system includes religious instruction. What say you, Canadians?
Alan, with your prompting I just read a review of the book. It is a conversation that must be had. As I see it there is nothing in Jesus Christ that justifies this tradition. Except for that misinterpreted section where Jesus is said to tell his followers to take up the sword, which is just terrible exegesis.
This is a sorry tradition which is seen among the Fathers, especially Augustine. The most damaging stuff in Christian history. Bernard of Clairvoux is terribly irresponsible here also. Etc
So it is a sorry part of “Christian” history that must be disavowed and not repeated. This conversation must not cease until the beatitudes replace the call to arms.
@ Bender: I am not a Muslim.
Thus, it would be the height of arrogance — and would border on religious imperialism — were I to say that this view of Islam is the correct one and that view is the wrong one. Who the hell am I — or any non-Muslim — to say that Osama bin Laden’s conception of Islam is wrong??
Is this what you really believe?
Because as it stands, this comes across as moral equivalence of the lowest order.
Do you have to be a Muslim to have the right to feel, never mind express, the deepest moral repugnance for the likes of OBL and all that he has wrought?
No, of course not. It’s a silly point.
The Fathers of the church compromised themselves with their just war ruminations or more properly, fabrications. Even in Christian history war has been glorified. In seminaries Latin was always taught with Caesars’s description of the Gallic wars. Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon is mythologized as saving Rome.
There is a certain turn on about war which is more shameful when Christians embrace it as did the theocons in the Iraq war. The crucifixion of Jesus in minimized as “necessary” while a call to arms is the clarion call of imperial Christianity. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/movies/awardsseason/10darg.html?th&emc=th
Bender says “Who am I–or any non-Muslim–to say Osama bin Laden’s conception of Islam is wrong?”
For Bender, or anyone else who agrees with this comment, I would suggest you don’t have to be Muslim to say it is wrong, you just have to be educated in what most Muslims really think. Toward that end, I would suggest the following reading:
Look at this website: http://www.acommonword.com/
Read the statement. Read the names of the signatories. (You can even see them in Arabic, if you’re interested!) They all condemn the sort of violence you suggest may be authentic, and they condemn it in the name of Islam. They are Muslims. This is an outstanding consensus document from a wide variety of countries and every branch of Islam and all schools of Islamic jursiprudence. I wrote about it here in Commonweal: http://commonwealmagazine.org/uncommon-opportunity-0
Second, read the book Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed (2007, Gallup Press). It is based on a worldwide Gallup poll, the largest study of its kind. Here is a brief description of it on the prestigious Social Science Research Council blog, The Immanent Frame: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/03/02/who-speaks-for-islam/
Whose job it is to improve education is of course a question to which there are many answers, but it’s NOT legitimate to say that “we don’t know” what Muslims believe because we’re not Muslims. They’ve told us. What is arrogant is to dismiss the Islamic religious leaders and the solid survey data about their beliefs in favor of news media that prefer a “cowboys and indians” type of story.
Anne:
re:public funding of Catholic schools in Canada.
This was actually a concession that the British made to the French after the war in the eighteenth century. The French were allowed to retain their culture, their education system and to a certain degree their legal system. At the time the Catholic Church ran all of it. In fact, up until the time of the quiet revolution in the 1960′s, the Catholic church operated unions, hospital, schools, and had pretty well veto over any political decision in Quebec.
“Catholic” schools initially meant the preservation of French culture outside of the province of Quebec. (i.e. Catholic = French)
The funding of Catholic schools is inexorably linked to that history.
Now, obviously, on the face of it the fact that you have one religion that is publicly funded to the exclusion of any other is on of the odd quirks of Canadian history. It has been flagged as a concern from the UN but any attempts to not fund schools has been unsuccessful. In the province of Ontario, funding for high schools was extended in the 80′s.
There is of course nothing in the education of act of Ontario (as far as I know) that precludes the teaching of religion (comparative religion as a course not religious indoctrination) in public schools but for the most part it is not done.
But masses are celebrated in publicly funded Catholic schools and priests even come for the sacrament of reconciliation in schools. And school boards are permitted to discriminate in their hiring based on religious affiliation.
PS
It might not be such a bad idea for the US and other secular countries to not have such an allergic reaction to the teaching of religion (as a sociological phenomenon, an expression of spirituality, etc.) in schools.
Fundamentalism, however, is on the rise in all religions (Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc.).
I still think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (inspired by the Thomist philosopher Maritain) is the way to go in discussing difference and granting political and religious freedom to people.
At issue, is not so much religion, but the relationship of the Muslim world to modernity.
Heck our own faith community still hasn’t completely resolved that issue notwithstanding the Second Vatican Council which already is in the process of being “reinterpreted”.
Thanks, Rita. I don’t think “A Common Word” has gotten anything near the attention it deserves. Just the fact that so many prominent Muslim religious leaders from so many different countries and so many varieties of Islam have signed on to it is historic in itself. It’s an extraordinary development that hasn’t gotten appropriate media attention.
Thanks, George D. I had thought that your schools typically had comparative religion courses, or something like that. I would have no objection to that, but teaching only one religion? I say. No way.
This sort of thing points to the value of Pope Benedict starting a dialogue with Muslims.
Benedict’s dialogue with Islam had a sort of rough start, but that in turn has led to on-going and valuable discussions between Muslims and Catholics like those of the Intercultural Forum for Studies in Faith and Culture at the John Paul II Cultural Center in DC.
Understanding is better than ignorance and suspicion.
Firstly, I am in agreement with the notion that the government has no business saying one religious interpretation is better than another, that is up to theologians, philophers, historians etc. However, the government does have a responsibility to promote peace and security amongst the populace. A serious concern is that the government, instead of vilifying a disruptive ideology, actively promotes a (watered down?) alternative ideology within the same religious framework. It is one thing to provide an ideological framework in which religions can freely operate (without violating the laws of hate-speech, insighting violence etc) but to actively promote a view seems a violation of all sorts of law, constitutional and other.
Concerning Catholic schools here in Canada. George D is correct but does not present the situation in other provinces as education is a provincial matter. Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick to my knowledge have public funded Catholic education, and Quebec HAD public funded protestant education (in both cases to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority). I believe the public funded protestants schools have all but died out in Quebec.
But out here in British Columbia, our Catholic schools are private (actually ‘independant’) and we received 50% funding from the province along with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs or non-religious private (independant) schools. Schools which are able to raise more that a certain dollar amount per student (through tuition etc) have their government funding cut.
There has been some backlash to public support of Catholic/religious schools but for the most part we are few and fly under the radar. Many of our students (20% of the student pop) are non-catholics. Including Jews, Sikhs and Protestants. Those parents choose to send their children here because of the quality of the education, despite having to pay tuition and having the students take religion classes (which are something like classical history, literature, philosophy and ethics). In my religion 11 classes I teach a substantial unit on religions of the world. Rastafarianism and Buddhism are always popular until the students actually find out what they actually believe.
Oh Ann, out in BC (the curriculum is province based) in grade 8 our Social Studies classes have a unit on world religions in the secular provincial curriculum. I had the joy of teaching it but I prefer to teach it in grade 11 religious studies (Catholic extra-curriculum course) because they are a little older and more able to digest the subject.
Adam, nobody is advocating “a (watered down?) alternative ideology within the same religious framework.”
See Antonio Manetti’s post above.
Read my post above.
As for “vilifying a disruptive ideology” that’s not the role of government either. The government is not the thought police. Without more and better understanding of the background of the situation NOBODY is going to be able to decide on a prudent and decent course of action.
Ken,
You have your facts backwards. Pope Benedict didn’t start a dialogue with Muslims. He went out of his way to insult them. Then, they calmly persisted in calling for dialogue with him and finally after more than a year of him stonewalling their request, they succeeded in getting the rest of the world on their side and then they prevailed. Please do not pin laurels on the pope for this one, as to do so flies in the face of all the facts of the matter.
You are right that “understanding is better than ignorance and suspicion.” Thanks for that.
I knew a lot of Irish Americans back in the day who were quite supportive of Northern Aid and very pro-IRA. One of the Irish bars I hung out in held regular raffles; I remember one where the grand prize was a portrait of Bobby Sands (who I believe some people referred to as a “martyr”). I would imagine the feelings in the Arab-American community re: the Middle East is similar to how Irish Americans felt about Northern Ireland: many were sympathetic to the cause, some provided financial support and a very, very small number engaged in illegal activity. No one ever suggested a re-education program for Irish Catholics, I don’t think we need one for American muslims.
I understand Pope Benedict got off to a bit of a rough start with Muslims, but it seems that ultimately he made the best of it, and in fact managed to rise to the occassion:
http://www.acommonword.com/en/news-pope-benedict-xvi-visits-jordan/25-news/276-pope-finding-common-ground-with-muslims.html
In fact it seems the Catholic-Muslim dialogue so far has been honest and productive.
Rita, your analogies and reference to acommonword are faulty and strained at best. I just finished reading a book on Simone Weil and I am reminded of a passage from Thomas Merton’s Seven Story Mountain where in both stories we are told that each of thembelonged to a pacifist strain of communism (well supported), yet we are all aware that differing interpretations ruled the day and communism is rarely associated with pacifism today.
Just because a list of scholars, government officials, kings, princes, dictators etc. propose an alternative understanding to that of “radical” islam does not give them a monopoly on Islamic ideology and furthermore I think it is a great orientalism to assume that Islam, much like Catholicism or Judaism is monolithic in nature.
And I do think the government has a role to play in vilifying disruptive ideologies and so do you though you might not like the thought of it. One of the express goals of social studies (here in Canada) is to produce socially active good little citizens, which means ipso facto that we are indoctrinating them into a liberal democratic tradition. We deal with current events, world conflicts, environmentalism etc. with the express purpose and assumption that what we are presenting is inherently superior to the alternatives.
Hi Adam, thanks for telling me what I think. I guess that settles it, eh?
Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word “villify.” Education as polemic? That isn’t what it shoud be, istm. Explain, point out the dangers, flaws, inconsistencies, moral problems of an ideology, yes. That’s different from villifying. But then, since you already know what I think better than I do, perhaps it’s a waste of time to say so.
As for whether Osama bin Laden is a model Muslim or not, yes, a great consensus of leading scholars and religious leaders within Islam does have weight when they say that terrorism is not in keeping with the Qu’ran. It doesn’t make violent extremists go away, but it points out the fact that although they may claim their goal and means are religious, their own leaders do not accept that this is the case. Therefore, it is reasonable to look for other causes for their violent actions.
The book that I referenced, the Gallup study, is very good on this sort of question. It discusses the assumptions that lie behind a clash of civilizations vision of what is happening, and shows that they don’t hold up. I can’t reproduce the whole argument here, but it’s worth reading, really it is. It’s, I daresay, educational. And without villifying anybody! :)