 TEACHING ISLAM TODAY: CURRENT
ARTICLES |
Title:
Let me teach RE, not someone’s
ideology!
-Reflections on How
Multicultural Concerns have been Shaping Religious Education.
By P. Moran
Introduction:
The first part of this article celebrates
the contribution of multiculturalism to RE and explains something of the
intellectual nature of RE as a subject with a rational underpinning, open to
and encouraging critical thinking and evaluation. It then suggests that when it
comes to multicultural issues, RE materials can sometimes compromise the
rational integrity of RE. The second part offers a critique of a popular
approach to a sensitive and important topic in multi-faith RE; the status of
women in Islam. It questions whether such teaching pedagogies in any religion
really do justice to the religions which they claim to represent.
Let me teach RE, not someone’s
ideology!
-Reflections on How
Multicultural Concerns have been Shaping Religious Education
The first part of this article
celebrates the contribution of multiculturalism to RE and explains something of
the intellectual nature of RE as a subject with a rational underpinning, open
to and encouraging critical thinking and evaluation. It then suggests that when
it comes to multicultural issues, RE materials can sometimes compromise the
rational integrity of RE. The second part offers a critique of a popular
approach to a sensitive and important topic in multi-faith RE; the status of
women in Islam. It questions whether such teaching
pedagogies in any religion really
do justice to the religions which they claim to represent.
1.
MULTICULTURALISM AND NON-CONFESSIONAL
RE
Multiculturalism still in Progress
Though decades have passed since its entry onto the RE scene, at the start of a new millennium few would argue that multicultural education in British schools is still at a formative stage of development. The tendency to focus on exotic elements in a kind of 'cultural tourism' (sometimes labeled imaginatively "the three S's"- Saris, Samosas and Steel Bands) shows no sign of abating; neither does the temptation to simply tack multicultural elements onto a monocultural curriculum often in the form of RE. On the positive side however, many schools have implemented numerous effective multicultural initiatives, and there has long been an understanding that in order to avoid unwittingly re-enforcing racist stereotypes through the 'paternalistic' overtones of marginalised or exotic approaches, all multicultural initiatives must be part of a thoroughgoing anti-racist policy. Moreover, the early abandonment of the assimilationist approach in favour of the recognition that the cultural, religious and linguistic identities of minority children need to be developed was a major leap which still needs to be built upon.
In teaching a
multicultural subject, the multi-faith Religious Education teacher (meaning
here simply those who strive to objectively teach more than one religion)
has a natural forum from which to explicitly address attitudinal problems as
well as intellectual issues and positively 'promote respect, understanding and
tolerance for those who adhere to different faiths' (DES, 1989, 3). This
ability to influence pupils' attitudes in an decidedly positive direction is a
great opportunity afforded by the multi-faith and non-confessional nature of
RE. But anti-racist, anti-sexist and equal opportunities agendas should not be
confused with the underlying purpose of RE. The fact that they still often are
means that it is a point worth making. It has become almost instinctive, for
instance, for the RE teacher to begin justifying her subject with an
enunciation of these goals. But if breaking down racial and cultural barriers
is the primary purpose of the subject, then perhaps multi-faith RE is not the
best way to achieve this. For it has been observed by members of some
minorities that a multi-faith approach can inadvertently focus the attention of
pupils and teachers away from dealing with their own attitudes and perceptions
(Neguib 1985, 17; Fry 1986, 108). There is admittedly no simple way of defining
the primary purpose of RE and it will differ from teacher to teacher, but
unless it begins with some recognition of the importance of the religious,
aesthetic and spiritual aspects of education, and the importance of religion
and religious questions to human life and culture, it surely sells itself
short.
A Phenomenological Underpinning
It should be
recognized that the move from confessional to a non-confessional educational
type of RE with its phenomenological base has provided the context of
'epoche’ (
'bracketing out': the ability to
lay aside one's own particular preconceptions) necessary to teach multi-faith
RE. That is, the kind of empathy which guards against a cold anti-dogmatism or
a neutrality which stands aloof and which aims at developing an 'imaginative
knowledge' of what it means to belong to a particular religion (Leech, 1989).
It is within this wider context that the qualities of respect and tolerance can
be developed, and racial and cultural stereotypes challenged. Ironically, this
so-called 'secular' philosophical base which makes the fair teaching of
different faiths and life-stances possible is what so often comes under attack
from adherents to those faiths. In so far as this is a criticism of an inherent
danger of this type of RE; to treat all religions as equal and thereby convey
that they are all equally untrue, the attack is certainly justified. But as an
open-ended quest for answers to life's 'big questions' it is sometimes not
understood that this approach does not mitigate against firmly held
convictions. It only requires that they be held openly
Fostering Critical Skills in RE
It can also be asserted with a great deal of conviction that nurturing a healthy spirit of inquiry and critical openness (Watson, 1987, 40ff) is a sine qua non of teaching multi-faith RE, and it is this goal of enabling the children to think for themselves rather than to think as we do which the RE teacher rightly shares in common with teachers of other subjects. We can call this the 'educational' aim of RE; where it is recognized that a critical attitude is essential to the search for truth. The phenomenological approach permits this provided that skepticism or, preferably 'critical affirmation' is reasoned and intelligent and causes no offense to the members of whatever faith are involved. Brenda Watson describes the difference between the two as 'I assume she is trustworthy unless evidence suggests that she is not' (critical affirmation) as opposed to 'I assume that she is untrustworthy unless she can prove she it trustworthy' (skepticism) (ibid., 32). In the interests of education, many would go further and say along with Hill that pupils should be actively 'encouraged to develop skills of critical examination and evaluation; particularly with respect to religious belief-claims and derivative moral values' (Hill 1990, 134ff).
Having celebrated something of the unique framework which makes proper study of a variety of Religious beliefs and practices possible, we could state that the multi-faith RE teacher, along with other subject teachers has a desire to promote genuine and ongoing multicultural concerns, but has a desire to do so through examining religions using all the tools offered by a liberal education; not least the skills of knowledge, real understanding and evaluation. At this point I will pose a question:
Are there certain areas where the multicultural concerns of RE teachers are directly impinging on their interests in fostering a certain reasoned objectivity and a spirit of critical inquiry in their students?
As the aim of this brief study is to provoke thought and debate, I will seek to answer this question with reference to a popular topic in a British religion which, in my opinion, suffers most from a lack of teaching pedagogy which supports the liberal ideals mentioned above. As a committed RE teacher with a genuine respect for the traditions of the six (numerically) major world religions my aim is to treat each with parity and encourage the same attitude of respect and critical reflection in my students. Many colleagues share my view that this aim is too often hampered by ideologies paraded as good RE.
At the start of what is hopefully a new era of effort to improve the quality of RE I would suggest that the time has come to distinguish the good from the bad in RE. After all, poor quality RE not only harms the education of students but does a grave injustice to adherents of all religions who are increasingly able to separate ideals from realities with critical insight. Teaching materials which assume that students of Christianity can critically evaluate that tradition but which assume that students of say, Islam need to be patronised with oversimplifications and, too often, rhetoric, not only ignore the rich diversity of the Islamic tradition but are in serious danger of giving the impression that the latter tradition is not quite mature enough for the same level of thinking; that it cannot operate on the same level as its ‘superior’ cousin? Such materials are, in my experience, too numerous to mention and it would be too easy to analyse any number which exemplify this well-meaning but condescending and hopefully outlived approach (some of Joe Jenkins’ contributions to Heinemann’s popular ‘Moral Issues’, or the Islam section of the popular ‘Apects of Religions’ CD-ROM etc.). Rather, I will turn to a pedagogy set forth in a past edition of this journal as it allows us to see the ideological framework underlying the approach more clearly, promising as it did at the time to offer a more informed and scholarly way forward for the teacher.
2 ANTI-SEXISM AND ISLAM
There are a number of books by Muslim women on the market at the moment which, given the desirability of countering the Western stereotype of Islam as an androcentric and chauvinistic religion, may be said to contain material useful for the RE classroom. These writers present the general argument that contrary to Western prejudices, Islam offers real equality to women but that this equality is simply expressed in a different way. Now as a multi-faith RE teacher I believe strongly that this is a much needed line of argument to counter part of a whole host of deep seated western prejudices against the veil and the whole status of women in Islam. But I face a real dilemma which is best explained in the following analysis. As mentioned, an article which appeared in this journal on anti-sexism and Islam by David Tombs (1990) recommended a possible approach and is worth discussing both because it may represent a typical use of sources and because it raises so many important issues connected with the RE teacher's treatment of sensitive multicultural topics.
The Argument
Tombs sees his own article as arguing that 'since teachers are obliged not to reproduce sexist bias in religions in an uncritical way they should use more positive material from mainstream traditions in Islam’ (1990, 73) His affirmation of the need for a critical use of teaching material in the interests of contemporary polemic (i.e. the multicultural agenda) is a point which we shall come back to. But by way of a brief outline we can begin by saying that his article commences with an exposition of what has in recent years become the standard Muslim feminist argument about the benefits of Islam for women: historical Islam, in contrast to the barbarism of the Jahilliya (the pre-Islamic 'Age of Ignorance') brought women liberation and certain legal rights (e.g. inheritance, the limitation of polygamy and the prohibition of prostitution) which they had never previously enjoyed. Women under Islam are guaranteed their own 'spiritual and intellectual independence' and 'security and freedom'. An integral part of this polemic is the contrast of the equanimity and respect which Islam grants to women with their exploitation as sexual objects in Western (or sometimes 'Christian') societies. This point has become enormously influential amongst British Muslim girls and women and is now given as the rational justification for the veil and some degree of sexual segregation. We should note in passing that Tombs offers no critique of these arguments.
Going on with his exposition of the work of various Muslim women 'scholars'- dominated by Azizah al-Hibri's arguments (1982) Tombs notes the influence of the great Muslim women Khadijah, 'Aisha and Fatima on Islamic history and mentions their obvious value as role models for Muslim girls. Following al-Hibri, he calls for a 'reexamination' of Hadith authority on the basis of a single Hadith ('report') which has Muhammed instructing Muslims to 'take half of their religion' from his wife 'Aisha. Implicit is the challenge which this represents to patriarchal Islamic religious authority and the un-Islamic exclusion of women from participating in that authority. Finally, Tombs virtually ignores the Qur'an's view on the basis that its pronouncements on women can be interpreted one way or another. But following al-Hibri, he offers a single quotation from it (Q3:159) which supposedly recommends the equal treatment of women.
Again, few RE teachers would argue about the need for a presentation of Islam which not only doesn't reinforce traditional sexist stereotypes but seeks to redress them with good arguments which stress the equality and potential contribution of Muslim women to British society. There is also a need for such arguments to come from within the faith community, if they are not going to be counterproductive, insensitive and condemnatory. This is increasingly being seen as the only way of upholding the multicultural objective of providing children with continuity and stability rather than threat and conflict. So the busy RE teacher, inevitably dependent upon secondary sources, would probably feel that however imperfect the arguments of mbs and the Muslim feminists, they may be taught on the basis of such important considerations.
The Need for 'Scholarly' Objectivity
Here I am afraid that I am forced to disagree. Though for the multicultural reasons outlined earlier I would love to counter prevalent anti-Islamic stereotypes and misconceptions by teaching my students this line of argument as a well-founded and Islamic one, I cannot. I would in fact go further and argue that there are so many flaws in this line of polemic that it would be unwise and even misleading to give it any educational credence. The following may apply to many assumptions which RE teachers make about the Islamic tradition in the light of anti-sexist reinterpretations:
(i)
History
.
The
'potted history' of Islam's supposed introduction of women's rights is
problematic: it is both simplistic and inaccurate. Even other Muslim women
feminist writers admit this. The late Nabia Abbot, a scrupulous scholar,
maintained that Muhammed basically accepted 'the honored position that the free
Arab woman had enjoyed in Pre-Islamic Arabia', while also initiating some
reforms on their behalf (1942). The Moroccan Sociologist Fatima Mernissi points
to the Pre-Islamic custom of a married woman having the right to dissolve the
marriage before its consummation by simply uttering a formula to her husband
(1975) and according to a number of Hadith, Muhammed himself was repudiated in
this fashion by certain tribal women (Ibn-Sa’ad 8:106; Ibn Ishaq, 79).
This is without even beginning to mention the evidence from Western Islamic
Scholars. For example, W. Montgomery Watt (Bell and Watt) maintains that there
is evidence of polyandry in pre-Islamic Arabia 'in which a woman had several
husbands and physical paternity was neglected'. So the four wives permission
(Q4:3) is both an attempt to deal with the problem of surplus women and a
limitation of women to one husband at a time
(1970,
164)
.
It
would be more apt to call the kind of interpretative history taken seriously by
many Muslim writers 'devotional polemic' since it reinterprets history with the
aim of supporting conclusions already made rather than from an interest in the
history itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with a 'devotional' type of
history, so long as it is not confused with what is normally understood as
history in western education and academia.
(ii)
Method.
The dependence of
this polemic upon a stereotyped and- some might say prejudiced view of the
'exploited' predicament of western women is unfortunate but not a serious
problem in the West; only for the reason that its target (in western countries)
is not a minority. For those tackling inverted forms of racism in their schools
I would suggest it is a particularly unhelpful form of prejudice. However, the
deeper problem lies in the fallacy of presenting only the Islamic ideal and
contrasting it with the perceived western secular-or sometimes
‘Christian’ reality. Muslim writers who deal in the realities of the
Islamic world are hard to find, and it should be noted that the reiteration of
religious ideals is part and parcel of all conservative elements in religious
traditions.
(iii)Role-Models.
The subject of the
Prophet's wives and their use as role-models for Muslim girls is not so
straightforward as it seems. Again, it is essential to distinguish between a
polemical rereading of the Islamic Hadith and what the Hadith
actually say in the cold light of objectivity. A number of 'reports'
portray Muhammed's wives as 'ordinary women' and contain detailed anecdotes
about their domestic rivalry and mutual jealousies (Stowasser 1992) It is
thought that this line of tradition was maintained by Medieval Muslim
Traditionists because it was constant with their view of women's lower nature.
At any rate, it sits uneasily both with modern Muslim polemic and with the
other strand of tradition- which pictures Muhammed's wives as divinely chosen
individuals blessed with miraculous dreams in usual hagiographic style. But the
majority of reports emphasize their exemplary morality and their 'struggle to
implement and safeguard Islamic norms and values' (op. cit. 19). It is
essential to understand exactly how they were held up as models to be emulated.
For these traditions focus on their modest comportment in public and private
life; their quiet obedience to God and His Prophet; their scrupulous attention
to veiling and, later in their lives seclusion (op. cit. 20ff). The 'Aisha
traditions can only be properly understood in this wider context.
For 'Aisha was very much the exception to the rule. After Muhammed's death she played a leading role in the opposition movement against the succession of 'Ali- the Prophet's grandson- as Caliph and was instrumental in the Sunni-Shi'a division. But her part in this political struggle and the 'battle of the Camel' in 656 CE is not regarded as paradigmatic in the Hadith. Rather, she is portrayed as regretting bitterly her involvement in these events and passing her final day wishing that she had been 'a blade of grass,...a leaf,...a tree,...a stone,...a clump of mud,...not a thing remembered' (Ibn Sa’ad 8:51-52). So far as the Islamic Hadith is concerned, 'Aisha's behaviour in these events was clearly outside the established Islamic norms of female conduct. It should also be added that the remarkable achievements in the lives of 'Aisha and her fellow wives were made possible because of their elevated status in the Islamic community as wives of the Prophet and 'Mothers of the Believers'. The absence of unconnected females from the pages of early Muslim history is an indication that such achievements were culturally very difficult for ordinary Muslim women.
The Qur'an also consolidates the unusual status of Muhammed's wives with important legal distinctions: Their punishment for any unseemly conduct is to be double that accorded to ordinary believing women and they are told (by God) to stay in their houses and not to wear pagan jewelry (Q30:30). In marriage Muhammed is accordingly granted many concessions with the refrain
"..a privilege for thee only, not for the rest of the believers." (Q33:50)
And believers are explicitly warned not 'to cause annoyance to the Messenger of Allah, nor to ever marry his wives after him.' (Q33:53)
Mistaking modern polemic with 'mainstream Islam', Tombs confuses the two and fails to see exactly where the polemic is coming from. It should be clear that the feminist Muslim writers on which he bases his article have begun with an idea and tried to fit the evidence to it using 'pick-and-choose' hermeneutics. That Ms. al-Hibri can call for a 're-examination of the hadiths' in the light of only one solitary tradition (see Tombs 1990, 71) is ironic, but that she goes on to call for the addition of 'one more school' of Islamic thought (i.e. the feminist) to the historical five on this basis is rather idealistic, to say the least.
(iv)The
Qur'an.
After recognising
that the Qur'an 'remains the ultimate source of appeal in Islam', Mr Tombs
virtually ignores it. One would have thought in the light of its authority and
the fact that present-day Islam enjoins little freedom for anything but a
literal and absolute interpretation, that the Qur'an would have been a natural
starting point. But perhaps the reason for this lack of attention is the fact
that the Qur'an's reforms on behalf of women which support 'politically
correct' concerns seem to be overshadowed by stipulations like the
following:
"Men are the managers of the affairs of women, for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over the other, and for that they have expended their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches and beat them..."(Q4:34)
Muslim women are to generally 'lower their gaze and guard their modesty'; 'not display their beauty or ornaments'; and 'draw their veils over their bosoms' (Q24:31). But more importantly, according to the Qur'an and enforced in Islamic Law, the female can only inherit half of the male's portion. ‘To the male, a portion equal to that of two females.... ‘(Q4:11) as the Qur'an puts it. And similarly problematic in a western context is the fact that in the Islamic courts of law a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's, and that where a male witness to a business transaction is unavailable, two female witnesses may be substituted (Q4:34).
In passing it should be said that without being equipped with an understanding of some of the ways in which culture overlaps with religion I am, of course, not suggesting that students tackle such seemingly negative injunctions in isolation from postive ones. This applies naturally to the use of all scriptures to provoke discussion on contemporary moral issues.
Returning to our analyis, Mr. Tombs, quoting Ms. al-Hibri, does give one verse from the Qur'an which he thinks indirectly encourages the equal treatment of women, but it is actually a misquote. Q3:159 does not refer either to the Qur'anic doctrine of naskh or specifically to women at all, but to Muhammed's army. This can be seen both from its context and from the gender of the pronouns. It comes in the Qur'an as part of Allah's speech to Muhammed following his defeat at the battle of Uhud in Jan 625CE. (Q3:121ff) Put back in its context, the verse reads as follows:
And if you (the Muslim soldiers) are slain or die in the way of Allah, Forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. And if you (Soldiers) die or are slain, Lo! It is unto Allah that you are brought together. It is part of the mercy of Allah that you (Muhammed) deal gently with them (the Soldiers). Had you (Muhammed) been severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you: So pass over (their faults) and ask for forgiveness for them... [my italics] (Q3:157-9)
I draw attention to this type of interpretive error because it is so common in RE teaching material. In this case this is an unfortunate error since there are passages in the Qur'an referring specifically to the fair treatment of women. The right to inheritance, for example, can be interpreted as ensuring Muslim women some economic security. Also, in Q4:19 Muslims were 'forbidden to inherit women against their will' and also forbidden to take back the dowry 'if ye decide to take one wife in place of another’. This hopefully highlights the somewhat widespread problem of an unselective and uncritical dependence upon secondary sources in area with which few RE teachers are familiar.
In conclusion, it could be argued that it is highly disputable whether the Qur'an advocates women's rights- at least as understood in the West, and that historically speaking, feminist Muslim concerns only came about as a reaction to this Century's emancipation of women in Western and then in Middle Eastern and Asian countries and its concomitant challenge to the position of women in Islam.
Anti-Sexist Indoctrination?
I hope it has become clear through the examination of a popular recommended teaching approach that there is a very real conflict between multicultural concerns to give an ideologically healthy picture of a religion (here an anti-sexist one) and the necessity of portraying a religion in as objective terms as possible; as it is actually described in its sources. Moreover, to suggest that a polemical view of that religion's history is actually the mainstream view of Muslims worldwide as Tombs does may be more desirable, but is educationally unsound according to the liberal principles and goals outlined earlier. This is precisely my dilemma: to what extent is it legitimate for an RE teacher to distort for good ideological motives the religious tradition which he or she is supposed to be conveying to pupils in an unbiased phenomenological framework? For myself, this is a major question for RE at the start of the new millennium. I recently heard of a Christian RE teacher supposed to be dealing with general Islamic history who chose to focus on the Crusades in a defensive fashion; an approach which would rightly receive the sharpest condemnation from most RE teachers. To put the question another way, I wonder how seriously an approach to other current concerns like the Environment as part of a GCSE syllabus would be taken if the RE teacher covered only the positive effects of the Christian tradition on green issues? True, there is no pressing reason to do so with Christianity- and it would be counterproductive anyway. But is distorting the portrayal of a religious tradition in a multiculturally favourable direction any more justifiable? Isn’t the most important reason for being wary about all such approaches the fact that they do nothing to enable the students to think for themselves and smack of indoctrination rather than education? For when he or she stops giving both sides of an argument and ignores the skills of personal assessment and evaluation, the RE teacher stops educating and starts doing something else.
The Good and the Bad
Being dependent upon secondary sources for material concerning largely unfamiliar territory puts the RE teacher (to some extent like other teachers) in a particularly vulnerable position. But the solution is always to take care to be a little more widely read than usual. Then it would become clear, for instance where our chosen topic is concerned, that feminist Muslim writers are still regarded very much as fringe rather than mainstream in the Islamic world. More importantly, bad feminist arguments could thereby be distinguished from good ones. The scholarly approach of Nabia Abbott, for example, can be highly recommended as an excellent expression of Muslim femenism because she takes the Islamic Tradition seriously and portrays 'Aisha's life in a semi-fictitious style which does not pretend to be authoritative history (1942). Rather than trying to squeeze out of Islamic sources highly tenuous arguments which would provide pupils with a poor basis for developing their own views, as well giving a poor example of critical exegesis, it seems that there is at the moment a very consistent line of argument for an anti-sexist Islam (noted in passing by Tombs). That is the recognition of some improvements in the status of women with the coming of Islam and a developmental view of the tradition which sees these improvements as merely a beginning which Allah intended to lead eventually to the full equality of women. The fact that few Muslim women writers are prepared express this view is not surprising given the virtually unanimous condemnation amongst Muslim authorities of any suggestion that the Qur'an and the Sunna do not provide a divine blueprint good for all societies at all times. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate view from withinIslam which, if handled sensitively, could be a useful way of highlighting the tensions between liberal and traditional ways of looking at religions without misrepresenting liberal views as mainstream, an analysis which all teachers of Islam from KS4 should undertake with their students anyway.
CONCLUSION
We have looked at an area in the teaching of RE in the multi-faith classroom to illustrate how eagerness to fulfill the requirements of good multicultural policies can lead the teacher into adopting some educationally suspect pedagogies with little critical reflection. I hope that I have in no way given the impression that RE cannot make a great contribution to multicultural education and existing equal opportunities policies; as I have already noted, this contribution was taken as a priori. The issue was rather one of how to implement such policies; a matter of teaching approaches. The too few pointers I have made within the scope of this short article may direct the teacher to the kind of alternative approach which attempts to fulfill multicultural goals without compromising the liberal educational basis of non-confessional RE. The topic and religion was deliberately chosen because it is a popular topic and a sensitive area which many RE teachers continue have a genuine concern to do justice to and yet which is seldom discussed for fear of giving offense. It is certainly hoped that the preceding analysis will not do that but will provoke healthy and positive debate on whether it is time to free each religion taught in the classroom from a sometimes overbearing but well-intentioned multicultural nanny.
I would like to end with a few more points which might be found useful for RE teachers:
(i)
Ideals and
Realities.
The concept of
'ideals and realities' to describe two different ways of looking at a religion
may be a helpful distinction to use in RE when presenting the views of any
religious tradition and may avoid confusion. When used with reference to Islam,
it should also be readily explained as a non-pejorative category also used by,
for example the respected Muslim scholar Seyyid Hossein Nasr (1966).
(ii)
'Critical
Method'.
In teaching Muslim
and pupils from other conservative traditions it should not be overlooked that
there may be a need to explain a critical method of study. As John Shepherd
remarked some time ago;
"But certainly for European Muslims- and that is what they are becoming- it is important that they should at least understand what we, as non-Muslims, think (about the Qur'an, for example) and why we think it. For it is amongst us that they will from now on be leading their Muslim lives."
There could well be an inability amongst Muslim pupils to understand that descriptions of Islam which involve realities as well as ideals are given for reasons of scholarly objectivity and according to the phenomenological requirements of the curriculum; not from a desire to denigrate or undermine Islam. If the ideal of holding religious beliefs openly and with some ability to explain them rationally is alien, then it and the educational rationale behind it should be outlined.
(iii) On
Being Widely Read.
The increasing
emphasis of SCAA upon the model of presenting a faith from within- as it is
understood by its adherents- presents RE with enormous problems; not least the
practical one of a shortage of specialists. But it need not be seen as an
entirely negative move, as many feel that it is about time that the various
truth-claims of religions were taken seriously and that their differences
(which are often as important to adherents as their similarities) not minimised
or ignored in order to fit them into a thematic framework. However, if it means
that there is increased pressure to represent the views of various
organisations and interest groups under a naive assumption that they all agree
anyhow and that one is therefore representing say, 'the Islamic view', then
there is a real danger of misrepresenting fringe or radical views as sentiments
shared universally by the members of that religion. A simple safeguard against
this is for the RE teacher to be widely read enough to be able to distinguish
'mainstream views' form ones less well accepted within the wider faith
community.
REFERENCES
Abbot, N (1942), Aisha the
Beloved of Muhammed 1st ed. 1942 pub. Al-Saqi Books.
(1942) ‘Women and the State in Early Islam’, Journal of
Near Eastern
Studies
I, 1942.
Al-Hibri, A (1982) Women in Islam (Pergamon, Oxford)
DES Circular (1989), No. 3.
Fry, C (1986) ‘RE: A Racist
Subject’. BJRE Vol 8 no 2 Spring 1986 p. 108.
Hill, B V (1990) ‘Will and Should the Religious Studies Appropriate to Schools in a Pluralistic Society Foster Religious Relativism?’ BJRE Vol 12 no.3 Summer 1990.
Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat 8: 100-4 (various editions).
Leech, AJH (1989) ‘Another Look at Phenomenology and Religious Education’ BJRE Vol II no.2, p70.
Mernissi, F (1975) Beyond the Veil (Cambridge Mass. : Schenkman 1975) pp19-20.
Nasr, S H (1966) Ideals and
Realities of Islam.. (London, George Allen & Unwin).
Neguib, M (March 1985) ‘Resources for the Teaching of Islam- A Discussion of Problems of Production and Use’ Research Paper no. 25. Birmingham: Centre for the Study of Christian-Muslim Relations. p. 17.
Shepherd, J J (1987) 'Islam and Religious Education in England: Religious Education in a Multi-Religious Society'. Research Paper no. 33, March 1987. Birmingham: Centre for the Study of Islam and Chritian-Muslim Relations. p.20.
Stowasser, B (1992) ‘The Mothers of the Believers in the Hadith’,The Muslim World Vol. 82, Jan-Apr 1992 no.s 1-2. pp9-11.
Tombs, D
(1990)
‘Anti-Sexism and Teaching Islam’ BJRE Vol 12 no.2 Spring
1990.
Watson, B (1987) Education and
Belief. (Blackwell) pp40f.
Watt, W M. in Bell & Watt,
(1970) Introduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh University
Press)
p.164.
This document maintained by
Paul Moran Material Copyright © 2000 {Paul Moran}
Please tell us what you think about this! Agree? Disagree? Your replies will be posted. Go to Messages
|
|
|||||||||||||||
