Islamic Education, Madrassah Reform, Rationality and Dawkins

[...I think what we need to do is change the madrassah syllabus;....We need to add to it a study of the English language, physics, chemistry, biology, and of Western philosophy and of the philosophy of science and of history. ...]

Or you can put lipstick on the pig and pass it off as a horse... :)

Somethings can be reformed or tuned to fit the changing needs, somethings just have to discarded... they can not be reformed... Madrassa is one such thing... it has to be completely discarded and replaced with secular educational facilities...

Re: # 1

PS: I don`t think arabs will/can ever do it... but you pakis may have a chance, a very slim one... if you stop following the bedouins and their mediaval ``traditions``, you may have a chance to make it... atleast you guys have some precedence - the guy who founded aligarh muslim university... or even that jacka## Iqbal who had some good ideas on getting muslims educated and modernised... or even jinnah, pubh who was secular-educated...

So stop being slaves to bedouinism... follow your own traditions, your own leaders... f****d as they are - they are still better than anything bedouins have on offer... :)

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness for the community to which you belong. Before going forward let me first quote you on what you called the crux of your article:

quote

Traditional Islamic learning needs to be enhanced by the addition of modern subjects such as post-Renaissance philosophy, hard sciences, modern mathematical logic and history and IT to enable them to better understand the modern world they inhabit and thus be better equipped to lead Muslim masses and lead to an Islamic Renaissance by altering the Muslims’ medieval mindset into a modern mindset.

Unquote

In this paragraph, you have given the solution to the dismal situation of Islamic Ummah. It is the same POV that have been adopted by various recent luminaries of Islamic World right from Jamal-ud-Din Afghani of Afghanistan to Ali Shariarti of Iran, Iqbal being in the middle of this list.

This approach has been there for quite a time now, but frankly speaking has not produced any tangible results. One might argue that this is due to the fact that it has not been adopted properly, but in my point of view, this is not the case. As someone once said that faith is based on the beleif, and beleif is something that cannot be rationally proved. If it can be rationally proved, it would automatically fall within the domain of science. We may wish for such an ideal situation, but whatever growth has happened in hard sciences uptill now points to the contrary.

When this check of rationality is applied to any religion, I am sure that no religion will pass the test; be it christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion that encompass divinity in its basic set of beleifs; be it in singular form or not does not matter here.

Now once it is eslablished that no religion is immune from the onslaught of rationality and scientific thinking, then only we can move forward. The problem with our Ummah is that it is divided in two sects, and both of them have one thing in common viz that both of them beleive that Islam is in danger. One set is represented by madrassah educated people who still mentally live in thirteenth century and the other set is represented by people very well educated in contemporray disciplines but still feel the need to defend the religion. I cannot understand this defensive atitude of Ummah when they themselve know that Allah has told them that it is He who is responsible for the safekeeping of Islam and no one else.

Now coming to the fact that muslim ummah is the most backward in all spheres of life in comparison to the west. Well let us see what was the first accomplishment of western world on the basis of which this wonderfull growth took place. This in my opinion is the fact that they SEPERATED RELIGION FROM THE WORLDLY MATTERS AND REFUSED TO ACCEPT INTERFERENCE OF THE CHURCH IN SUCH MATTERS.

This is exactly the approach that we need to follow. Let us make religion a personal matter, and be secular in our worldly outlook. This is only way forward. Beleive me Islam will not be in danger, as it is not even today except in the minds of some meniacs. Take the example of christianity; it has still survived despite the fact that it has been divorced out of worldly matters.

To further emphasize my point, let me give you an example from the muslim world itself. The golden age of Islamic intellect and sciences started with abbasis khalifas and ended with the destruction of khilafat with them. Very few notable muslims scientist can be found outside this temporal period. What was in the Abbsis khalifs or some other rulers in whose domains islamic intellect and science flourished, of which we feel proud of? Well it is simple; they kept the theocracy away from state matters and promoted free thinking. Mutazzilas, the islamic skeptic group flourished under them in their days, but after them uptill our times we do not find any skeptic in our folds as they are not tolereted anymore.

So, the only way forward is to seperate theocracy from world, and make religion everyone`s personal matter.

Re: # 3

I did not touch on separation of church and state in Islam but I agree it should be separated. This is not contrary to trying to reform madrassah education though.

In fact, KRBhatti, that is what my argument is subtly advocating--by changing madrassah mindsets, you will get what you are talking about.

Re: # 4

Keep them away from worldly affairs, and they will mend themselves to survive in contemporary world. The doors of ijtehad that they have closed will remain close if they do not have any need to do so when islamic world accepts their interference. The doors of Ijtehad will open when they will realize themselves that it is them who have to amend their thinking to reconcile with current world, and not other way round.

Re: # 5

Agreed badshaho........

There are some excellent sujjestions in this article. krbhatti has written a very good rebuttal to extend the debate.

I think as time is passing a consensus is emrging among as to at least ``what to do part``. Once the majority has the consensus on destination, there is no stopping.

Oh BTW, I do recommend Dawkins` book, The God Delusion although I do not share his conclusion. The reason is that Faith, by definition, is not based on reason or any amount of intellectualisation. Reason alone cannot prove the existence of God--this is Dawkins central argument: that rationally one cannot believe in an omnipotent Creator and it is nothing new--Imam Ghazali came to this conclusion in his masterpiece al-Tuhaffat al Fulasaf (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) wherein he criticised them for trying to rationally prove God. He refuted all their arguments! Thus what Dawkins says so eloquently is nothing new for Muslims--well, those of us who know a little bit of Islamic intellectual history. Only his conclusion is contested since he doesn`t admit or accept anything beyond rationality. Ghazali`s answer to this dilemma was to seek for God not with the mind but with the heart: mystical experience--which is completely individual and subjective.

I believe such an approach would also solve the problem of Islam and politics (Ghazali was actively passive and apolitical) and also stem the flow of Wahabism which only flourishes in intellectual aridity. BTW, they despise Imam Ghazali!

Re: # 9

You have recommended the book, but your comments tell me that it will not make me any more smarter.

cheers

Re #3, krbhatti,

The reason some muslims oppose secularization is that they fear that personalization of religion is equivalent to its trivialization. They want to avoid the fate of Christianity in the west. Sure Christianity still exists in the West. But it is only a peripheral force. Western civilization can no longer be called Christian civilization. They want to avoid this outcome in the Islamic world.
Of course, for some other muslims such an outcome is entirely desirable.

Asif Sahib, isn’t that a bit of elitist thinking to say that any Ijtihad or revision to be done by the “educated few”? That in my opinion has been the problem with Islam from the beginning that it has been concentrated in the hands of the few, mostly by force. 50% of the population doesn’t even count (i.e., non-man population). If you count homosexuals, that is another 10% or so exclusion.

Back to your Madrassah suggestion, why do you think that anyone should enroll in a Madrassah to study sciences and philosophy? Someone really has to be a complete knucklehead to go to a Madrassah to study physics or Nietzsche. Islam is totally not compatible with sciences (particularly the sciences dealing with evolution). Education and Islam do not go hand in hand. Never have, never will. The are best left at parallel, each going its own way. Banging one’s head 5 times a day has nothing to do with aerodynamics or satellite communications. Look at Jews for example, they don’t teach sciences in their religious Madrassas, and only study Torah and Talmud in their Yashivos. For sciences and philosophy, they go to Universities.

Maddrassah should stay as they are. Ideally, there should be co-ed Madrassahs so that these jokers will grow up to learn to treat women with respect.

Re: # 11

Abbasi era is still called islamic civilization; in fact the representative part of islamic civilization despite the fact that religion and state were seperate. Secondaly, why one should be bothered about what others label him with, when he knows that whatever he is doing is better for him.

I don`t apologise for being an elitist. To reform any system you have to understand it first--this is the problem with Wahabism: anyone`s opinion is valid!

I`m not saying that Muslims shouldn`t learn modern subjects, secular subjects outside the madrassah too. The point was that since the ulama have always been important in Islamic societies, if they become modernised in mindset, then the masses will follow. Leading by example.

``Faith, by definition, is not based on reason or any amount of intellectualisation.

Reason alone cannot prove the existence of God--this is Dawkins central argument: that rationally one cannot believe in an omnipotent Creator and it is nothing new--Imam Ghazali came to this conclusion in his masterpiece al-Tuhaffat al Fulasaf (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) wherein he criticised them for trying to rationally prove God.

He refuted all their arguments! Thus what Dawkins says so eloquently is nothing new for Muslims--well, those of us who know a little bit of Islamic intellectual history.``(Naqsh)

well said Naqsh miaN well said -- what Ghazali said and what Dawkin repeats nasah may summarize in one couplet:

``aqle sey balaa-e tur ek kaifiiat tayraa wajood
hai sumajh nay kee nu baat ur hai nu sumjhaa nay kee baat

God is a therapeutic delusion -- when used as an analgesic balm....

Re #13,

Well, it was not as separate as today`s secular West. All law was Islamic law with Islamic jurists in charge. The Caliph still saw himself as Ameer-ul-momineen. All the free-thinking took place within an Islamic umbrella.
I am not sure I understand your 2nd point.