Is Islam an appropriate subject to study in US universities? (no spam)

[fable]

Is Islam an appropriate subject to study in US universities?

No; let me amend that. Should university students read even a single book on Islam?

Apparently, some people don't think so, and they're the most rightwing, evangelical of Bush's supporters. You can read about it here.

I'd like to hear from somebody who can honestly justify the position of those who argue against the North Carolina University; but anybody is welcome to contribute. Just keep it civil.

[Tom]

"At the very least, it starts a dialogue," Daum said. "My feeling is that if you're not prepared to read ideas that are not your own and that you might disagree with, you do not belong at an institution of higher learning."

I could not agree more.

I find it very worrying that the university changed policy. that is the real disgrace - not that there are christian fanatics making a fuss.

[Tybaltus]

I think it would be absolutely fine to study that. I took a class called "Asian Studies" in high school. In that class we read quite a few religeous books. Namely the Quran and the Mahabharata. I found it quite enlightening, by the fact I was opening my mind to other religeons and cultures. I thought it was fine, and it sparked many good conversations.

The people commiting these bad crimes are people who claim to be following the true word and doing Islam a favor, but from what I understand, what my Islamic friends say, and I hope Fas will back me up, these people are acting completely against the Islamic religeon. Why this should be banned from school is beyond me. It is important that many peoples minds can be opened to many different cultures and religeons. They just have to be sound in thought and be responsible enough to tell right from wrong. If I am wrong, then please correct me. Because I would like to reach a full understanding of the situation, which I have not achieved.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Tom
I could not agree more.

Same here.

One could also look at it this way, say a young child of 9 comes up to a devout christian with questions about Islam and the Christian can not answer them, well the child will go off to someone who can...namely an person with knowledge of Islam who then points them in that religious direction. I personally have no problem with that, but it seems by denying the Qur'an is kind of like shooting oneself in the foot.

[Maharlika]

And why not?

Assuming of course that the intent is to understand the muslims more and not as a means to get one over them.

However, do the muslims themselves (in general) would really want that?

It maybe just a perception on my part (and I could be wrong anyway) but I get the feeling that the muslims wouldn't want to be misunderstood (and to a certain extent being made fun of) like some people do to Christians. In my country, the Muslim Filipinos are very sensitive people. There is this perception that if you insult them because of their faith it's like you just signed your own death warrant.

Just look at Christianity. Everybody has easy access to its books and as such, it is always an "easy target" when it comes to religion-bashing.

I wouldnt elaborate more on that since I'll be off-topic.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I would have thought that in light of 9/11 it was the best possible time for American university students to learn about Islam. Peace is far more likely to come through understanding than through war.
But then, extremists, be they left or right, are rarely logical or rational in their views anyway.

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I would have thought that in light of 9/11 it was the best possible time for American university students to learn about Islam. Peace is far more likely to come through understanding than through war.
But then, extremists, be they left or right, are rarely logical or rational in their views anyway.

Thats what our school did. About two or three months after 9/11 there was a day that many muslims came over to the school and had long question and answer sessions. We must have had about 20-30 speakers. It lasted all day. So they made sure that the school was a bit more educated on Islam. I thought it was a good idea.

[Sojourner]

I see what the furor is about:

But this year, the university in Chapel Hill is asking all 3,500 incoming freshmen to read a book about Islam.

They got themselves into hot water by requiring students to learn about about another [any] religion, rather than offering it as a choice. I support challenging this one, all the way.

[HighLordDave]

It sounds to me like this is a case of people who have no idea of what they're talking about making a flap over nothing or taking an opportunity to engage in some indirect Muslim-bashing.

When I was a freshman at the University of North Florida in 1991, for Western Civ I (part of the required curricula) we were assigned The Inferno by Dante and in another required class, Introduction to Philosophy, we had to read an abridged version of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. We also had to earn a certain number of credits in classes marked "Cultural Diversity", a curricula designed to get students to learn about other peoples, beliefs and ways to approach life.

If I were the president at UNC, I would strike Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations from the required reading list. I would also strike every book with the remotest Christian themes from the curricula because I wouldn't want to look like I'm promoting one religion over another. And then I'd ban all of the Christian campus groups until the Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Muslims, Secular Humanists, Aethists, Satanists, Ghost Dancers, Shintos et al have their own campus ministries.

I haven't read Approaching the Qur'an, but unless it's a bad book (ie-the author is a disreputable scholar or the research that went into it is uncredible), there's no reason for fundy Christians to be up in arms, and those who are just want something to complain about and make their digs at Islam.

[Dottie]

I think that this complain may have the same source as the anit-evolution one, A general fear of loosing followers. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but it is the only reason behind this I can come up with.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
But then, extremists, be they left or right, are rarely logical or rational in their views anyway.

I dont think rationality is conneced to extremism. However when people with extreme opinions are irrational people belonging to the mainstream have a much easier time to spot that than to spot thier own cultural-aproved irrationality

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I have to agree with HLD on this one. Whilst I still think that now is the best time possible to learn about Islam, it should not be forced onto students, and nor should any other religion.

@Dottie-In my own limited experience, extremist views rarely have a consistent rational basis. Cultural irrationalities do also exist, true, and are often no better than extremist irrationalities.

[HighLordDave]

@Sojourner:
I think it's not so much about promoting one religion over others but about requiring students to learn about current events and things around the world that affect them.

For instance, in 1994, UNF required its Freshman Core II class to read a book on D-Day for it's 50th anniversary. In 1995, freshmen were required to read the works of Kenzaburo Oe, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, to make students aware of the issues surrounding the 50th anniversary of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A university has the responsibility to expose its students to things that are out of their comfort box or that they may not have had access to otherwise. I think if you look at the enrollment in elective classes since 11 September, you'll see that interest in Islamic studies and middle eastern studies/poli-sci is up across the board, so it makes sense for a university to make a book like Approaching the Qur'an required reading.

[Sojourner]

@HLD,

I always support the study of history. However, the subject of this book, according to the author, is why people find meaning in Islam, not the historical impact of islam. As such, it is wholly appropriate to an optional comparative religions or islamic studies class, and is completely inappropriate as part of the mandatory curriculum. A public university has the responsibility to educate, and not promote the views of any one religion, which this book seems to do. Furthermore, this seems to be another ploy to have parents fork out yet more money for an already expensive education, and I would very swiftly let any university, pulling such a stunt and which my child attends, know my displeasure through its bank account.

[Gwalchmai]

Perhaps it would have been better if the university had required the reading one of a selection of a half-dozen books on Islam, ranging from the mundane historical, to political, to religious-oriented texts? That way, a choice is preserved while the topical education is promoted. Would that have been better?

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Sojourner
A public university has the responsibility to educate, and not promote the views of any one religion, which this book seems to do.

My thoughts on the matter as well.


@Gwally..

Perhaps it would have been better if the university had required the reading one of a selection of a half-dozen books on Islam, ranging from the mundane historical, to political, to religious-oriented texts?

If it's going to be required reading, I say all religions should be covered.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Tom
"At the very least, it starts a dialogue," Daum said. "My feeling is that if you're not prepared to read ideas that are not your own and that you might disagree with, you do not belong at an institution of higher learning."

I could not agree more.

I find it very worrying that the university changed policy. that is the real disgrace - not that there are christian fanatics making a fuss.

I also agree with this, and I find it worrying that the fanatic christian fundies seems to have managed to increase their influenence in society since the 9/11. Or perhaps it started earlier, with Dubbayh's administration.

Why people find a meaning in any religion, is indeed at subject worth studying at any university, in any countries.

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by Weasel
If it's going to be required reading, I say all religions should be covered.

I see your point. If their intent is to educate about religion, then I would agree. But if they only intend to educate about current events, then maybe not. But as Sojourner points out, their choice of required text may not be the best for this purpose. *shrugs*

[speedball]

I think the concessions that UNC ended up making are the way they should have approached it from the start. Requiring someone to read anything about a topic as sensitive as religion is bound to ruffle someones feathers (whether we think it is justified or not is another matter). Giving those with objections a choice protects their rights AND still helps them learn and grow.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Sojourner
As such, it is wholly appropriate to an optional comparative religions or islamic studies class, and is completely inappropriate as part of the mandatory curriculum.

According to the Daily Tar Heel Online the assignment is optional; as part of the summer reading program for incoming freshmen, students are to read Approaching the Qur'an and write a one-page summary. Students who do not wish to read the book can instead write a one-page essay explaining their objections. UNC's campus paper's coverage can be found here.

In the above article, the head of the Family Policy Network says that the opt-out option is "no option" and forces them to justify their religious beliefs and pits student groups against each other along religious lines. This is, of course, crap because the contents of each essay are confidential and it's no business of one student what another has written, only that the assignment (either reading the book or not) was completed.

It strikes me as odd that conservative Christians who do not want to be "forced" to read this book because it violates the separation of church and state are also the ones who are the most vocal supporters of keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegience.

[Ned Flanders]

Sojourner and HLD makes very good points for both sides. this certainly is a interesting dilemma because it is a class/book driven by current events.

By one standard the university wants to provide the opportunity for all students or incoming frosh the option of taking classes revolving around current events. The problem with making it optional is now you have to limit class size. This, I think, reflects poorly on the administration if they're going to have a class with readings revolving around current events which won't be available to all students. I think most parents would want their college entry child to take courses on global current events, however, if it becomes optional than there will ultimately be a percentage of students who want to take the class but cannot because it has been 'filled'.

Now you have parents and students alike upset arguing "what is the point of a current events class if I can't get in to take it?" The administration and faculty cannot possibly make an optional class with an unlimited class size. Ultimately, the class would not fill and there would be a lot of unused texts laying around.

On the flip side, if it becomes required reading to all incoming students, it is viewed as oppresive or showing favoritism. I can't argue with that; it sort of does.

The third side of the coin is to perhaps have the faculty organize/list the current events classes they'd like to have and provide surveys to all students and parents when class is not in session. This would give a pretty accurate value in how many students would take such a class when school resumed. It might be off the wall, but it is just another idea.

Believe me, I realize the amount of overhead that would go into the creation, distribution, filling out, resubmission, and interpretation of such a survey. It might even be unrealistic to propose such an idea. Ah well, it always seems the most complicated actions are what is required to pacify the masses.