Education and the growth of extremism
Thursday, June 18, 2009
By Kamila Hyat
Source: The nation
The writer is a former newspaper editor and joint director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
At forums everywhere, most notably since President Barack Obama made his speech early this month to Muslims around the world from Cairo, appealing for a new era of cooperation, there has been intensified discussion on how to tackle extremism.
In Washington, in Paris, in London – and perhaps most usefully in Cairo – there have been discussions on what tactics are required; on why extremism has waned since the Bali bombing of 2002 in Indonesia but grown in another non-Arab state, Pakistan and how issues of development play a part in this. The decision taken to launch an Islamic TV channel presenting a 'moderate' view of Islam by the Al-Azhar University seems to have stemmed from this new world focus on rooting out extremism and the terrible violence that has come with it. The channel, to be called 'Azhari', which is scheduled to go on air mid-August, could play some part at least in opening minds to less hard-line interpretations of Islam. At present, ideas presented by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's centre of Sunni learning, send even 'liberal' believers in our country into shock – so unaccustomed are we to thinking outside the narrow box imposed by incomplete religious education from clerics coupled with the dominance of orthodox thought, promoted by the state through the 1980s.
Of course in recent years a still harsher order has come under the Taliban. The assassination in Lahore of Dr Sarfraz Naeemi – a scholar who had dared to criticize the Taliban – is an example of the means they use to silence dissent. The tactics have had their impact, even though the prospect of defeat for the militants is bringing more people out in the open against them.
One of the common themes emerging from conferences and discussions on extremism is the emphasis on promoting education as a means to challenge it. Experts in particular emphasize the importance of promoting science education, as a means to encourage rational thinking and fuel progress. This would, at first glance at least, make sense. Science and orthodoxy in many ways stand at diametrical opposites; the story of Galileo, or of Darwin – whose theories remain a source of controversy in US classrooms – come to mind.
But does this hold true in Pakistan? There is a need to think harder about the issue and understand it better at a time when we need to think about pushing back extremism on all fronts. The reality is that, since the 1950s, religious forces have focused on establishing a hold on education, concentrating on institutions of learning at all levels and on the bodies that devise curriculums. At places like the Punjab University, their influence remains visible everywhere, despite some effort over the last decade to challenge it. The realization that schools, colleges and universities hold the key to creating mindsets has proved a powerful tool for these groups.
One would imagine that to push forward their line of thinking, such elements would discourage science and see a contradiction between the logic of, say, chemistry and the metaphysics involved in religion. Instead we have created a situation where at every level, science is promoted as 'superior' to the humanities; unfortunate boys and girls with no talent for physics or interest in anatomy are pushed towards a future in medicine, or engineering or computer science. Children as young as six or seven seem aware of this unsubtle pressure – the notion that science means success, and must be pursued at all costs. Older pupils suffer hours of tuition in the hope they will find their way into a medical college. Parents scoff at subjects they see as a waste of time, such as literature or politics or philosophy.
Oddly enough, our religious elements seem to have encouraged this hierarchy of learning. In many science and technological fields we see a growing dominance by people with strong religious leanings. Many excel in their fields, and deserve to be where they are, but they presence indicates a nexus between science and religious extremism. The absurd attempts made under the late General Ziaul Haq to organize science along 'Islamic' lines and present papers at moots on harnessing the energy of Jinns marked the pinnacle of such efforts in our republic.
In the past doctors and engineers have been accused of links with extremist forces. At institutions of higher education, these subjects are strongly emphasized.
What then are the lessons here? Is the fact that almost all of the 15 young men – all but one of them from Saudi Arabia – who blew themselves up in skies above the US on September 9th, 2001 had a background in science or technology in any way significant? Perhaps it is nothing more than a coincidence. But then perhaps, on the other hand, it is something to ponder over just a little more.
There are academics in the Arab world who have pointed out that science education, with other subjects omitted from the school level on, discourages wider reading, wider thought. They argue that a person who has studied literature, or another subject offering a variety of argument and of belief, is less likely to fall in the hands of extremists then someone who has little exposure to materials that lie beyond the pages of a textbook on mechanics or biology. In other words, science, within a flawed education system that discourages thinking or reading, could be encouraging the closing down of minds rather that promoting an open, more inquisitive view of the world.
Of course this is not universally true. It is without doubt something of a generalization. We have among us many women and men of science who stand out in terms of their ability and their willingness to speak for the cause of humanity and their nation. But nevertheless, as we hear people call for more focus on science in countries like Pakistan, we need to think more about the issues involved. Forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, with their websites and communication systems, have used science to their advantage. This of course in no way suggests we should discourage it. At its best, all science is creative and has a great deal to offer to the human mind. But perhaps we need also to address the bigger issues in education, the distortion that has led to an irrational focus on science and the tendency that comes with this to discourage debate and the process of thinking that should be the focal point of education.
It is time to initiate a discussion on the many aspects of extremism in our society. The fact is that it is in many ways deeply rooted within it; ideas of morality have become more and more confused; fewer and fewer people are exposed to other philosophies and other modes of thinking. If we are to change the future we are headed towards, this is a sphere that needs to be thought harder about. Otherwise we will eventually fail to halt the growth of extremism and the threat it poses to our society.
Email: Kamilahyat@hotmail.com
By Kamila Hyat
Source: The nation
The writer is a former newspaper editor and joint director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
At forums everywhere, most notably since President Barack Obama made his speech early this month to Muslims around the world from Cairo, appealing for a new era of cooperation, there has been intensified discussion on how to tackle extremism.
In Washington, in Paris, in London – and perhaps most usefully in Cairo – there have been discussions on what tactics are required; on why extremism has waned since the Bali bombing of 2002 in Indonesia but grown in another non-Arab state, Pakistan and how issues of development play a part in this. The decision taken to launch an Islamic TV channel presenting a 'moderate' view of Islam by the Al-Azhar University seems to have stemmed from this new world focus on rooting out extremism and the terrible violence that has come with it. The channel, to be called 'Azhari', which is scheduled to go on air mid-August, could play some part at least in opening minds to less hard-line interpretations of Islam. At present, ideas presented by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's centre of Sunni learning, send even 'liberal' believers in our country into shock – so unaccustomed are we to thinking outside the narrow box imposed by incomplete religious education from clerics coupled with the dominance of orthodox thought, promoted by the state through the 1980s.
Of course in recent years a still harsher order has come under the Taliban. The assassination in Lahore of Dr Sarfraz Naeemi – a scholar who had dared to criticize the Taliban – is an example of the means they use to silence dissent. The tactics have had their impact, even though the prospect of defeat for the militants is bringing more people out in the open against them.
One of the common themes emerging from conferences and discussions on extremism is the emphasis on promoting education as a means to challenge it. Experts in particular emphasize the importance of promoting science education, as a means to encourage rational thinking and fuel progress. This would, at first glance at least, make sense. Science and orthodoxy in many ways stand at diametrical opposites; the story of Galileo, or of Darwin – whose theories remain a source of controversy in US classrooms – come to mind.
But does this hold true in Pakistan? There is a need to think harder about the issue and understand it better at a time when we need to think about pushing back extremism on all fronts. The reality is that, since the 1950s, religious forces have focused on establishing a hold on education, concentrating on institutions of learning at all levels and on the bodies that devise curriculums. At places like the Punjab University, their influence remains visible everywhere, despite some effort over the last decade to challenge it. The realization that schools, colleges and universities hold the key to creating mindsets has proved a powerful tool for these groups.
One would imagine that to push forward their line of thinking, such elements would discourage science and see a contradiction between the logic of, say, chemistry and the metaphysics involved in religion. Instead we have created a situation where at every level, science is promoted as 'superior' to the humanities; unfortunate boys and girls with no talent for physics or interest in anatomy are pushed towards a future in medicine, or engineering or computer science. Children as young as six or seven seem aware of this unsubtle pressure – the notion that science means success, and must be pursued at all costs. Older pupils suffer hours of tuition in the hope they will find their way into a medical college. Parents scoff at subjects they see as a waste of time, such as literature or politics or philosophy.
Oddly enough, our religious elements seem to have encouraged this hierarchy of learning. In many science and technological fields we see a growing dominance by people with strong religious leanings. Many excel in their fields, and deserve to be where they are, but they presence indicates a nexus between science and religious extremism. The absurd attempts made under the late General Ziaul Haq to organize science along 'Islamic' lines and present papers at moots on harnessing the energy of Jinns marked the pinnacle of such efforts in our republic.
In the past doctors and engineers have been accused of links with extremist forces. At institutions of higher education, these subjects are strongly emphasized.
What then are the lessons here? Is the fact that almost all of the 15 young men – all but one of them from Saudi Arabia – who blew themselves up in skies above the US on September 9th, 2001 had a background in science or technology in any way significant? Perhaps it is nothing more than a coincidence. But then perhaps, on the other hand, it is something to ponder over just a little more.
There are academics in the Arab world who have pointed out that science education, with other subjects omitted from the school level on, discourages wider reading, wider thought. They argue that a person who has studied literature, or another subject offering a variety of argument and of belief, is less likely to fall in the hands of extremists then someone who has little exposure to materials that lie beyond the pages of a textbook on mechanics or biology. In other words, science, within a flawed education system that discourages thinking or reading, could be encouraging the closing down of minds rather that promoting an open, more inquisitive view of the world.
Of course this is not universally true. It is without doubt something of a generalization. We have among us many women and men of science who stand out in terms of their ability and their willingness to speak for the cause of humanity and their nation. But nevertheless, as we hear people call for more focus on science in countries like Pakistan, we need to think more about the issues involved. Forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, with their websites and communication systems, have used science to their advantage. This of course in no way suggests we should discourage it. At its best, all science is creative and has a great deal to offer to the human mind. But perhaps we need also to address the bigger issues in education, the distortion that has led to an irrational focus on science and the tendency that comes with this to discourage debate and the process of thinking that should be the focal point of education.
It is time to initiate a discussion on the many aspects of extremism in our society. The fact is that it is in many ways deeply rooted within it; ideas of morality have become more and more confused; fewer and fewer people are exposed to other philosophies and other modes of thinking. If we are to change the future we are headed towards, this is a sphere that needs to be thought harder about. Otherwise we will eventually fail to halt the growth of extremism and the threat it poses to our society.
Email: Kamilahyat@hotmail.com
Comments