Spreading Islam In The Academy

Prince Al Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, the world’s 19^th richest man with a net worth of $21 billion, recently gave a £16 million donation to the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh to launch two research centers for Islamic studies.  The signing ceremony was attended by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the chancellor of both universities.

The universities rank among the foremost institutions offering research on Islamic and Middle Eastern studies in the world.

Two years ago Prince Al Waleed donated $40 million to America’s Georgetown and Harvard Universities for the expansion of their Islamic studies programs.  In each instance Al Waleed has indicated that the centers are designed for constructive and critical awareness of the role Islam plays across the globe.  As he noted: “It is paramount for both Islam and the West to reach mutual ground for pro-active dialogue, respect, acceptance and tolerance.”

Presumably deeper understanding will emerge from these programs with their emphasis on “mutual understanding and cross cultural dialogue between Islam and the West.”

But here is the rub.  In all of these programs critical awareness is a one way street.  The West is supposed to understand Islam, but what remains unsaid is that Islam is not obliged to understand the West. “Mutual understanding” is a high sounding phrase that is exercised only in the breach. If tolerance is mutual as the Saudi benefactor contends, then he should put money into Muslim universities in the Middle East for an appreciation of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is already clear that British universities tolerate and promote Islamic studies.  But where is there evidence of the reverse?  Without reciprocity this emphasis on cross cultural dialogue is a sham.  Western students are supposed to understand and appreciate Islamic traditions, while the Judeo-Christian tradition is trashed as polytheistic or misguided or worse.  In fact, tolerance and Islam are largely incompatible.

It therefore seems most likely that Prince Al Waleed is donating his money to proselytize, to encourage students to gravitate to his faith.  While the study of Islam is and can certainly be a serious source of scholarship, one wonders whether that will be the case in these two recent instances or whether the British universities are merely the equivalents of Middle East Studies programs compromised by Saudi money and influence.

It is also worth asking once Prince Al Waleed has left his footprint on the major British and American universities, whether he will turn to the less well known institutions that he can buy off for a mere pittance.  He has already left his mark at Griffith College in Australia.

Money talks to academics in a most alluring way and Saudis have the money.  The extent to which Middle East Studies programs have been compromised across the United States has prompted Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Islamic studies, and Fouad Ajami to launch their own Middle East Studies Association.

The Saudi plan to use universities as a launching pad to promote religious fervor is transparent.  Obviously many scholars simply want to engage in and encourage Islamic scholarship, but that isn’t the motive of all scholars nor is it always the motive of Saudi benefactors.

  top
 

Suppose we didn’t have ivy covered buildings which house classes, suppose as well that we could start de novo in thinking about higher education.  What would we do?

Each day I educate myself on the Internet.  I learn what’s in the news, read essays from my favorite blog sites, communicate with intelligent colleagues and get the previous night’s baseball scores.  I am a student of the Internet.  In fact, I educate myself throughout the day intermittently turning to my computer for information, knowledge and, on some occasions, wisdom.

As I see it, this should be the blackboard of the future.  Imagine having an education whenever you want it unencumbered by tuition payments or class schedules.  Imagine as well having the best minds available to you without having to endure political diatribes which often substitute for honest discourse.

Of course, there are universities in cyberspace and several actually have solid curricula.  But unfortunately most ape conventional university programs and all are eager to obtain accreditation, the gateway to respectability.

What I’m daydreaming about is different.  It would be an informal university with YouTube presentations by the world’s great instructors.  Milton Friedman would be teaching economics; Pitirim Sorokin, sociology; Immanuel Kant, philosophy.  Yes, of course, they have all passed this mortal coil, but I’m sure you get my drift.

Moreover, every lecture would be accompanied by a reading list with books either read on line through “Kindle” or easily ordered through Amazon.

Should students want a degree or credential, they would go to centers where exams could be taken.  It should be as easy as buying tickets for a movie.  In fact, the centers would have interactive exams on line.

To deal with the labeling effect, honors would be conferred to students who do very well.  This would allow parents to say, Johnny graduated with “a first” in history.

University professors will claim that this is an inadequate way to learn.  Shameless as most are, they will excoriate this exercise as “matchbook degree programs,” even though these really aren’t degree programs at all.

Since most higher education is an exercise in trained incapacity, the Internet University could easily demonstrate its progeny know at least as much as students from yesteryear.  In fact, when your computer lights up and says “you have mail” it may be a lecture you really want to hear.  Now wouldn’t that be unusual.

 top

Obama As President

        

Based on everything we now know, what would America look like four years from now if Barack Obama were elected president in 2008?  Clearly this involves conjecture on my part, always a dangerous thing to do.  But based on campaign rhetoric, there are clues about an Obama presidency.

At the outset, there will be a collective sigh of relief.  Race as a campaign issue will be permanently inserted into history’s trash heap where it belongs.  In that sense, there will be justifiable rejoicing over what will be described as a new chapter in the national story.

But as is the case with all presidents, once the applause ends, action is supposed to begin.  And it will.  In order to deal with the deficit, Obama will raise taxes – a conventional Democratic response to revenue shortfall.

He will also propose to Congress the Universal Health Care program based on the proposition that everyone in the nation must be covered by health insurance and, for those who for one valid reason or another are not, the government will insure them.

But most significantly, Mr. Obama will focus on foreign policy with two overarching conditions in his telescopic lens: a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and direct negotiations with Iranian leaders over nuclear weapons.

If the Obama campaign is to be believed, troop drawndown would be completed within 18 months with the likelihood President Obama will establish a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal sometime after assuming office.

As I see it, this year and half period would be a time for the Shia militias, Iran and al Qaeda to reinforce their troops on the ground and plan a strategy for filling the military void left by the precipitous American troop withdrawal.  This action will most likely embolden the extremists who will describe America’s departure from the battlefield as an ignominious defeat that affirms the rise and traction of radical Islam. 

It will also send a message to moderate nations in the Middle East neighborhood, namely Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that they had better make a deal with Iran, the acknowledged hegeman in the region, or face a military challenge.

Mr. Obama has also indicated that he would engage in direct negotiations with Ahmadinejad about nuclear weapons and Iran’s regional role.  In fact, he noted these negotiations should occur without preconditions – an unprecedented development.

The question, of course, is what can President Obama say.  Is he prepared to accept Iran as the area’s most influential player with nuclear weapons?  Can he offer blandishments that persuade Iran to forego the nuclear option?  And if he is not persuasive, what precisely would he be prepared to do?  These questions suggest that negotiations between leaders without preconditions is unprecedented for a good reason: they cannot work and could put protagonists in a position where compromise is impossible.  Needless to say, time is on the side of the party being asked to make concessions.

As I see it, an Obama presidency (based on campaign promises) will be obliged to: raise taxes across the board, make commitments for universal health care that will put enormous pressure on the budget, orchestrate a rapid troop withdrawal from Iraq which emboldens our enemies and invites further divisions in this beleaguered nation and negotiate directly with Iran which most probably results in a Persian empire with nuclear weapons.

Of course, this is mere speculation which Obama supporters would deny or, at least, attempt to refute.  But as I listen to the campaign comments, I’m persuaded the conditions I’ve outlined are plausible, even as I pray that they don’t occur.

This thought exercise, however, should be entertained for those who oppose and those who support the senator from Illinois.  As I see it, the times in which we live and the election before us, demand nothing less.

HOME   |   RESUME   |   RECENT ARTICLE   |   PREVIOUS ARTICLES   |  
CONTACT HERB LONDON