The above-titled piece authored by Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa was published on page 25 of the Daily Trust edition of Friday November 25, 2011. It was indeed an article too important to be ignored. The rejoinder to it by this column has no any motive apart from the fact that as Muslims (to whom the piece was generally directed), and being part of those privileged to have access to this medium of information (and by extension interaction); we owe it a duty to react in the most enlightened manner to issues that concern Islam as well as its teaching and practice.
One is prompted to respond to the piece for two reasons. First, to clarify some of the issues that are misleading to the reading public because of the misrepresentations inherent in them. Second, to properly educate readers as well as the writer on the need to acknowledge and respect specialization as such would enhance better understanding of the issues.
It is evident from the general argument of the piece that the author had so much to say about the state of the two teaching subjects of Arabic and Islamic Studies in schools in addition to other issues relating to the practice of Islam in Nigeria about which he felt very much disappointed, perhaps, due to his deep concern as a Muslim. Unfortunately, he failed to sufficiently organize his thoughts, which in my opinion, led to some sweeping statements that seek to indict “Arabic/IRK experts”. Blames were “erroneously” placed where they did not really belong. Indeed, if the views expressed were actually organized, the writer could have produced three remarkable articles on: (1) Challenges confronting Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Nigeria educational system; (2) Challenges relating to “disproportionate” legal opinions on contemporary issues (fatawah) in Nigeria; and (3) Unbecoming attitude of modern Muslim scholars.
For the sake of clarification, “Islamic Religious Knowledge” in the teaching curriculum of schools in Nigeria (from basic level to university) has been replaced with the nomenclature “Islamic Studies”. Similarly, Arabic and Islamic Studies which throughout the piece were written as “Arabic/IRK” are two separate school subjects with peculiar areas of knowledge and curriculum contents. They have their peculiar challenges and should have been treated separately. Islamic Studies, for instance, has more number of periods in a week than Arabic language. While Islamic Studies has a curriculum developed for it at all levels for the past four decades, Arabic had a curriculum at the primary level for the first time only in 2007. The Arabic curriculum developed for secondary schools in 1982 did not enjoy any review until after 25 years in 2007 when it should have undergone at least five review exercises.
The opening paragraph of the piece reads “…Nigerian officials at all levels allude…blaming some Islamic Religious Knowledge and Arabic language contents as the source of religious extremism”. Government through the relevant agency is solely responsible for developing curriculum for all teaching subjects in our schools. It would seem ridiculous therefore for government officials to think of the curriculum developed and approved by government as the source of extremism.
Paragraph four of the piece reads in part “…Nigerian Arabic/IRK experts and educationists have not done enough to update the contents taught in schools so as to reflect our peculiar social circumstances and by implication produce relevant experts., who in addition to their expertise in Arabic/IRK could easily fit in to the country’s mainstream labour market and indeed engage in all other profitable enterprises…”. The writer continues in another paragraph “…because they are largely employable only in Arabic/IRK teaching jobs and/or shari’ah/judiciary…” One, the “Arabic/IRK experts” and “educationists”, no matter how passionate they feel about the two subjects do not have any authorization to review or “update” curriculum contents. The government agency statutorily charged with that responsibility is the Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC).
Two, the argument that the curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” have failed to produce “relevant experts who can engage in all other profitable enterprises” is, in my opinion, a mistaken perception. The basic components of the secondary school curriculum of Islamic Studies, which for instance include Qur’an; Hadith, Jurisprudence (Fiqh); Belief (Tawheed); Islamic history (Sirah) and moral education (Tadhib) are not aimed at training students of Islamic Studies who would graduate to work on construction sites as engineers, in media houses as journalists, in the hospitals as nurses or health workers, or in financial institutions as accountants; because the curriculum contents of their subject/course did not primarily prepare them for such jobs.
I also consider it a wrong judgment to blame the curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” for insufficient legal opinions “to accommodate the constantly evolving issues….” because according to the writer “contents taught in Nigerian schools are largely limited to Islamic worship ritual practices”. It is important to clarify that it is not every Muslim scholar that qualifies to give fatwah. The curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” at primary through undergraduate level of our formal education system in Nigeria are (if truth be told) not sufficient enough for graduates to issue fatwah.
The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) has a Fatwah Committee comprising of learned scholars that give legal opinions when strange issues emerge. If this committee or those who qualify to give such opinions are not seen to be doing enough, then they could be faulted. This rejoinder does not in any way seek to exonerate “Arabic/IRK experts” or the curriculum contents from censures. However, criticisms need to be placed in their proper perspectives. I concur with the writer for indicting those who failed to use their positions for the benefit of the two subjects.
It is true that many Muslim Scholars today are not sincere in their preaching career. Yet, “Arabic/IRK” curriculum contents cannot completely be held responsible for that. More so, many of such preachers did not acquire Islamic education through the formal school system, which curriculum appear to be on trial in the article. I quite agree with the writer’s lamentation over the situation which allows even those with limited knowledge to become preachers. I think it is a needless proviso to state that the relevance of “Arabic/IRK experts” would be dependent upon their ability to provide legal opinions on emerging issues including the permissibility or otherwise of DNA technology in settling controversies. May Allah (SWT) grant us wisdom in the understanding of our numerous challenges and in our search for solutions, amin.
The above-titled piece authored by Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa was published on page 25 of the Daily Trust edition of Friday November 25, 2011. It was indeed an article too important to be ignored. The rejoinder to it by this column has no any motive apart from the fact that as Muslims (to whom the piece was generally directed), and being part of those privileged to have access to this medium of information (and by extension interaction); we owe it a duty to react in the most enlightened manner to issues that concern Islam as well as its teaching and practice.
One is prompted to respond to the piece for two reasons. First, to clarify some of the issues that are misleading to the reading public because of the misrepresentations inherent in them. Second, to properly educate readers as well as the writer on the need to acknowledge and respect specialization as such would enhance better understanding of the issues.
It is evident from the general argument of the piece that the author had so much to say about the state of the two teaching subjects of Arabic and Islamic Studies in schools in addition to other issues relating to the practice of Islam in Nigeria about which he felt very much disappointed, perhaps, due to his deep concern as a Muslim. Unfortunately, he failed to sufficiently organize his thoughts, which in my opinion, led to some sweeping statements that seek to indict “Arabic/IRK experts”. Blames were “erroneously” placed where they did not really belong. Indeed, if the views expressed were actually organized, the writer could have produced three remarkable articles on: (1) Challenges confronting Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Nigeria educational system; (2) Challenges relating to “disproportionate” legal opinions on contemporary issues (fatawah) in Nigeria; and (3) Unbecoming attitude of modern Muslim scholars.
For the sake of clarification, “Islamic Religious Knowledge” in the teaching curriculum of schools in Nigeria (from basic level to university) has been replaced with the nomenclature “Islamic Studies”. Similarly, Arabic and Islamic Studies which throughout the piece were written as “Arabic/IRK” are two separate school subjects with peculiar areas of knowledge and curriculum contents. They have their peculiar challenges and should have been treated separately. Islamic Studies, for instance, has more number of periods in a week than Arabic language. While Islamic Studies has a curriculum developed for it at all levels for the past four decades, Arabic had a curriculum at the primary level for the first time only in 2007. The Arabic curriculum developed for secondary schools in 1982 did not enjoy any review until after 25 years in 2007 when it should have undergone at least five review exercises.
The opening paragraph of the piece reads “…Nigerian officials at all levels allude…blaming some Islamic Religious Knowledge and Arabic language contents as the source of religious extremism”. Government through the relevant agency is solely responsible for developing curriculum for all teaching subjects in our schools. It would seem ridiculous therefore for government officials to think of the curriculum developed and approved by government as the source of extremism.
Paragraph four of the piece reads in part “…Nigerian Arabic/IRK experts and educationists have not done enough to update the contents taught in schools so as to reflect our peculiar social circumstances and by implication produce relevant experts., who in addition to their expertise in Arabic/IRK could easily fit in to the country’s mainstream labour market and indeed engage in all other profitable enterprises…”. The writer continues in another paragraph “…because they are largely employable only in Arabic/IRK teaching jobs and/or shari’ah/judiciary…” One, the “Arabic/IRK experts” and “educationists”, no matter how passionate they feel about the two subjects do not have any authorization to review or “update” curriculum contents. The government agency statutorily charged with that responsibility is the Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC).
Two, the argument that the curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” have failed to produce “relevant experts who can engage in all other profitable enterprises” is, in my opinion, a mistaken perception. The basic components of the secondary school curriculum of Islamic Studies, which for instance include Qur’an; Hadith, Jurisprudence (Fiqh); Belief (Tawheed); Islamic history (Sirah) and moral education (Tadhib) are not aimed at training students of Islamic Studies who would graduate to work on construction sites as engineers, in media houses as journalists, in the hospitals as nurses or health workers, or in financial institutions as accountants; because the curriculum contents of their subject/course did not primarily prepare them for such jobs.
I also consider it a wrong judgment to blame the curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” for insufficient legal opinions “to accommodate the constantly evolving issues….” because according to the writer “contents taught in Nigerian schools are largely limited to Islamic worship ritual practices”. It is important to clarify that it is not every Muslim scholar that qualifies to give fatwah. The curriculum contents of “Arabic/IRK” at primary through undergraduate level of our formal education system in Nigeria are (if truth be told) not sufficient enough for graduates to issue fatwah.
The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) has a Fatwah Committee comprising of learned scholars that give legal opinions when strange issues emerge. If this committee or those who qualify to give such opinions are not seen to be doing enough, then they could be faulted. This rejoinder does not in any way seek to exonerate “Arabic/IRK experts” or the curriculum contents from censures. However, criticisms need to be placed in their proper perspectives. I concur with the writer for indicting those who failed to use their positions for the benefit of the two subjects.
It is true that many Muslim Scholars today are not sincere in their preaching career. Yet, “Arabic/IRK” curriculum contents cannot completely be held responsible for that. More so, many of such preachers did not acquire Islamic education through the formal school system, which curriculum appear to be on trial in the article. I quite agree with the writer’s lamentation over the situation which allows even those with limited knowledge to become preachers. I think it is a needless proviso to state that the relevance of “Arabic/IRK experts” would be dependent upon their ability to provide legal opinions on emerging issues including the permissibility or otherwise of DNA technology in settling controversies. May Allah (SWT) grant us wisdom in the understanding of our numerous challenges and in our search for solutions, amin.
