Download Rainer Brunner - Wissenschaftsrat

An Islamicist’s view of the recommendations of the Council of Science
and Humanities on the establishment of “Islamische Studien” as an
academic discipline at German universities
Rainer Brunner (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris)
My feeling is, I could be on the wrong panel here. For what I am going to say is not
primarily about the broader issues of “Islamic studies at western universities”.
Generally, when considering the recommendations of the Council of Science and
Humanities on the introduction of an Islamic Theology at German universities, I think
it would be of only limited use to look for inspiration in other European countries. The
starting positions and basic conditions are just too diverse. Islam in the UK, which is
clearly dominated by Southern Asian backgrounds, and in France, with its North
African roots, goes back to the respective colonial past of the two countries. Islam in
Germany, on the other hand, which is largely dominated by Turkish origins, reflects
the history of labor migration in the 1960s and 1970s. However, all three forms are
comparable only to a very limited extent. Above all, the legal frameworks covering the
relation between the State and the churches are utterly different. The official, strict
(though not strictly consistent or enforced) French laicism is simply irreconcilable with
the (rather lame, in many respects) German secularism; in turn, both are somehow
incompatible with the Anglican State Church. In France, theological faculties at staterun universities exist only in Strasbourg and Metz, due to the special history of the
Concordat en Alsace-Moselle. "Islamic Studies", to use the key term of the Council’s
recommendations, do exist in France (and are represented by prestigious specialist
journals such as Revue des études islamiques or Studia Islamica), but what it
stands for in France is completely different from what the Council of Science and
Humanities proposes for Germany. To this I will return later.
I am going to offer some basic comments on and – be prepared – objections against
the recommendations of the Council, especially from the perspective of an Islamicist
[a scholar and academic of Islamic Studies], who cannot remain untouched by the
debate. I would also state right at the outset that I am not the first or only Islamicist
taking a skeptical attitude towards these recommendations, at least in their present
form. My colleague, Professor Patrick Franke from Bamberg, prepared and uploaded
1
a detailed position paper,1 from which I am going to borrow in this talk at a number of
occasions. I also take this opportunity to let you know that there will be a panel
discussion on this topic at the German Conference of Oriental Studies, scheduled to
take place in Marburg from 20 to 24 September.
Behind the recommendations of the Council of Science and Humanities are the
years-old calls for the introduction of Islamic religious education at public, statemaintained schools in Germany. Article 7, paragraph 3 of the Grundgesetz, which
stipulates that religious instruction is provided in accordance with the principles of the
religious communities, presents a predicament, in several respects. What never was
a major problem in past dealings with the Christian churches became apparent as
just that when, with Islam, a religion not easily compatible with German constitutional
standards entered the scene. Longstanding efforts to find a Muslim person or entity
that could represent the religious community, as demanded by the Grundgesetz, and
take responsibility for the contents of religious instruction, achieved only limited
success. The Islam Conference and the Coordinating Council that emerged from it –
another umbrella organization of umbrella organizations – is only the latest example
in this respect. Now a second front is opened by addressing the issue of training
future Muslim RE teachers. So far, initiatives in this direction involved the field of
Religious Education Studies (such as in Erlangen or Osnabrück), endowed chairs
(Frankfurt) or, as in Münster, the establishment of a "Center for Religious Studies"
outside the faculty structure. The latter case may also serve to illustrate the many
ways in which such approaches can go awry. The Kalisch affair, I predict with some
confidence, will not be the last of its kind, especially as the composition and
competences of the advisory councils, which are supposed to give their nihil obstat to
every appointment, are anything but clear. Interestingly, there is no mention of a
requirement for some kind of transparent process in case a candidate is rejected, as
is demanded (with good reason) from the Christian churches (p. 65f. of the
recommendations).
Apart from that, the recommendations of the Council of Science and Humanities aim
for the fundamentals, namely the introduction of a proper Islamic theology.
Obliviously, one may ask the equally fundamental question why the constitution of a
1
<http://www.uni-bamberg.de/islamwissenschaft/aktuelle-hinweise-aus-der-islamwissenschaft/positionspapier/>
2
secular country should ever have elevated the provision of denominational RE
lessons but, interestingly, not math or foreign-language lessons to the rank of a basic
right. However, as long as the state serves as a tax collector for the churches and
grants them all sorts of other privileges, the neatest solution, i.e. demanding the
abolishment of the respective article of the Grundgesetz, remains utterly improbable.
The required two-thirds parliamentary majority for such a revision of the constitution
is simply not available, will not emerge in the foreseeable future, and would hardly
become a government with a big C in its leading party’s name. To hope for such
solution would be just as pointless as questioning the rationale for the existence of
theological faculties at state-run universities. This is an old dispute, which is also
acknowledged by the Council of Science and humanities, but will not be resolved
satisfactorily any time soon. So, for better or worse, we have to stick with the existing
framework and think about the training of future RE teachers. Since religious
education is constitutionally bound to be faith-led, this will also apply to the relevant
teacher training – which is where the problem begins.
My criticism of the Council’s recommendations addresses two points in particular: the
designation of the discipline to be established as "Islamische Studien" (p. 56f.) and its
installation at faculties of philosophy or cultural studies (p. 80). For, as we all know,
there already exists an academic discipline dedicated to studying Islam and its
history and culture, albeit decidedly not from a believer’s perspective. This discipline
is called "Islamwissenschaft" – Islamic Studies. The recommendations of the Council
of Science and Humanities could blur the boundaries between the latter, existing
discipline and the proposed, new one in a negligent or, indeed, reckless manner. To
begin with, the existing discipline is misrepresented, for instance by the assertion (p.
38f.) it would usually steer clear of issues of religion and leave this kind of
engagement with Islam to the scholars of Religious Studies and Theology. In this
respect I feel urged to state that the vast majority of authors publishing studies on the
Quran, the Hadith, the life of Muhammad, Shia, Sufism, reform movements, in recent
decades were not theologians or scholars in the field of general Religious Studies.
And most importantly: all those studies were not produced from a believer’s
perspective. Therefore it is beside the point to admonish the lack of “theological
orientation” in Islamic Studies (p. 45). Our discipline has never claimed such
orientation. Nevertheless in recent months, the impression was created that the new
3
academic course intended to train "Islamwissenschaftler", [i.e. Islamicists or scholars
of Islamic Studies].
According to the recommendations of the Council of Science and Humanities, the
new discipline should be called "Islamische Studien" because this term has become
common in international usage, but also with the intention to “avoid obscuring the
differences against the Christian theologies” (p. 56). Concerning this, I have two
comments: Firstly, by no means can Theology be regarded as a monopoly of
Christianity and its churches. The fact that Islamic Theology “works” in ways different
from Christian Theology does not mean it does not exist. The remark heard at
various occasions, that it must be avoided to force a Christian concept of Theology
onto Muslims, also misses the point. Obviously, the Muslim concept, in the sense of
the classic Ýilm al-kalÁm is no perfect fit for its Christian counterpart. But why
should Theology be perceived in a Christian way, in the first place? Even in
Christianity, Theology as a faith-led discourse about religion involves more than just
dogmatics and, in the case of Islam, one can easily argue for bringing together
studies of Quran, Hadith, Law and other subjects inspired by the religion under the
single roof of an institute for Islamic Theology. After all, faculties of philosophy do not
just teach philosophy proper, either.
Secondly, instead of doing that, one creates confusion between the existing
discipline of “Islamwissenschaft” and “Islamische Studien”. For when Englishspeakers talk about Islamic Studies, and French-speakers about Etudes
Islamiques, they never mean the confessional Islamic Theology, but precisely the
faith-neutral (and specially in France historical-critical), scholarly research known as
“Islamwissenschaft”. For instance, there is at least one heaven of a difference
between engaging with the tradition of the Prophet from a faith-led perspective or
otherwise. Also, there is no question of any “theologization” or “imposition”, as
referred to by a previous panel discussion. This has become a non-issue not least
because of the considerable number of colleagues working in my discipline, who,
despite their origins from Muslim countries, set out to study Islam and Islamic history
from a perspective independent of any faith. What is proposed by the Council’s
recommendations is the establishment of an Islamic Theology by a secular state. Put
like this, it sounds like a rather odd suggestion, anyway. So at least the intended
result should be called by its proper name: Islamic Theology.
4
This brings me to the second, core criticism, which concerns the installation of
Islamic Theology at faculties of philosophy or cultural studies. It appears somewhat
strange that, on the one hand, the Council (justifiably) demands freeing Religious
Studies from the prevalent institutional stranglehold of the theological faculties
(p.°90f.) and, conversely, installing a new theological subject at faculties of
philosophy. In short: For epistemological reasons alone, there is simply no place for a
theology of any denomination at a faculty of philosophy. Ultimately, there are good
science-policy reasons, too, for not going down that road, because sooner or later
this would put into question the very need for a discipline such as Islamic Studies.
One is probably justified in calling a discipline that strives to explain everything in any
way related to Islam or Muslims anywhere in the world, covering law, social history,
politics and even literature, as an academic monstrosity. Islamicists would be the first
to accept this diagnosis with a resigned sigh. Naturally, there are topics lumped
together under the Islam label that are not necessarily linked to the religion. In many
cases, however, this is attributable not so much to the lack of direction of a discipline,
but rather to the existing landscape of academic disciplines, in general. Quite a few
scholars are “Islamicists” simply for lack of an alternative academic home. As late as
September 2002, long after security agencies had discovered our usefulness for their
purposes, the historian of Eastern-Europe, Manfred Hildermeier from Göttingen, then
President of the German Federation of Historians, announced that the number of
German experts in the history of the Middle East were close to zero. This revealed
not only a good measure of ignorance, but also the very tight self-conception of a
renowned, professional historian, which is just as disturbing.
As long as other disciplines largely continue in their Eurocentric ways, the existing
discipline of Islamic Studies will maintain its character as a kind of refuge for all those
topics and subjects that are usually ignored. To make it completely clear, it is not my
purpose to thwart the introduction of “Islamic Theology” as a discipline, despite my
critical attitude, on principle, to theologies at state-run universities. Neither can any of
this be attributed to some fear of contact between Islamic Studies and Islam.
However, the ground rules must be set out in such a way that the next round of
budget cuts or solidarity measures, which is bound to come, will not lead to a
situation where the historical-critical, external approach to Islam will be pitted against
Islamic theological allegiance. Naturally, there can be points of contact between the
two disciplines, and cooperation may be mutually fruitful and reasonable in some
5
cases – although one should be careful not to reduce Islamic Studies, under changed
circumstances and in hurried obedience, to its original status as a servant of
Theology. As things stand, this can be ensured without major collisions, provided
Islamic Theology is actually called by this, its proper name, and is installed at the
theological faculties. Should this solution meet with objections from Christian
theologians, who fear for their monopoly on religious truth (as already happened at
the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Frankfurt), there may be no way around the
establishment of dedicated faculties for Islamic Theology. Only this can ensure a
clean separation of personnel, structures and institutions, which, ultimately, would be
to the benefit of all parties, including the academics engaging with the religion from a
critical distance and those studying Islam as Muslim believers.
6