Fear of Islamic Schools Based on False Stereotypes
Muneeza Sheikh, Daniel Simard and Khurrum Awan
On Aug. 28, representatives from the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh communities came together to express support for John Tory’s proposal to fund faith-based schools.
While such unity among different faith-based schools is refreshing, a large part of this debate lies in the fact that, under Tory’s proposal, funding would also be extended to Islamic schools. And that is where many get squeamish. Assumptions and fears come into play, ranging from equating Islamic schools with the stereotyped “madrassa” to presuming that these schools will trample over women’s rights.
John Tory speaks about his plan to include faith-based schools in Ontario’s public education system.
The good news is that these stereotyped views are contrary to the reality of Islamic schools. These false stereotypes are, however, prevalent due to two factors: First, the true facts about Islamic schools are unknown to the general public. Second, some public figures have adopted a strategy of playing on these stereotypes in order to oppose Tory’s proposal.
Here are some pertinent facts. Islamic schools are operating in just about every province of this country. They are publicly funded in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. Yes, Alberta, despite being Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s power base, and Quebec, despite sharing Quebec Premier Jean Charest’s “safety concerns” for hijab-wearing girls on the soccer field, both fund Islamic schools.
There is no evidence that the funding of Islamic schools in these provinces has resulted in the isolation of the Muslim community. On the contrary, girls and boys graduating from Islamic schools usually continue on to post-secondary education, and from there to a variety of professional areas. In short, they are no less capable of making a contribution to public life than Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was when he graduated from the Catholic school he attended.
Nor is there any evidence that women’s rights are suffering. On the contrary, just as many women graduate from these schools as men, and just as many women continue on to post-secondary education and professional careers.
The majority of the teachers at these schools are women who, through their life experiences and personal accomplishments, serve as worthy role models for the students.
An overwhelming majority of women representing the mainstream Muslim community support faith-based schools. In fact, Muslim mothers usually insist on Islamically educating their children, even though the added expense often imposes genuine strains on parents’ limited budgets.
Unfortunately, many Muslim parents are unable to afford these private faith-based schools. Tory’s proposal, then, promotes equality within the Muslim community; it makes a faith-based education available not only to the more affluent, but also to those who are unable to afford it.
Muslim girls at an Islamic school in the GTA.
These are the true facts about Islamic schools that one rarely hears. What one commonly hears is a discriminatory and stereotype-laden language, which is used to attack funding for religious and especially Islamic schools. Although all citizens have the right, and indeed the obligation, to debate the proposal to fund faith-based schools and to adopt positions on both sides of this issue, they do not have the right to fearmonger in pursuit of their agenda.
Unfortunately, this stereotyping of Islamic schools hurts not only the Muslim community, but other faith communities, too, as it could ultimately prevent all communities from benefiting from a faith-based education.
That would be a terrible loss because all faith-based schools emphasize respect for one’s parents, teachers, elders and peers, as well as for the values, traditions, observances and history of the religious communities they serve. As a result, their graduates are usually more focused, disciplined and confident – an ideal recipe for producing the leaders of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, in the mind of McGuinty, the enriched academic and cultural experience of a faith-based education is not worthy of recognition and funding. But policy-makers in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec think otherwise.
Oct. 10 will provide faith-based communities with an opportunity to show that they, too, think otherwise.
The preceding content is based on an article published in the Toronto Star on Sep 20, 2007, and reproduced here with permission of the authors.
I was very disappointed by this post. A reasoned legal analysis of extending funding to faith-based public schools would have been an excellent contribution to the debate, however I believe this was more of a partisan attack on Dalton McGuinty. I have a series of questions/comments.
1) How come you attack the straw man of only Islamophobia instead of focusing on legitimate criticism of the plan:
It would remove half a billion dollars from the public system.
There is a social good in having people of all religions and ethnicities attending school together.
A government body would have decide either which religions were ‘worthy’ or would have to let in anyone (I want to start a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster School!)
Non-religious private schools could have legal actions against the plan and demand funding as well.
2) You try to connect Dalton McGuinty and Islamophobia (while contrasting this with John Tory). How do you explain this exchange between Tory and a voter. The questioner smears Canadian Muslims as terrorists. Tory does not rebut this insult. He did not stand up for Muslim-Canadians by rejecting the premise of the question. Instead he said that his plan would help monitor Islamic schools!
[ http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/09/17/john-tory-responds-to-questions-from-post-readers.aspx ]
3. You claim that Islamic schools “are publicly funded in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec.” This is misleading. Private Islamic schools receive only partial funding in these jurisdictions.
[ http://www.cbc.ca/ontariovotes2007/features/features-faith.html ]
4. You say: “Nor is there any evidence that women’s rights are suffering. On the contrary, just as many women graduate from these schools as men, and just as many women continue on to post-secondary education and professional careers.”
Where is your evidence for this? The linked article does not make the second claim and only alleges the first for that particular school. However, the article you linked does say:
“It’s not the only time boys and girls are separated. Students in grades 4 through 8 – around the time of puberty – sit at opposite sides of the classroom, in some cases a vast empty space in between.”
…
“even at family gatherings, women and men sit separately.”
…
“Yarkhan will not shake the hand of a female visitor “because of my religion,””
The article says that they claim to teach gender equality, what about the problems that we have had with the principle of ‘separate but equal’.
5. The article also says:
“But when asked about hot-button topics – like how to handle homosexuality – and if the school would be willing to compromise its teachings, he says that, first, religious schools should be publicly funded on principle.”
What is your opinion on this? What should public funding require be taught on these issues?
7. The school in the article teaches evolution. But that about private Christian schools who would want to teach creationism? Do you believe this should be publicly funded? Will this help produce “the leaders of tomorrow”?
6. Given the other arguments from question 1 and John Tory’s questionable response in question 2 do you believe that second-to-last paragraph about Dalton McGuinty was a cheap shot?
All Canadians should come together to combat Islamophobia and racism. I hope we can all agree that conflating opposition to funding religious schools and Islamophobia is not helpful to the debate.
Thanks for taking interest in the article, you have some seemingly valid concerns.
I apologize as I had a well written response to your comments but I clicked on one of the links embedded in your argument and my response had disappeared.
In any case, I will respond once again to your first comment only, due to time constraints, and then hopefully you can re-read the article after removing the partisan lens in which you view the issue(s).
1) I would suggest that calling this an attack on Islamophobia is somewhat of a misnomer. This is obviously a defence, and yet another defence against opponents who are using different artillery. And where does Mr. McGuinty come into play? Just give me a minute.
As your obtuseness on the matter is clearly palpable in your commentary, the issue of Islamophobia, is real, present and pervasive in Canadian society. The “select few”, including large-scale media outlets and respected individuals, consistently engage in discussion that instill fears through broad generalizations and stereotypes. In particular, minions of the now retired Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Farzana Hassan and Salma Siddiqui. On August 9, they published an article in the National Post (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=9e78d9f3-d881-40bd-aa58-0024572661c9).
Hmm, a little right-wing press, interesting. Nevertheless, they opposed faith-based education through the use of broad generalizations and sterotypes: 1) It will only further ghettoize Muslim communities; 2) they indoctrinate children to believe girls are second-class citizens; 3) suggestive that they will be breeding grounds for extremism (terrorism); 4) etc., etc., etc.
And on which political party’s website did this article end up? I will leave that up to your Liberal, democratic and free imagination.
Now to come with such vigour and disdain for this piece, which in my opinion is trying to be as neutral as possible while being enmeshed within the topic of the day, seems just a tad more disappointing and a little more partisan. But of course you provided a disclaimer: “All Canadians should come together to combat Islamophobia and racism. I hope we can all agree that conflating opposition to funding religious schools and Islamophobia is not helpful to the debate.”
Just to briefly touch on your second point. Extremism and terrorism is a serious threat, one in which it is incumbent upon all Muslims to combat and prevent. Spreading propaganda and discussing precautionary measures of extremism and terrorism are miles apart.
Thank you for your response and I am sorry about the loss of your original post. I know how frustrating it can be when the internet ‘eats’ something you’ve worked on. However the end result of that was that you only answered one of my questions (#2).
You did not answer #1, in fact your response was an illusion of the problems with your original article. Let’s back up a bit and I’ll summarize this:
Me: You are just attacking a straw man of only Islamophobia. How to address all the valid concerns that are unrelated to it.
You: [attacks straw man of only Islamophobia].
You said: “I would suggest that calling this an attack on Islamophobia is somewhat of a misnomer. This is obviously a defence”
You’re leaving out the words “only” and “straw man”. Attacking a straw man is a debating term where someone sets up a caricature of their opponents position and then demolishes that caricature.
I never claimed that Islamophobia was not “real, present and pervasive in Canadian society.” In fact I said exactly the opposite (In a sentence you, let’s face it somewhat insultingly, termed my “disclaimer.” Also, when I gave a link to Islamophobic opposition that John Tory played along with). In fact, I’m sure there is opposition in some quarters to the plan based on Islamophobia (just as there is probably opposition to it based on anti-Christian or anti-Semitic prejudice). You’ll note that’s why I used the phrase “only” to characterize the straw man you set up. So I’m sure I could find people or articles that have an Islamophobic slant. But I asked you to try to rebut legitimate opposition to the religious school plan. So once again, how do you counter the legitimate opposition that I laid out in question #1?
In regards to question #2 I think you are overly generous to John Tory. The voter asked Tory this question:
In a case I know of, some Muslim groups renting classroom space forgot to clean the boards and left their terrorist slogans on the board.
This hatred already is being taught to Muslim children. How would you ever know if the same were happening in publicly funded schools?
The voter starts with an anecdote and proceeds to smear all Muslim children and whoever is teaching them. John Tory does not condemn this instead he says his policy will “subject them [i.e. Islamic schools], as a matter of a condition of my policy, to those standards of accountability.” You categorize this as “discussing precautionary measures”, I see it more along the lines of a political leader saying the only way to prevent extremism and terrorism is to have the state go into Islamic schools (and mosques as well if we follow Tory’s logic). But even though I disagree with your answer I appreciate the fact you gave one.
Finally, three general comments.
First, the middle section of your essay (i.e. excluding the first and last 2 paragraphs) is a not bad (but somewhat flawed) defence of Islamic schools. You should be commended for writing it. The problem is those first and last 2 paragraphs which use it as a rationale to vote for John Tory. This is a problem because of the aforementioned straw man component of that.
Second, I found your “right-wing press” comment slightly odd (in that it places you as not a man of the right). John Tory is the leader of a right-wing party.
Third, neutral? Really? Again I’ll refer you to your second-to-last paragraph.
But thank you again both for responding and directing a slew of passive-aggressive insults at me which helped cheer me up after slogging through course readings (I especially liked “seemingly valid”)
To properly address your queries perhaps a more candid approach combined with some insight into Canada’s Muslim community is in order.
I am well aware that everything I pen my name to I am held accountable for. With that said, my sole concern and my participation in the drafting of the discussed article was to bring attention the fact the oppostion to faith based funding, including McGuinty, are either using or supporting broad generalizations to further their position.
Divisions in ideology within the Muslim community has resulted in disparate views. Although the percentage of the population in question on either side of the of the so-called “moderate” and “conservative” divide is avidly debated, the media coverage is unequivocally favouring the former. The moderate Muslim lobby groups (refer to last post) are represented by mainstream press as a consolidated voice of the majority of Canadian Muslims. This is certainly not the case.
Now McGuinty involved himself in this internecine struggle by supporting the moderate Muslim groups, in absence of any legitimate and fair claims, who are ostensibly omnipresent when voicing their views as representatives of Muslim Canadians but conspicuously absent when advocacy on their behalf is needed. For better or worse for the province of Ontario, there are many Muslim citizens who do indeed joyously welcome funding for Islamic schools. Unfortunately under the present circumstances they do not get a chance to be heard.
As a researcher of the Muslim community in the Canadian context, I felt it fair and requisite that I try and redress some of this imbalance in media coverage, notwithstanding my own personal views.
I mentioned neutral in my previous comment because I had forgotten the explicit nature of the last section of the article. In any case, I personally feel that this issue should be decided by the voters, but only on a fair and equal footing; hence me speaking for the unheard as somewhat of a hidden voice.
Engaging in some form of legal analysis was never my intent; however, I do not believe that such an activity would have much impact on such a politically charged debate. The strongest case in my view is the abolition of all faith-based funding, which, just to point out, Tory has suggested as an alternative.
Why did I mention right wing press? I found it ironic and whimsical that the self proclaimed moderate (Liberal) Muslim group published in a right-wing publication, and the right-wing I am referring to is more akin to the Canadian Alliance and Conservative amalgamation of the Federal Tories, as opposed to the PCs, to further their agenda which incidentally happens to coincide with those of the far right. Thus, furthering the position of Dalton McGuinty, the moderate Muslim lobby and far right anti-Islamic, anit-multiculturalism and anti-immigration politicians and organizations.
In closing, I concede to your legal debate. I have no ambition to argue the benefits of faith based education beyond the concerns of media propagated Islamophobia and their ill-effects towards Canada’s Muslim community.
Fair enough, I wish you well with your research.