Hypotheses and Research Statements
EQaB investigates the relationship between religion and education, the Qur鈥檃n and the Bible. Although aspects of this relationship have been researched separately, no attempt has been made to compare educational strategies in the Qur鈥檃n and Bible, either within the broader Study of Religion or on a theoretical basis. The Qur鈥檃n, New Testament, and Hebrew Bible, are, of course, unique in their structures, contexts, processes of canonisation etc., but they are also comparable from a theoretical perspective: As scriptures stemming from a particular phase in the cultural-evolutionary development of religion which emphasise teaching and training their adherents鈥� beliefs and practices in a way that seems new and radical compared to more ancient types of religion. Along two dimensions 鈥� depth and width&苍产蝉辫;鈥�&苍产蝉辫;EQaB approaches the Qur鈥檃n and Bible as religious texts that are primarily intended for the purposes of education.
The hypothesis of EQaB is thus that the complex relationship linking education, the Qur鈥檃n, and the Bible, constitutes a unique and unexplored basis from which religious phenomena can be explored. EQaB critically theorises this correlation along two dimensions: In depth, we analyse the Qur鈥檃n鈥檚 internal pedagogical strategies from an innovative theoretical perspective (see Subproject 1). Despite being a central theme in the Qur鈥檃n, education has not yet been accorded any sustained scholarly attention. Besides the PI鈥檚 publication, 鈥淭he Educational Qur鈥檃n鈥�, education and pedagogy are only mentioned sporadically in Qur鈥檃nic studies (Christiansen 2019b, see e.g., G眉nther; Walker; Doorn-Harder 2001鈥�). While there are works that touch upon educational features in the Qur鈥檃n, they fail to approach education as a deep-seated rationale of the religious text (Madigan 2001; McAuliffe 1999). In width, we employ a comparative perspective and study the Qur鈥檃nic text as a part of the broader history of religion (see Subproject 2). The Qur鈥檃n is not a text in splendid isolation (Stewart 2017, 31). It has been influenced and shaped by other religious texts before and of its time, exhibiting both continuity and breaks with such texts (Bakhos & Cook 2017; Stroumsa 2015; Hoyland 2012). One premise for EQaB is thus that the Qur鈥檃n must be compared to texts of other world religions, because these all demonstrate a distinct educational purpose. The strong interplay between the Qur鈥檃n and Bible is documented by the Qur鈥檃nic text itself, referring continuously to Jews, Christians, their scriptures, and their positive/negative aspects (Q 2:62; 5:12鈥�3, 72).
Theoretical Approach
EQaB is based on an original, cutting-edge theoretical complex that forges historical, system-theoretical, and cultural-evolutionary perspectives on religion and education. This complex has its point of departure in the work of 脡mile Durkheim, who, besides being a renowned sociologist, was also a pedagogue (Durkheim 1956; 1961). According to Durkheim, societies (and therefore religions) attempt to educate people through systems relevant to them: 鈥淚n Rome, they wanted above all for children to become men of action, devoted to military glory, indifferent to letters and the arts鈥� (Durkheim 1956, 64). In other words, Ancient Rome (at least at a certain stage in its cultural development) educated soldiers. By elevating particular shared notions and practices as the ideal, an educational system is meant to teach people how they should be, think, and act. This ideal is what we conceptualise as a system鈥檚 educational normativity. People are socialised into a society, which in turn only survives through the continued existence of educated individuals aspiring to such normativity (ibid. 70; Rappaport 1979, 145鈥�72). Indeed, Durkheim goes so far as to designate education 式submission鈥�, an idea that is later developed by the philosophers Pierre Hadot and Peter Sloterdijk: 鈥淎ll education is conversion鈥� (Hadot 2002, 255; Sloterdijk 2013, 300). This designation aligns well with the Arabic word 颈蝉濒腻尘, which is translated as the act of submitting (to God). However, how people should be is not the same as how they actually are and educational strategies are often met with a lack of understanding or even resistance (Durkheim 1973, 149鈥�66). To exemplify: The Qur鈥檃n and Bible both introduce models for correct religious adherence. Adherents are to believe in the major tenets of their respective worldviews and follow different ritual and social rules. On numerous occassions, however, explanatory educational passages in the Qur鈥檃n are followed by: but most of them do not understand (Q 5:103). And in the Hebrew Bible, we find passages like: But although I [God] have spoken to you again and again, you did not obey Me (Jer 35:14). In this way, the texts鈥� educational projects seem at times to fall short, leaving the ultimate teacher (God) frustrated with his students.
As illustrated by the Roman example, Durkheim argued that different societies advocate different educational systems based on their own ideals. Combining this view with theories of cultural evolution, such as that of Robert Bellah, makes it possible to discern historical developments in the interaction of religion and education (Bellah 1964; 2011; Bellah & Joas 2012). According to Bellah, one major cultural and religious shift took place around the sixth century BCE, the so-called 鈥淎xial Age鈥� (Bellah 2005, 71; Jaspers 1949). World religions 鈥� Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam 鈥� all have Axial traits, including the emergence of 鈥渕etacognition鈥�, i.e., the ability to reflect on and critically evaluate thinking; the occurrence of an all-encompassing principle like a monotheistic god; and an increase in competition between cultures (Bellah 2011, 481鈥�566; 2012, 452; Jensen 2013, 27). Another educational feature of this evolutionary stage is the fundamental role of the teacher: No longer a shaman, medicine man, or specialised cult leader, but rather, a teacher (Bellah 1964, 364鈥�5). Besides training pupils, this teacher works as the ideal and authoritative example to be imitated (Durkheim 1956, 85鈥�8; Sloterdijk 2009, 58; also Tarde 1895). To exemplify: The Qur鈥檃n is a text that reflects on itself and its educational aims, but is also aware of alternative, competing pedagogical systems. Throughout the text, ambivalent attitudes are held in regard to Christian and Jewish teachers (Q 9:31; Zellentin 2016). Although such references are mainly polemical, they imply recognition that other deliberate educational systems exist, which in turn promote their awareness and participation (Christiansen 2019a, 631鈥�2). Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions represent different educational normativities, but they are comparable because they are constructed by, generally speaking, the same type of religion.
The project鈥檚 core research questions are therefore:
In depth, how does the Qur鈥檃n educate? What is its educational normativity? In width, can we trace similarities in the Bible to the pedagogy of the Qur鈥檃n?
Bakhos, Carol, and Michael Cook, eds. 2017. Islam and Its Past: Jahilliya, Late Antiquity, and the Qur鈥檃n. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bellah, Robert N. 1964. 鈥楻eligious Evolution鈥�. American Sociological Review 29 (3): 358鈥�74.
鈥斺�斺��. 2005. 鈥榃hat Is Axial about the Axial Age?鈥� European Journal of Sociology / Archives Europ茅ennes de Sociologie 46 (01): 69鈥�89.
鈥斺�斺��. 2011. Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
鈥斺�斺��. 2012. 鈥楾he Heritage of the Axial Age: Resource or Burden?鈥� In The Axial Age and Its Consequences, edited by Robert N. Bellah and Hans Joas, 448鈥�67. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bellah, Robert N., and Hans Joas, eds. 2012. The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Christiansen, Johanne Louise. 2019a. 鈥樷�淪tay up during the Night, except for a Little鈥� (Q 73:2): The Qur示膩nic Vigils as Ascetic Training Programs鈥�. Religion 49 (4): 614鈥�35.
鈥斺�斺��. 2019b. 鈥楾he Educational Qur示膩n: 鈥汳aybe Youp Will Understand鈥� (la士allakum ta士qil奴n)鈥�.&苍产蝉辫;Numen 66 (5鈥�6): 550鈥�79.
Doorn-Harder, Nelly van. 2001鈥�. 鈥楾eaching and Preaching the Qur示膩n鈥�. EQ (online).
Durkheim, 脡mile. 1956 [1922]. Education and Sociology. Translated by Sherwood D. Fox. New York: The Free Press.
鈥斺�斺��. 1961 [1925]. Moral Education. Translated by Everett K. Wilson and Herman Schnurer. New York: The Free Press.
鈥斺�斺��. 1973. 脡mile Durkheim: On Morality and Society. Edited by Robert N. Bellah. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.G眉nther, Sebastian. 2001鈥�. 鈥楾eaching鈥�. EQ (online).
Hadot, Pierre. 2002. Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. Paris: Albin Michel.
Hoyland, Robert. 2012. 鈥楨arly Islam as Late Antique Religion鈥�. In The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, 1053鈥�77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaspers, Karl. 1949. Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Z眉rich: Artemis.
Jensen, Hans J. L. 2013. 鈥楻obert Bellah, religion og menneskelig evolution鈥�. Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift 60: 11鈥�31.
Madigan, Daniel A. 2001. The Qur鈥櫲僴鈥檚 Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam鈥檚 Scripture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McAuliffe, Jane D. 1999. 鈥樷�淒ebate with Them in a Better Way鈥�: The Construction of a Qur示膩nic Commonplace鈥�. In Myths, Historical Archetypes and Symbolic Figures in Arabic Literature: Towards a New Hermeneutic Approach, edited by Angelika Neuwirth, Birgit Embal贸, Sebastian G眉nther, and Maher Jarrar, 163鈥�88. Beirut: In kommision bei Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart.
Rappaport, Roy A. 1979. Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said, ed. 2008. The Qur鈥櫮乶 in Its Historical Context. London: Routledge.
Sloterdijk, Peter. 2013. You Must Change Your Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
鈥斺�斺��. 2009. Du mu脽t dein Leben 盲ndern: 脺ber Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Stewart, Devin. 2017. 鈥楻eflections on the State of the Art in Western Qur示anic Studies鈥�. In Islam and Its Past: Jahiliyya, Late Antiquity, and the Qur示an, edited by Carol Bakhos and Michael Cook, 4鈥�68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stroumsa, Guy. 2015. The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press.
Tarde, Gabriel. 1895. Les lois de l鈥檌mitation: 脡tude sociologique. Paris: F茅lix Alcan.
Walker, Paul E. 2001鈥�. 鈥楰nowledge and Learning鈥�. EQ (online).
Zellentin, Holger M. 2016. 鈥�础岣腻谤 and 搁耻丑产腻苍: Religious Leaders in the Qur示膩n in Dialogue with Christian and Rabbinic Literature鈥�. In Qur示膩nic Studies Today, edited by Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells, 262鈥�93. London and New York: Routledge.