Learning the Sharia in traditional seminaries vs Western academies

Qadhi: Madrasa vs Academy

Lacking a more suitable term, I'll refer to traditional Islamic seminaries as ‘madrasas’. Such as the Islamic University of Madinah, Al-Azhar University, and the Deoband universities. Like Qadhi, I’m not referring to the informal street madrasas. And I’ll refer to Western universities as offering Shariah studies by the blanket term ‘academia’.

Introduction

Studying Sharia at Western universities differs greatly from madrasas. Some differences are readily acknowledged. Such as the emphasis on mastering Arabic at madrasas. Every madrasa maintains this expectation. Additionally, there's a significant focus on memorization in madrasas, covering not only the Quran and Hadith but also pre-Islamic texts and writings of esteemed scholars. The academia doesn’t care about memorization. Its exams are open-book!

Shortcomings of the madrasa education

Each traditional seminary represents a specific sect. Not just the Quran and Sunnah, but the interpretation of the teachers of the Quran and Sunnah. They adhere to their sect's teachings. The madrasa teaches you to accept everything you have been taught. For instance, Qadhi notes a classmate following the Maturidi sect was expelled from the Islamic University of Madinah. If you don't align with Ibn Taymiyyah's teachings, you might face expulsion. Even after leaving, if you diverge from the seminary's teachings, they'll disassociate publicly. In contrast, the Western institutions are indifferent to sectarian affiliations. In the West, they welcome skepticism.

At the madrasa, you are expected to replicate and copy. Introducing something new is seen as problematic. “Who said this before you?” is a recurring theme. This results in an undue emphasis on obsolete concerns. For example, there will be substantial learning on kalam debates, but almost no education on challenging contemporary attacks on the faith from liberalism and feminism.

Madrasas typically lack historical study. They often present a mythological or romanticized past. Biographies idealizing a scholar’s life are commonplace. This skewed version of history leaves many madrasa students unaware of their heritage.

In contrast, source criticism is a key element of Western studies. Political and social contexts are largely absent in traditional Sharia learning. Historical context, such as the era prominent scholars lived or died in, is often disregarded. The West encourages contextual understanding. For example, an average madrasa graduate is unaware that Ibn Taymiyyah was a theologian during the Mamluks.

Academia emphasizes multilingual sources. And the academy emphasizes how succeeding people interacted with source material. For example, at Yale, they were expected to learn two other languages. And Qadhi opted to learn Persian and German. To his surprise, he discovered unparalleled content in German on the lifestyle of the first three centuries of Islamic civilization, which was unavailable in any other language.

In today’s world, the brightest minds of the Muslim world aren’t pursuing Shariah. Something that is an open secret in the Muslim community.

Sacred vs secular

Every institution has red lines. Holding traditional family views is equated with racism in academia. Yes, even in academia related to Islamic studies. You will be canceled. Qadhi says he was not allowed to present at a conference because of a Facebook post. He says Dr. Mustafa Al Azmi had similar troubles.

Madrasas have red lines too. They are rooted in the truth in the Quran. And the infallibility of the Prophet ﷺ. After all, the entire goal is to become closer to Allah.

Western institutions do not operate on these presumptions. A prominent contemporary topic involves comparing Quranic narratives with Syriac legends. Numerous articles explore parallels, suggesting the author of the Quran borrowed from pre-Islamic sources. Though implicit, the assumption is evident.

For this reason, scholars from the madrasa are predisposed to viewing academia as heretics. Zindiqs who are devoted to undermining Islam. Madrasas often exhibit hostility, questioning individuals with remarks like “You studied with non-Muslims?” It is common to dismiss based on academic background, such as studying at Yale. Instead of engaging with the content of one's argument, they resort to ad hominem. Qadhi says he experienced this himself because of his association with Yale, despite holding a pedigree from the Islamic University of Madinah.

On the flip side, Western institutions often exhibit arrogance in their perception of Islamic establishments. They often label them as 'fundamentalist believers' lacking critical thinking abilities. Researchers defending traditional viewpoints are frequently disregarded, being dismissed as 'preachers' or 'products of Madinah'. Same thing for Muslim women who wear hijab. In contrast, if you identify as Muslim in academia but promote bizarre beliefs without any academic merit — such as the permissibility of homosexuality in Islam — then you find yourself on the fast trek for promotion.

You can also add that the culture of alcohol, womanizing, and apostasy in Western Islamic studies circles doesn’t help the image of academia as a proper place to learn Islam.