Deliberative theory and the legitimacy of Islamic influence in the British education system

Abstract

This article argues that deliberative theory provides an important contribution in the debate about the legitimacy of an Islamic influence within the British education system. The contribution is a timely one, in light of the tendency to view issues involving Islam and Muslims through the distorting prism of Islamophobia. The contribution of deliberative theory is developed and explained through a constructive comparison with two positions within debates about the legitimacy of religion and the accommodation of minority claims within education: ethical liberalism and ethical pluralism.

Keywords:

• Islam
• Muslims
• deliberative theory
• multiculturalism
• autonomy
• education

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Andreas Pöllmann and Phil Hills for helpful comments on this article.

Notes

1. The purpose of this article is to set out a non-prejudicial approach in the debate over the legitimacy of an Islamic influence in education rather than to make a definitive statement about the extent to which the current approach to this debate is, in fact, prejudiced. The reader could consult some of the following for the latter; the blaming of the erroneously-named ‘Muslim schools’ for civil disturbances in 2001 (Meer & Modood, 2008) and criticism of the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot in 2014 (Abbas, 2014; Holmwood & O’Toole, 2017; Shackle, 2017).

2. It is worth being clear that the two positions discussed are not supposed to represent an overview of the philosophical discussion of the value of individual autonomy. The approach to this paper is ‘bottom-up’ in the sense that the descriptions of the positions are taken from a survey of the literature where political philosophy has been applied to the legitimacy of religion and minority claims within education. For a more abstract discussion of autonomy one might consult Christman and Anderson (2005).

3. I am not making an empirical statement here over the extent to which a claim for a stronger Islamic influence has resonance amongst Muslims, or even how much of a motivation it is in claims for Muslim schools. Such stronger claims will be considered in the next section and throughout the article.

4. Again, it is important to bear in mind that this description is not synonymous with ‘what Muslims want’ within the education system. It is an open empirical question the extent to which the desirability of such claims are shared by Muslims. We will see the normative problem of assuming a consensus amongst Muslims in the next section.

5. Since Parekh was central to the discussion of ethical pluralism, it is worth mentioning that his position is not relativist. Indeed, there are many similarities between the multicultural dialogue he proposes and deliberative theory. The major difference is that within his dialogue different cultures dialogue with each other though their ‘spokesmen’ (Parekh, 2000, p. 136). I contend that this does not place enough emphasis on a fact that he readily acknowledges, that ‘every culture is internally varied’ and ‘speaks in several voices’ (p. 144). The importance of this point will become clear when we discuss internal minorities momentarily.