A quick look shows the terminology with similar usage showing up in some archeology publications. I didn’t look far enough to know if it’s common, strictly defined or widely considered as a useful classification. It certainly doesn’t look like his invention for the occasion though.
And if you’re talking about Islam, and if you actually read this thread, you’d know that WE DO TEACH KIDS SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Why you seem to think we don’t is mind boggling. How much they retain of that teaching is another thing.
But, frankly, of all the things kids graduate from HS not knowing (either because they weren’t taught about it or they simply forgot), Islam is pretty far down on the list. We have millions of kids graduating from HS who don’t know what the 3 branches of our government are, who their Senators are, what the 1st Amendment is, how to calculate fractions… and the list goes on.
The reason we send high schools seniors to be boots on the ground has traditionally been that they will not really understand the complexities of European rivalries, the underpinnings and social dynamics of Imperialism, Fascism, Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, (not to mention chattel slavery), and the other factors that have gotten us into wars and will therefore, go fight, anyway. Why would we want to change that, now?
Besides, the idea that because 0.1% of HS graduates might go fight in a war, therefore we need to make all HS graduates highly knowledgeable about the religion of the people they will be fighting against is just silly. If the Army needs you know about Islam, the Army will teach you about Islam.
As for the idea that we might want to teach our kids what it feels like to be a muslim in a muslim country… I can’t imagine a better way to make them prejudiced against the religion. I mean, what should we do-- have all the girls in the class walk around in Burkas for a week? Have all the boys swear off their favorite drink for a semester?
So we should be sending 50-year-old history professors to fight our wars?
I am not sure where this non sequitur arose, but no.
The argument proposed was that we should educate people before sending them to fight wars.
The rebuttal is that we have always chosen those who are least informed to do the fighting. Unless you are proposing a complete reversal and overhaul of societal attitudes, then your question makes no sense.
Also graduated in Pittsburgh (30 years earlier) and studied the same. Also took a course in comparative religion the next year - at CMU, an engineering school.
There might have been a unit on Islam or world religions in my high school, I don’t recall. I think all children should have knowledge of other cultures, I’m not sure any depth in religious studies is a good use of class time though. What any particular religious book says is irrelevant, only how it’s interpreted by the cultures covered matters.
Say you want to teach the class about the life of a a teenager in Yemen. His particular religious beliefs are among twenty or more things that define that kid and it’s probably far from the most important. If anything the students should walk away from the class seeing the many similarities they share with someone from an entirely different background and lifestyle. Given the scant amount of information a teacher can actually make stick in a high school student I’d rather that was the message instead of the five pillars or some such.
Well, there’s another major reason we send “high school seniors” to fight our wars, and it has more to do with physical capacity than concerns over their mastery of geopolitics.
If you want to send people to fight wars who truly understand the complex history of “European rivalries…Imperialism, Fascism, Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, (not to mention chattel slavery)” then damn near every recent high school graduate is unqualified.
Can confirm. Took an advanced world history class in HS. We went cover to cover with a 1000+ page college textbook, and that was freshman year.
Killer class; imagine forcing a 1000+ page college textbook upon 14 year olds. We were made to read every single page.
Hell, people in college still have trouble digesting textbooks, and not even 1000 page ones.
I don’t remember shit from the class. Yeah I aced the final exam and everything else. But so what?
Except for the one story about the woman who tried to kill Genghis Khan by putting something akin to a bear trap in her vagina.
On the other hand, John, one can say this about most education in general. We don’t remember the intricacies of all the history we’ve studied; we don’t remember much if any of the vocabulary of the foreign languages that we’ve studied, and most of us will never take a derivative outside high school or college in their lives.
The one thing I think is most important about my own experience of learning about history was about how to think about history. Yes, kids need to master some basic “memorize all this crap” facts to get a foundation, but after that, the details are, well, details that you can pick up. Didn’t learn anything about how Buddhism spread from India to China? Well, you can start on Wikipedia for a broad overview. Then, take a look at the references provided to dig deeper into more reliable and detailed sources. Maybe that’s enough. Or maybe you want to dig deeper and do an MS. Whatever you want, you can do it.
If “teach about Islam” means to make kids memorize a dozen factoids that will have been largely forgotten three weeks after the exam, then no, we don’t need that. What we need is to give kids the skills to learn about any religion. There’s probably not enough time to teach kids the 54 Points of Doctrine of the Old Time Free Will Baptist Snake-Handling Appalachian Pentecostal Chapel of the Last Days, but properly educated people will be able to on their own if they have a basic education about what history and religion are, and how to study them. They will also be able to go find out the major and even minor differences between that organization and the Old Time Reformed Free Will Baptist Snake-Handling Transmountain Pentecostal Temple of White-Robed Saints.
Think about the difference between taking Important Stuff 101 at the freshman level at a university versus taking a graduate seminar. The first involves memorizing lots of crap to get a foundation. The latter typically involves little to no memorization and a lot of going out and doing research and reporting what you find.
Fiqh, sunnah, bid‘ah, Solo. Heh, heh, heh. Tootah-wookie jihad? Muhammad qur’an - heh, heh, heh.
SoH quvHa’.
I think they already know about Google. And probably wikipedia. 
Since my point was that society has already chosen to NOT send people into combat based on the quality of their education and I have made no sugggesion to change that societal position, it seems odd to see you talking about what I want when it is the opposite of what I have expressed.
Does this help?
Unfortunately, there are many problems with this chart. It means well but it reflects the ways we still have to go. Some points:
-
Having the Qur’anists on the chart at all is a pretty big charity to them, based on numbers and influence. Putting them next to the Kharijites, in the early days of Islam, is very dubious. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that as a coherent movement they date back before the modern era.
-
Placing the Sunni-Shia split at 632, when Muhammad died, is not historically accurate. There was a split at this time – the “apostate wars” – but Ali and Abu Bakr were on the same side. Ali was Caliph (recognized to this day by the Sunnis) from 656 to 661. The leadership disputes were ongoing, and it would take generations for there to be a clear split between Sunni and Shia. If you have to choose a single date, the first Fitna (civil war), roughly coinciding with Ali’s reign, or the battle of Karbala in 680 when his son Hussein was killed would be better. The split is also more important in some places than others. Many Sunnis identify as “just Muslim” in part because they are not concerned about Shi’ism at all.
-
The Sunni schools of Fiqh (the human enterprise of understanding divine law (shariah)), Hanafi, Maliki, Sha’afi, and Hanbali are not comparable to the Shia sects like the Twelvers, the Ismaili, or the Zaidi. Sunni legal schools each hold the others to be valid. Shia sects have their own schools of fiqh (the Twelver is called Ja’afari, after the 6th Imam Ja’afar as-Saddiq).
-
Saying that so and so percent of Muslims are Hanafi or Sha’afi obscures the reality of how the bulk of Muslims live and have lived. These are legal schools, and relevant to legal scholars and to an extent to local cultural identity. The actual range of identification average Muslims have had with these schools ranges wildly, but my sense is that for most Muslims in history, “I follow the Maliki madhab” or “I follow the Hanafi madhab” were not relevant statements the way the graph implies.
-
There is also the issue that these schools of fiqh were not founded as such, what happened was there was a particularly revered scholar and his students over a few generations started imitating him explicitly, and they began to be grouped by his name.
-
The chart’s choice to organize itself on the Sunni side by Fiqh is kind of arbitrary; there are schools of kalam (what is often called Islamic theology) and falsafa (Islamic philosophy) traditions.
-
Placing the Salafiyya as a school emerging from the Hanbali madhab is not right, since Salafis often reject madhabs and early figures like Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh were not from Hanbali-dominated areas.
-
The Barelvi and Deobandi movements are not schools shooting off from the Hanafi school, they both adhere to Hanafi jurisprudence.
-
Alawites being a movement from Twelver Shi’ism is a very dubious assertion. It is what Alawites publicly claim now, but this is a recent development. The secrecy of Alawi doctrines also makes it hard to pin down their identity.
There are some good things though:
Sufism is not labeled as a sect, correctly. For a basic chart like this I won’t quibble about using the word “mysticism.”
The Taliban was indeed heavily influenced by the Deobandi movement.
For those interested in foolsguinea’s question:
Fiqh is the name given to the human enterprise of understanding divine law, which is what Shariah is.
Sunnah refers to the ways and traditions of Muhammad.
Bid’ah is a term for innovation, but it has a bad connotation, used in Islamic jurisdprudence to denounce unjustified corruptions added to Islam.
I graduated from public school in Maryland over 20 years ago. We learned about Islam as it related to 10th-13th century European history in our 11th grade social studies class, and in 12th grade I took an elective course called Comparative Religion that included a unit on Islam and the Suni/Shia conflict. The US has a very diverse educational system. Whatever subject you think should be taught, is being taught somewhere
As for me, and again I am in my forties, but what I recall about history in public school (all in the same county) was:
6th Grade: Sumer and ancient Mesopotamia through Early Middle Ages
7th Grade: Egypt through Renaissance
8th Grade: Non-European History from when Europeans encountered the non-Europeans through WWII
9th Grade: American History from 1491 through 1960
10th Grade: American History from 1775 through 1980
11th Grade: Non European History from when the Europeans arrived through 1960
12th Grade: American History from 1491 through 1989
So, I’d take out one or two of the half dozen times I was asked to study Columbus, WWII, or the Boston Tea Party.
I learned the basics about other religions in my HS world studies class (from a Catholic Nun) - nothing too detailed, but certainly no demonizing. I learned quite a bit about Buddhism from my Catholic dogma teacher in HS (who was a converted jew).