The first discussion session will be held on Tuesday February 15. As there is no assigned reading for the day, you should come prepared with written notes for the discussion. My suggested format is that you first articulate a clear, if complex ANSWER to the question, followed by EVIDENCE drawn from Asad's book, or other verifiable sources. You may simply point to page and paragraph numbers of the text when indicating the evidence. 
 

The discussion is meant as a forum where you can present your own INFORMED opinion about issues arising from studying Asad's book. All questions require thinking independently about the subject. You will not find the ANSWERS for the questions in the book or even class notes. There are no RIGHT or WRONG answers in history, only more or less persuasive arguments. Persuasive arguments however, usually need to drawn upon convincing evidence. 
 

We will break up into two groups (if numbers permit!!) for the discussion, spend about 45 minutes discussing the questions within the groups. I expect ALL students to contribute equally to the discussions within groups with graduate students acting as facilitators if necessary. I will not participate in either group. We will then come back together to see what consensus or divergences we read in responses to each of the questions, as well as the general theme of the course. As we do not have too much time, I urge EVERYONE to try be on time to enable a prompt start to our discussions. I think it should be fun! 
 

QUESTIONS
 

1. Why and how has religion been separated from politics and considerations of power in the West? What effect has this had either on the place of religion within western societies, or on the histories of "minorities" (non-Western peoples) in the world? (For the second part of this question, you may choose to discuss either one, or connect the two) 
 

2. "Asad's book is more concerned with western liberal belief than religion." Comment.
 

3. To what extent are Al Za `ayr's nasiha exhorting the criticism of the Saudi government, and John Patten's "advice" to British Muslims comparable? What would you say accounts for the similarities or differences between these two texts? 
 

4. Would you say that Asad is criticizing liberalism for not being liberal enough (cf. race relations in Britain) or is the book a critique of liberalism per se? If so, is Asad implicitly (or explicitly) advocating illiberal politics? 
 

5. Asad focuses on the responses to Rushdie's book and calls for its banning in Britain. How might a discussion of Muslim responses to Satanic Verses in say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, (both self-professed Islamic States) have added further dimensions to the arguments he sets out?