SMC Core Curriculum Course Proposal Form
Fall 2014
Electronically submit this course form and attachments to the Chair of the CCC by
October 1. Please submit a separate proposal for each desired learning goal.
1. Name of Proposer: Zach Flanagin
2. Email address: dflanagi@stmarys-ca.edu
3. Department/Program of Proposer: Theology & Religious Studies
4. Name of Department/Program housing the course: Theology & Religious Studies
5. Name(s) of Program Director/Department Chair housing the course: Zach
Flanagin
6. Course Acronym, Number and Title: TRS 152: Islam: Beliefs & Practices
7. Proposal is for All Sections of the course: yes
Proposal is for instructor’s section(s) (Engaging the World only): _____
8. Course Prerequisites (if any): TRS 97 or 189
9. Unit Value of Course: 1.0
10. Mark with an X the Learning Goal for which the course is being proposed.
(Please submit a separate proposal for each desired goal.)
Pathways to Knowledge (at most one)
Artistic Understanding – Artistic Analysis only: ____
Artistic Understanding – Creative Practice only: ____
Artistic Understanding – Both Artistic Analysis and Creative Practice: ____
Mathematical Understanding: ____
Scientific Understanding: ____
Social, Historical, Cultural Understanding: ____
Christian Foundations: ____
Theological Explorations: ____
Engaging the World (as appropriate, generally zero to two)
American Diversity: ____
Common Good: ____
Community Engagement: ____
Global Perspectives: X
11. Expected Attachments:
a) Syllabus: Current course syllabus, expected to contain a course description
and learning outcomes. The course’s learning outcomes must include
coverage of the Learning Outcomes associated with the Core Curriculum
Learning Goal for which the course is being proposed.
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
b) Teaching and Learning: A narrative that explains how the course will guide
students toward achieving each Learning Outcome and how coursework
(e.g., papers, exams, videotaped presentations) will be used to measure
student achievement of each Learning Outcome. Please address the outcomes
directly and one by one.
Teaching: A brief narrative that explains how the course will guide students to
achieve the learning outcomes
In TRS 152, outcome #2 (i.e., demonstrate an understanding of the world from a
specific non-U.S. and non-Western European viewpoint) is taught through the
following specific course outcomes:
Students will:
1. Be able to describe various important events, figures, and name key dates
in the biography (sirah) of
the Prophet Muhammad (family members,
eminent companions, “night of power,” night journey and ascension, hijrah,
battles, treaties, etc) and how the revelations of the Qur’an are related to
these events.
In addition, students will become well acquainted with the
Qur’an itself; its content, themes, style, promulgation, transmission, and
codification.
2. Memorize several verses from the Qur’an as well as famous hadith of the
Prophet (in English
obviously or Arabic for the truly ambitious!), for the
purposes of becoming adequately acquainted with the ethos of sacred text
tradition.
3. Be able to define various Arabic terms essential to understanding the faith
tradition such as tahwid, taqwa, tanzil, sirah, fiqh, etc.
5. Be familiar with the history and beliefs of both the Sunni and Shiite
traditions as well as be able to name and describe various theologies within
the early centuries of the Islamic era, how various heterodox denominations
differed with the orthodox, and what factors provoked those differences.
6. Describe major Muslim scholars, theologians, jurists, philosophers,
mystics, and exegetes and will be able to compare and contrast their
approaches and methods of engaging sacred sources.
7. Develop interdisciplinarity by understanding normative
prophetic/traditional Islam from the believer’s confessional perspective as
well as understand and explore the issues and methods of the
critical
academic community, such as studying the Qur’an through a
non-theological, historical, and literary lens.
10. Demonstrate an understanding of the world and the meaning of existence
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
itself from a non-U.S./European perspective.
In essence, this is a course that asks students to step inside the world of Islam
(focusing on its dominant Middle-Eastern and North African traditions) and explore
how traditional Muslims encounter life. This is done through a robust engagement
with traditional and contemporary Muslim writings, highlighted by comparisons
with modern western perspectives on the same issues. The primary means that
these outcomes will be taught is through the readings, class lectures (the primary
pedagogy), and discussions in class. (For specifics topics and readings, see the
attached syllabus.)
Learning: A brief explanation of how coursework (e.g., papers, exams, videotaped
presentations) will be used to measure student learning of the outcomes
There are three major kinds of assignments in the course. The outcomes that are
more informational will be assessed by the three reading summary papers
(described in the syllabus) and the weekly quizzes. The bigger picture, in which
students demonstrate that they can articulate an Islamic perspective on the world,
will primarily be assessed through the major research paper in the course. This
paper will contain different section in which students are required to explicitly
address traditional Muslim perspectives on their research topic as well as modern
academic perspectives on the same topic.
Addendum to Core Curriculum Designation Proposal
for TRS 153, 154, 155, 156
For Global Perspective Learning Goal, Outcome #2
Dear Jim, Paul, and members of the GP Working Group and CCC:
With all due respect (and I genuinely believe that a significant amount of respect is
due), thank you for your feedback regarding the four proposals I had submitted for
Global Perspective designation. It is true that my submissions were intentionally
quite brief; I had understood that this was preferred. I also appreciate that you did
not find sufficient information for a definitive assessment. My apologies for making
you look over the material a second time.
While aspects of my courses fit beautifully with the first GP learning outcome
(globalization), they are more naturally slotted within the second outcome (nonU.S./Western European perspective) and I’ll do my best to present them as meeting
that outcome.
(I) But first, a prefatory remark:
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
I find myself in the difficult position of trying to demonstrate that my courses
provide a “non-U.S./Western European perspective” in the absence of agreement on
what constitutes a U.S./Western European perspective. I looked through the
designation material and successful proposals (online) from other faculty (one of
which even leverages my lecture introducing Buddhism in her course) but was
unable to find any sense of what “non-U.S./Western European” is meant to
designate. I did, however, notice in the Rationale accompanying the Global
Perspective Learning Goal that courses providing a non-U.S./Western European
perspective (outcome #2) “would include any number of courses in globallydiverse cultures and topics, such as African literature, Asian history, or Eastern
religions” (emphasis added). Oddly, a few courses don’t designate any particular
locations or cultures; they simply address the concern by stating that their course
“will include non-Western perspectives.” Another proposal provides no specific
information about which cultures will be engaged, only that they are ancient and
“[t]he vast majority of the case studies are non-Western.”
I raise this point not to be a jerk (truly) but simply because I was a member of the
GP working group that came up with the twin L.O. arrangement and, at that time, we
recognized (a) the difficulty of defining any culture/perspective as a single, bounded
entity (though we agreed that they do in fact exist) as well as (b) the tension
inherent in these two learning outcomes: globalizing forces tend to erode the
salience of bounded space/culture. The two can be understood as working against
one another. In an increasingly globalized world (which is recognized by the first
learning outcome) the distinctiveness of any one perspective (e.g., U.S./Western
European, which is recognized in the second learning outcome) is challenged by
global, that is, increasingly universal forms of knowledge. I raised this point in our
GP WG discussions (it has been at the center of my much of my research and writing
to date: how local and trans-local forces shape Hindu identities here in the U.S.,
specifically California) and we agreed at that time that in order to explicate “nonWestern,” the idea of “Western” would need further explication. Sadly, that doesn’t
seem to have occurred, or at least I couldn’t find it. I realize that this may sound a
bit petulant; I don’t intend it that way. I am simply left trying to contrast a
perspective with one that hasn’t yet been defined. I suppose, in some ways, this is
advantageous in that it allows for the greatest number of possible interpretations
and opens the way for a wide variety of approaches to satisfy the learning goal.
Given this opening, I’ll provide my own, provisional understanding of a
U.S./Western European perspective for use in the present circumstances (though
not beyond).
(II) My understanding of a U.S./Western European perspective where religion
is concerned:
Given the increasingly globalized nature of our times, while every -- or nearly every
-- perspective known to human kind can be found within the U.S. and Western
Europe, for the purposes of these proposals, I take the predominant U.S./Western
European perspective -- where “religion” is concerned -- to be largely that
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
perspective which flows from the Abrahamic (primarily Christian) traditions and
either posits or results in the following:
(a) the ultimate reality of a personal deity (aka “God”),
(b) a material universe and all within it as the creation of this personal deity,
(C) a dualism which recognizes a distinction between an eternal, personal God and
the rest of creation,
(d) a notion that humans live within this material creation only once and then either
cease to exist entirely or gain a new, spiritual life in another realm (“heaven” or
“hell”), and
(e) that time has a beginning and an ending point, bounded by the intention of God.
Essentially, the five points just mentioned form an underlying (though not
unchallenged) ontology of our western cultural inheritance where religion is
concerned.
(III) My courses in the context of a U.S./Western European perspective:
All of the courses I proposed concern “Eastern” religions: TRS 153 deals with
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism; TRS 154 concerns Hinduism alone;
TRS 155 is focused on Buddhism only; and TRS 156 is concerned with the religions
of India (both those derived from the Indian perspective and those “imported” into
the Indian milieu).
For the purposes on my application for these four courses to be designated, I need
only delineate how the courses “[d]emonstrate an understanding of the world from
a [emphasis added] specific non-U.S. and non-Western European viewpoint.” In all
four of these courses at least 50% of the instruction deals directly with Indian
ontology (either a Hindu or Buddhist perspective or both), which I hold to be nonU.S./Western European in its outlook.
In the case of Hindu ontology, this perspective posits:
(a) the reality of many personal deities (in contrast to the Abrahamic idea of one
personal God) as only provisional manifestations of an eternal and infinite
transpersonal reality (Brahman) that includes everything save distinction or
differentiation;
(b) that the creation of the material world is accomplished by means of one
manifestation of this infinite reality (Brahma), while interaction with that
creation is by means of another manifestation (Vishnu), and the destruction of
this created reality is by means of yet a third manifestation (Shiva);
(C) a monism that, while appearing to sub-speciate into infinite variety, ultimately
recognizes no distinction between the infinite transpersonal reality, the personal
gods (as provisional manifestations of the infinite transpersonal reality), and the
rest of creation (also provisional manifestations of the infinite transpersonal
reality);
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
(d) that all beings live within this material creation many, many, many times
(propelled by karma to be incarnated and reincarnated) until finally shedding
any apparent (though ultimately illusory) individuation in favor of unity with the
infinite transpersonal reality; and
(e) that this present epoch is but one cycle within a much larger cycle of cycle which
is without beginning or ending.
In the case of Buddhist ontology (which is a reformation of the Hindu perspective),
this perspective posits:
(a) that all deities, whether personal or transpersonal are, while perhaps a helpful
mechanism of encouragement for some persons, entirely illusory and ultimately
deleterious. While sainted beings such as Arhats, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas
may show the way, no gods exist (in contrast to the Abrahamic idea of one
personal God);
(b) that the arising of material reality -- and everything within it including our own
present incarnation -- is empty of its own substantial being;
(C) that everything that exists is contingent and characterized by the realities of
dukkha (suffering), anicca (transitoriness), and anatman (no-self);
(d) that all beings (which are inherently contingent) live within this material
creation many, many, many times (propelled by karma to be incarnated and
reincarnated) until finally extinguishing any apparent (though ultimately
illusory) notion of a substantial self (the elimination of which is know as the
truth of nirvana, which means roughly “self-extinction” or the extinction of the
false notion of a personal self); and
(e) that this present epoch is but one cycle within a much larger cycle of cycle which
is without beginning or ending.
All four of the courses I proposed deal substantively with either ontology or both.
Without getting into ever-greater specifics (for example, how the Chinese
philosophy of Kung fu-tzu developed during the Zhou/Chou dynasty or a Taoist
notion of alchemy and the apparent unity of all reality both contrast significantly
with a U.S./Western European perspective), the idea of reincarnation alone (let
alone a full-blown analysis of Hindu and/or Buddhist ontology) stands in sharp
contrast to the presumed and prevailing U.S./Western European perspective and
should satisfy the criteria that one “[d]emonstrate an understanding of the world
from a specific non-U.S. and non-Western European viewpoint.”
(IV) How do students “[d]emonstrate an understanding of the world from a
specific non-U.S. and non-Western European viewpoint” within these classes?
In all of my courses, students “[d]emonstrate an [emphasis add] understanding of
the world from a specific non-U.S. and non-Western European viewpoint” when they
are required to articulate either a Hindu or a Buddhist ontology or both on mid-term
and final exams in a variety of modes (T/F, Multiple Choice, Short Answer, AND
Essay). Further, while it varies from course to course, these perspectives are also
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
tested for understanding by means of quizzes, site reports, group presentations,
class discussion, and/or semester projects.
VI) What’s specific about the non-U.S./non-Western European viewpoint?
In the case of “TRS 153, Eastern Religions,” students study these perspectives (i.e.,
the ontological commitments of each tradition) in terms of the time and place in
which they arose (India for Hinduism and Buddhism, China for Confucianism and
Taoism), and also look at how these perspectives have changed as they have spread
into other cultural moments and locations (for example, what Hinduism looks like in
California in the 21st century or the cultural adaptations Buddhism made when
traveling first to China and then Korea and Japan before arriving in Tibet in the
eighth century of the common era), as well as examining specific forms of these
traditions (for example, Vaishnava or Shivite sects within Hinduism or the schools of
Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana within Buddhism).
In the case of “TRS 154, Hinduism,” the specific nature of the non-U.S./nonWestern European perspective that students encounter includes the relevant
material presented in TRS 153 (i.e., the Hindu portions of the class, though in
greater depth and detail as one might expect) as well as additional material on how
Hindu perspectives have changed over time and in response to interaction with
competing ontologies (an Islamic perspective of the Mughals and a Christian
Perspective of the British, for example). The course also examines how the Hindu
ontological perspective is present within specific classical texts (the Vedas,
Bhagavad Gita, etc.), how it gets deployed in lived experience (within India
historically and presently) and political rhetoric (for example, within the Hindutva
or “Hinduness” movement), as well as how general Hindu perspectives get worked
out within the teachings of specific gurus (teachers) in and beyond India.
In the case of “TRS 155, Buddhism,” the specific nature of the non-U.S./nonWestern European perspective that students encounter includes the relevant
material presented in TRS 153 (i.e., the Buddhist portions of the class, though in
greater depth and detail as one might expect) as well as additional material focused
on Buddhist thought and practice as evidenced in the Three Jewels (the Buddha, the
Dharma, and the Sangha). This course requires students to understand the
underlying ontological claims (e.g., the four Noble Truths, three marks of existence,
twelvefold chain of dependent origination, etc.) made by the historical Buddha,
Prince Siddhartha Gautama, and how this gets worked out in a variety of specific
ways and settings. Students learn specifics related to a variety of schools of thought
(for example, in addition to Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, students also
study variations of these: e.g., Yogacara and Madhyamaka) and cultural settings (e.g.,
India, China, Japan, and Tibet) and some of the forms of practice associated with
them (e.g., Chan, Zen, Pureland, and Tantra, etc.).
In the case of “TRS 156, Religions of India,” the specific nature of the nonU.S./non-Western European perspective that students encounter includes the
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee
relevant material presented in TRS 153 (i.e., the Hindu and Buddhist portions of the
class, though in greater depth and detail as one might expect) as well as additional
material focused Jainism (another reformation of Hinduism), Sikhism (an Indian
tradition derived from Indian ontology filtered through Islamic theology), and the
imported traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism. Students are
required to articulate not only a basic ontological perspective underlying each but
also how each tradition is shaped within its Indian setting in relation to larger social,
political, economic, and historical forces.
VI) Closing comments:
I believe that I have adequately demonstrated how students in my classes are
required to “[d]emonstrate an understanding of the world from a specific non-U.S.
and non-Western European viewpoint.” Unlike other proposers, I have outlined an
admittedly tentative definition of a (please note the indefinite article) U.S./Western
European viewpoint in the service of demonstrating how my courses provide
students with specific alternatives to such a viewpoint. I am hopeful that the GP
Working Group and the CCC will agree that this addendum provides sufficient
information for a definitive and positive assessment of my proposal for Global
Perspective designation of TRS 153, 154, 155, and 156.
With kind regards and thanks for your thoughtful work,
Norrie Palmer
Professor
Department of Theology & Religious Studies
http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/core-curriculum-committee