Deeyah Khans film Jihad has been nominated for a prestigious British documentary award. Do I dare to show it to the class?
In various debates about Islamization, terrorism, feminism and all that causes us to fire and flame, I have occasionally pointed to the documentary film Jihad by Deyah Khan. It does not bother so much in the commentary threads, which has astonished me a little. What’s so good about the film is that it shows us they are human beings, these men – because they are usually men too – without having to pick in that particular thread – it all rages so fast that you do not Ropes to get some of the other threads with him and everything goes to the ball.
The movie is mostly about men who are so completely wrong and who act so horribly wrong, but it tells us that they are equally human. They can be happy, committed, angry – and they can cry. And this ability Deeyah Khan to get well in the movie Jihad, which is now shortlisted for a Gierson Prize – something she herself describes as being an Oscar for documentary films.
Jihad in Social Studies
Last year I saw the film together with my social science class. We worked on the part of the curriculum called International Relations, and should I connect the film to an exact competence goal, it is that the student after watching this movie should be better equipped to:
- discuss the signs and causes of terrorism
Learning activity – like watching a movie and discussing it – can of course also be linked to other competence goals.
Can I show such a movie?
Since the debate about how to face terrorism from extremists is so infamous, I went for a couple of rounds with myself: Can I show this movie for the class? Or is Deeyah Kahn really an apologist, since she in this film shows us the human sides of these men? Does she drive on with jogging jerk in pure Jonas Gahr Støre style because she chooses to enter into dialogue with these men? Does this movie represent a form of “overolerant principlelessness” since she in the film is problematizing the surroundings of these men? Such reviews were in my mind – and if I was even more insecure – I might have imposed myself censorship – no, this is a movie that is too controversial to show in the classroom.
The suspicious teacher
For this, it seems to me in this debate: It has also been forbidden to problematize – you’re soon an “apologist.” It is also forbidden to point out that people who do cruel actions are human beings – you are quickly a “goodness man”. Since I myself have inherited a site on the left side somewhere, I am also used to living with the suspicion of me and the values I have with me from home. Some believe that these are values that, in essence, are the root of all evil. As a teacher, with such a background, I am concerned that I will not deal with anything that anyone would think is propaganda, preaching or undue influence. But my dilemma is that it’s my job to influence the youth.
The general curriculum
It is in this context that it is good to have a curriculum. It has been approved by the Norwegian Parliament, Stortinget, and is part of the Norwegian legislation. I came to show this movie can be anchored in the subject-specific section, but also in the general section. Particularly the first part entitled “Meaning seeking man”.
People who think something about what is happening should read up on what is actually in the general part of the curriculum, so that they know what to expect of all teachers, no matter what subjects they teach, and no matter what school, public or private. They may also agree with what the Ludvigsen Committee’s proposal proposes will form the basis of the future school.
A suspicious movie on a suspect channel?
Now this movie can get a prize. That’s all the more reason why not only my students should see it, but everyone who fires up in the community debate takes a look. It is freely available on NRK’s web pages.
You know. NRK. Or ARK. The left-wing propaganda channel that should lose both license revenue and state aid. It is possible to go to wash his mind with some humanism