Before the 9/11 attack on America in 2001, little attention was paid to the lessons held behind the closed doors of Britain’s Islamic seminaries.

Today, and especially after the July 2005 suicide bombings in London, the nature of those lessons, and the world view taught to young minds, is no longer of minority academic interest.

The issue for non-Muslims is one of security. How to ensure that students do not emerge from such seminaries fired with a conviction that their faith preaches hostility – or even violent opposition – to the West?

Among Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims doubts about the education provided in the 25 seminaries, attended by 3,500 students, tend to focus on a perceived inability of graduates to address the concerns of young British Muslims.

Most of these darul uloom (houses of learning) are modelled on – and use the same curriculum as – similar institutions established in South Asia during the late 19th century.

Sixteen of the institutions, producing 80 per cent of graduates, adhere to the austere Deobandi school of thought, which has traditionally adopted an isolationist, rejectionist approach to non-Muslim culture and values.

Students aged from 12 to 23 sit on the floor to study GCSE subjects alongside Islamic studies that are more concerned with memorising Arabic and Urdu texts than understanding or analysing them. This, and the close bonds formed between teacher and pupil, are seen as a way of protecting and preserving the faith in its purest form, but critics argue that they do little to prepare students for life outside the seminary walls.

Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, an Islamic scholar and government adviser, said: “The only difference between an imported imam and a local-trained imam lies in the fact that the latter can convey his message in English, while the former cannot.”