Saudi Texts Continue to Support Hatred
by RonChusidAfter 9/11, Saudi Arabia (home to many of the hijackers) promised to revise their education to end teaching hatred of the west. “Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.” The Washington Post also reports that lastyear an embassy spokesman claimed,”We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths.” The Post also found that these claims are not true:
A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government’s statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the “monotheists”) and unbelievers (the “polytheists” and “infidels”).
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to “spread the faith.”
The article provides many examples from their texts. As early as first grade they are told, ” Every religion other than Islam is false.” Fifth graders are taught, “It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.” In sixth grade the lesson is, “Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God’s power.”
The intolerance continues as the children get older. Eighth grade texts claim, “As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.” Ninth grade texts advocate struggle with lessons such as, “It is part of God’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment].” Tenth graders learn that the life of a non-Muslim, and woman, or slave “is worth a fraction of that of a ‘free Muslim male.’”
We try to show tolerance towards other religions and look at their peaceful teachings, but perhaps, as Sam Harris warns, we are deluding ourselves. Eleventh graders are taught, “The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others.” This sets them up for the ultimate lesson for twelth graders: “Jihad in the path of God — which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it — is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.”
Sunday morning is a poor time to judge the blogosphere as many bloggers are not yet very active. So far I’ve seen minimal coverage of this, much of it from the conservative blogs. Revulsion at these teachings is one area where bloggers from the left and right can find common ground. Perhaps this will lead to better understanding of why conservatives desire to go to war against jihadists (even if their plans in Iraq are misguided) and conservatives will better understand why liberals feel separation of church and state is an area where there can be no safe compromise, and that long term energy independence is essential.
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |
Like most of the kids in Saudi, I used to go to a private school there so the textbooks might be different for private and public. In such schoo we never learned about anything related to hate.
Here’s a typical day in school:
-Start the day outside while we recited the national anthem and some of the Quran (15 minutes)
-1st period (45 minutes)
-2nd period (45 minutes)
-3rd period (45 minutes)
-Lunch (30 minutes)
-4th period (45 minutes)
-5th period (45 minutes)
-Prayer (20-30 minutes)
-6th period (45 minutes)
-7th period (45 minutes)
-8th period (45 minutes)
-Go home
Two of those periods…for 5th grade, 2nd was “Quran” in which we read and memorized the Quran. 6th was “Religion” in which we learned the two Islamic aspects of “Fiqh” (Muslim’s guide basically) and “Towheed” (One God, monotheism).
In neither of those classes did we learn anything related to hate. They actually built my personality to be the one people enjoy today.
I’m gonna use the same argument used for centuries…
Why is it that out of 100’s of millions of people to make it through the Saudi educational system over its existence, thousands become terrorists?
Again, I’ve never experienced the public schooling system in Saudi but the overwhelming majority goes to private schools.
I’m a product of that system and I, as most, don’t hate. I love peoples of all faiths and races.
wom, I am also a product of private schools. I have no idea what was taught in our local (Indiana) public school, but I doubt there was anything close to a religion class.
But then, when it comes to religion, I don’t view what GWB espouses any differently than I do what the Saudies espouse.
Ron, you said, “Revulsion at these teachings is one area where bloggers from the left and right can find common ground.” I don’t mean to take anything you are saying out of context, but in my opinion, unless and until the conservative right see that in this particular piece of the pie, both what the Saudies are saying and what Bush is saying are the same, I don’t know that understanding the importance of the left’s desire to maintain a hard wedge between church and state is possible.
At least, as a self-proclaimed leftie, I still don’t have any understanding of why the right’s desire for war is justified because the Saudies promote teaching jihad for infidels in their public schools.
I’d need another argument.
KJ,
It will definately be hard for left and right to ultimatelay achieve a common ground. Conservatives appear more likely to extend this to all Saudis. While the teaching is clearly wrong, this does not mean all Saudis receive or accept these teachings. Republicans must acknowledge the strong tie between the Saudis and the Bushes.
Attitudes such as this show why the right sees war as the solution. Understanding their motivation does not mean accepting this as justified, but understanding their motivations may help respond to their political agenda.
wom,
Glad to hear that not everyone is receiving this education. Obviously we must distinguish between the state supported education and attitudes of individuals. Even if all individuals received this instruction, this does not mean that all individuals accept these views.
“Why is it that out of 100’s of millions of people to make it through the Saudi educational system over its existence, thousands become terrorists?”
Good point. Not all are going to be affected by such education, but unfortunately far too many are. The problem is not only the thousands who become terrorists, but the others who accept the actions of terrorists making such actions more likely.
While there are problems with terrorism outside of the Muslim world, such as in Northern Ireland, the fact remains that the middle east is where terrorism is most accepted. This does not mean we should assume all of middle east origin accept terrorism, but we also cannot ignore factors which promote it, such as the Saudi educational system.
It should also be noted that the author of this article is from Freedom House, which has been accused of having a conservative bias. It is possible that the article has been tilted to support conservative goals.
However, this is not the only source which has crtiicized the Saudi government for such actions and I think it would be naive to write off such criticism or to ignore charges that the Saudi government has not changed. Even if they are “cherry picking” certain statements, having any of these statements in text books is unacceptable. This article is hardly the final word on this, and the manner in which we should respond is not clear, but this does represent cause for alarm.
Ron,
btw, I base my entire arguement that there will NOT be a meeting of the minds from the conversative (Christian) right and the liberal left on this stand alone, the fact that on this issue (Saudi’s not revising their public education), “an eye for an eye” (or a war for a jihad) originates from the Old Testiment, and not the New. As a matter of opinion, I see our response to 9/11 as simple revenge– based in the Old Testiment– and on nothing that Christ is supposed to have professed.
So, I see no reason to begin to understand the conservative right’s desire for going to war when Bush’s and his ilk are self-proclaimed followers of Christ. Just doesn’t make sense to me.
Now, agreement that long term energy independence is essential… yes!
“Thousands of Iowa’s Corn Farmers See the Future in Fuel Growers Investing In Ethanol Plants Across the State
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 21, 2006; Page A03
GOLDFIELD, Iowa — The complex looks like a refinery and smells like a bakery. From a pipe at the back flows a clear liquid that could be confused with vodka, except it can power an automobile and, its backers hope, propel ordinary Iowans into biofuel heaven.”
Living next door to Iowa, in a county that went overwhelmingly for Bush, I can relate personal conversations that began with, “I don’t know why ‘those west coast liberals’ don’t get behind ethanol….”
And although the above article doesn’t really address this, alternative or “American Fuel” is quickly gaining ground around here as a Republican issue.
Ron,
I just don’t agree with you. (And believe me, that is rare!) I don’t I see how understanding the right’s motivations may help respond to their political agenda… if only because I see this as leading right back to the topic of religion, and I’ve personally encountered too many closed minds on that subject among the right. (And I’m including my time spent countering this very argument, “war for jihad,” or “eye for an eye” with conversatives immediately after 9/11 and up until the latter months of 2003, when I gave up my daily conversing with conservatives completely.)
Of course, there is always hope, and I don’t mean to throw any water on that hope for common ground.
Ron, I personally agree with your stand on the the real danger of the Da Vinci code blog: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3058
and hope that if nothing else, by bringing a blending of the Christ story to Americans, if only via fiction, is a good way to move the meme.
KJ,
I would think that in any situation, understanding where the other side is coming from would help respond even if we disagree with them.
Assuming the validity of this report, at very least liberals and conservatives can agree in opposing the actions of the Saudi government. It will be much harder to reach an agreement as to how to respond to this. Keeping Saudi students out (as some conservatives recommend) and going to war in Iraq are certainly not good responses.
Ron,
Of course I agree with this statement:
“I would think that in any situation, understanding where the other side is coming from would help respond even if we disagree with them.”
Understanding is an umbrella and one I attempt to carry with me daily.
Where we disagree is in this statement (shortened hopefully without altering your meaning):
“Perhaps this will lead to better understanding of why conservatives desire to go to war against jihadists.”
Since, based on my own experience, the desire to go to war, as conveyed by Christian Conservatives from the actual day of 9/11 onward, was derived from “war for jihad” which was in itself devived from “eye for an eye” which is based in the Old Testiment, not the New.
Simple point which was lost on the Christian conversatives I spoke with daily. “Eye for an eye” was not attributed to the words of Christ, which the conversatives were using as justification for their war against jihad.
I understand I’m being extremely literal here, and probably not making a lot of sense to anyone but myself.
What I’m attempting to say is: if common ground is to be found, it must actually BE common ground. Not ground that is faux common, as I think the “eye for an eye” or “war for jihad” reasoning is.
And as I said above, unless and until that dichomoty is address by Christian Conservatives, I won’t be anywhere understanding their desire for war based on religion.
Of course, I do understand that not all conversatives are Christian; my own father was a rock-solid Republican and did not believe in any God or any religion.
KJ,
I don’t think we can oversimplify things to say that all conservatives want to go to war purely from the idea of an “eye for an eye.”
There are some legitimate concerns behind some people’s desires to go to war. They may or may not exaggerate the threat from those they call Islamofascists (a terrible term) but that does not mean there is no threat. This also does not mean that war in Iraq was the solution.
The war in Iraq will (hopefully) end sooner or later, but problems in the middle east will not. We still need a national policy on handling the middle eas, and to do so we must understand the concerns of all sides.
If nothing else, we should have learned the folly in ruling without considering the views of the opposing party from seeing George Bush’s failures. Ruling purely from the far left without considering the views of others would also be disasterous.
There are far more people who support the war than the religious right. Take Thomas Friedman for example. I know he is not popular these days in the liberal blogosphere, but since reading works from him such as From Beirut to Jerusalem I believe he has considerable understanding of the middle east. He was wrong on Iraq but we must also understand where people like him are coming from.
Ron, the statement was:
“Perhaps this will lead to better understanding of why conservatives desire to go to war against jihadists.” based on the fact that the Saudi’s were continuing to preach and teach intolerance and outright jihad in their public schools.
Where else does “war against jihadists” come from, if not the Bible, especially in the context of religion?
Sorry if I’m being dense. But I take exception to the statement that the left will understand right’s “war against jihadists” based on the Saudi’s teaching of religous intolerance in their schools.
As for Friedman, yes. I quit reading his columns some time ago, but do plan to read his book “The World is Flat” hopefully soon.
I’ll shut up, now. We simply disagree on one sentence, and think I’m only complicating the issue now, when to me, it’s not complicated at all.
War against jihadists does not necessarily come from the Bible. If the Bible didn’t exist, there would be the question of going to war agaisnt those who express hatred towards us, such as jihadists.
Ron,
Ala “what ‘is’ means,” I think the entire issue between us stems from what “this” in: “Perhaps this will lead to better understanding of why conservatives desire to go to war against jihadists.” means.
The Saudi’s teaching jihad in their public schools doesn’t explain (or help me understand) why conservatives desire to go to war against jihadists.
Because they’ve expressed a desire to go to war against Christians and Jews and Infidels?
If that isn’t a description of “eye for an eye” I don’t know what is.
ducking and running and grinning….
KJ,
It’s a simple argument–or perhaps the problem is that it is overly simplified. Putting aside the religious motivations, or even revenge, there is also the argument of killing them before they kill us. There are obvious weaknesses to this argument, but it can’t be totally ignored when there is evidence that they are being taught to desire to kill us.
Ron,
I see your point re: killing them “before” they kill us… but I don’t know how to view that except as a response and a reaction to the killing that happened on 9/11. i.e., “eye for an eye.”
The only reason I latched onto the sentence was my own “eye for an eye” response after quite literally years of attempting to counter the argument for war, because of 9/11, from conservatives.
Chalk it up to my own personal sticking point where I attempted to point out that behind words are symbols and concepts from which we can either chose to re-act in kind, or from another point of viewpoint(s) all together.
As for your ability to present a point of view that presents as a nearly impenetrable wall of fact(s), I hope you know, I stand in awe.
KJ,
This could even be looked at independent of 9/11, except that 9/11 gives the threat far more credibility. Even before 9/11 there was the question of how to deal with people taught to kill us. Before 9/11 many conservatives supported war in the middle east as the solution. 9/11 isn’t the reason for their policy, but it is what made it possible to sell the policy to majority of the voters.
The PNAC. 9/11 was convenient for their goals, wasn’t it? Or, if that sounds too tinfoily, let me say that ignoring the threats of a 9/11 (Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US) certainly was.
The idea however, that Bush is a follower of Christ’s teachings, or that self-professed Christians support killing others, for any reason, is something that sticks my ever-literal craw. (example: pointing out the obvious conflict between Christ’s supposed words and Bush’s supposed “Christian” actions.)
As to how we deal with people who are taught to kill us, I thought Christ actually made a couple of good points.
Supper is cooking…
Good discussion,
Wom, thank you for that perspective.
I would have to point out that a country saying it will do one thing and doing something else, is as old as diplomacy. SA is also a complicated society. The Royal Family has the power to kill, evict, etc. They also have a lot of relatives. Change is slow. Even if there are some glaring errors in this article, it further reinforces the need to understand each other and communicate better.
I am going to support KJ on the buried ‘eye for an eye’ mentality being a big factor in many minds. I have heard so many comments that somehow alluded to it, one of the bumper stickers is Ghandi’s:
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”
KJ did you mean this?
We have to kill them “before” they kill us…again.
As in: we had 3000+ people killed, we are going to keep from having any more killed. Pre-emptive eye for an eye? I think they are so intertwined in many minds that it is best to keep both in the variables. Perhaps that combining the two gives synergy that people who only think of one don’t have.
“behind words are symbols and concepts from which we can either chose to re-act in kind, or from another point of viewpoint(s) all together.”
Exactly. All too often the choice is made at the conceptual, non verbal level without being subjected to left brain, verbal analysis and judgement.
My own outside the box impression of the senseless, hypocritical violence being the guiding force in Judeo-Christian-Islamic history, is thoroughly supported by a grotesque amount of scholarly work on the subject.
The basic tenet of all of it is:
We are right, you are wrong. In the name of our Lord we must kill you so that we will survive.
It is conservatives in all faiths that keep using war and violence as the ‘final solution’.
This theme of recurring war being unwinnable was explored in every version of Star Trek – at least once.
The basic concepts hold true whether the participants are from Northern Ireland, the Middle East or the Delta Quadrant.
If we don’t get to a solution on this idea soon, the odds of achieving one will become very long. Light years?
OK I can see a lil something to everyone’s comments. But I only know one thing. Who let the dogs out?
Donnie,
Is that a riddle?
God made them,
The Devil would let them IN
So it was clearly a woman who let them out
My lil tension breaker backfired. Now I have that damned song in my head.
Sorry Donnie,
It’s too hot here for my brain to make some connections and I WON’T turn the AC on until June.
Ginny, you described it perfectly! “buried ‘eye for an eye’ mentality” is what I was attempting to get at in this discussion.
If conservatives want to argue with me, I’m going to hold them to those very simple ideas (and the concepts behind them). And “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is one.
In my opinion, at the very least, we need to examine our reasonings and/or justifications for killing, wars and jihads, and not be afraid to hold those reasons up to scrutiny. If we don’t, we are as unconscious as those who are killing us for simple reasons, because we aren’t “them.”
Us vs Them… Insider vs Outsider… the Collective vs the Individual…