A Textbook Case of Intolerance

[BridgeTheGap]

Because they are so clearly designed for the convenience of large testing companies, I had always assumed that multiple-choice tests, the bane of any fourth grader's existence, were a quintessentially American phenomenon. But apparently I was wrong. According to a report put out by the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom last week, it seems that Saudi Arabians find them useful, too. Here, for example, is a multiple-choice question that appears in a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook, Monotheism and Jurisprudence, in a section that attempts to teach children to distinguish "true" from "false" belief in god:

Q. Is belief true in the following instances:
a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.

The correct answer, of course, is c). According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn't enough just to worship god or just to love other believers—it is important to hate unbelievers as well. By the same token, b) is also wrong. Even a man who worships god cannot be said to have "true belief" if he loves unbelievers.

"Unbelievers," in this context, are Christians and Jews. In fact, any child who sticks around in Saudi schools until ninth grade will eventually be taught that "Jews and Christians are enemies of believers." They will also be taught that Jews conspire to "gain sole control of the world," that the Christian crusades never ended, and that on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill Jews.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195684/?GT1=38001

[varkam]

1. But the Saudis are our friends!

:eyes:

[BridgeTheGap]

3. I haven't seen it done - but photoshop the picture of Bush

holding hands with the Saudi King - just add McCain holding the other hand.

[Eagles53]

2. Peaceful religion?? n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Wahhabism is not exemplary of Islam

The state religion of Saudi Arabia is a very extremist version of Islam, which most Muslims consider to be heretical. Deriving conclusions about Islam from Wahhabism is like deriving conclusions about Christianity from the Assemblies of God.

[Jim__]

4. When I want to know about intolerance, I look to the Hudson Institute as a primary example.

The Saudi version of Islam may well be intolerant. But any institute that boasts of such members as Donald Kagan and Richard Perle and founded by Herman Kahn is not the messenger I'm willing to listen to.

[struggle4progress]

5. (1) Anne Applebaum regularly writes for the rightwing pseudopaper The New York Sun; (2) The

Hudson Institute is also a uselessly biased source:

... Although the institute calls itself a "non-partisan policy research organization," scholars at Hudson consistently reveal an ideological agenda in their work. For example, during the 2006 battle over the renomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Hudson president Herbert London coauthored, with American Enterprise Institute (AEI) head Christopher DeMuth, an op-ed in the right-wing Washington Times. The two argued that Bolton's critics wrongly "contended could not work constructively with others, that he was too abrasive, and held the UN in too low regard to be effective there. In fact, on issue after issue, John Bolton has represented the United States with great effectiveness. He has engaged respectfully and productively with his counterparts from other countries and the UN bureaucracy wherever possible." Responding to the numerous press reports citing diplomats who painted a very different picture of Bolton's tenure at the UN, DeMuth and London complained that "it should come as no surprise that Mr. Bolton's critics have been reduced to citing unnamed foreign diplomats who say they do not get along with our UN ambassador" (Washington Times, September 7, 2006).

Similarly, during George W. Bush's second term, some Hudson scholars have been vociferous advocates of an aggressive U.S. posture vis-à-vis several Mideast countries, particularly Syria and Iran. Hudson adjunct fellow Norman Podhoretz, an early neoconservative trailblazer and former editor of Commentary magazine, was one of the loudest U.S. voices calling for attacking Iran. In a June 2007 article for Commentary titled "The Case for Bombing Iran," Podhoretz, who advises Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign team, wrote: "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." He concluded his diatribe pointing to European weakness, a familiar Podhoretz theme: "In fact, it could almost be said of the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad's denial that a Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In a number of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around. Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel" ... http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1480.html

(3) And, of course, the Saudi dictatorship is a very nasty thing: the US has traditionally supported it only because the oil companies want us to do so

(4) Anyone, who wants to think clearly about these issues, will not begin his/her analysis, based on the useless observations of rightwingers but will start from a careful consideration of relevant material facts

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Thanks for pointing out who the author is. Given the relationship

our government with Saudi Arabia, it's important to know what's happening there. But clearly, Appelbaum serves an agenda.

[RethugAssKicker]

6. IMO, all Western religions are intolerant.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. It's a perversion even of Islam.

Wahhabism is to Islam what Fred Phelps is to Christianity. Except there are more of them. And these are the guys the Bushes want us to think of as our good friends...

[Realityhack]

9. ""Unbelievers," in this context, are Christians and Jews."

I am fairly certain they hate every other religion and atheists as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. That's not standard Islamic doctrine

In orthodox Islam, Jews and Christians are respected as "people of the Book," and Muslims revere the Hebrew patriarchs (Ibrahim=Abraham, Musa=Moses, Ismail=Ishmael, Maryam=Miriam, Daoud=David) and Jesus as prophets, precursors of Mohammed, whom they view as the greatest and final prophet.

Under the Islamic Moors in Spain, Christians and Jews were free to practice their religions.

[The Magistrate]

12. 'Free', Ma'am, Is A Relative Term

While there is no doubt the situation of minority sects was worse in Medieval Christendom than in Andalusian Spain, the condition of such sects in the latter locale hardly matches any modern conception of 'free'. Non-Moslems were ringed around with a number of oppressive conditions amounting to an existence on 'Jim Crow' lines. Attempts idealize the situation as tolerance or freedom distort it out of recognition.

[Azooz]

13. Intolerance?

Quran Sowra 109: "The Unbelievers" (al-Kafiroon):
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
===========================

Say: O unbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship Who I worship. I will not worship what you worship, and you will not worship Who I worship. To you your way, to me my way.

===========================


That is straight from the Quran, what those Saudi kids believe is based on the Quran first and foremost - if their faith makes them more tolerant of others then they believe their tolerance please God, if they become less tolerant they are the unbelievers (showing great disrespect of God and His rules) and they get His anger. Intolerance goes against the Quran - something they must always fear and hate doing. Theology is not my thing but this is very basic, the levels are first to become more tolerant, second if you can not be tolerant then you must not do harm because of it, third is when the intolerant Muslim goes to hell with no excuses for harming becuase of intolarnace.

>>"Unbelievers," in this context, are Christians and Jews.
No. Why not ask any young Wahhabis what it actually means instead of asking a neocon translation? Calling Christians or Jews unbelievers is a major sin in Islam. Unbelievers are not atheists either, they are people who believe in God but do crimes (sin) anyway, and the unbeliever who one must fear most is the reader him or herself first.

Wahhabi Islam has many problems but it's best to let the Arab Christians and Arabic speaking Shia point them out - neoconns are not that good at translating, to put it politely.

[BridgeTheGap]

14. Thanks for pointing that out. n.t

[trotsky]

15. Newsflash! Religious adherents ignore part of their holy text!

Sadly, so do virtually all Christians - fundies and liberal ones. They all pick and choose the parts they want to follow.

If a Muslim follows the above, they must ignore the below:

K 2:191 And kill them wherever you find them..... such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

K 8:012 ... make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

K 8:055 Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve;

K 9:029 Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

K 9:073 ...strive hard (Jihad) against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them...

[BridgeTheGap]

16. Interesting that in the first crusade, the first deaths were christian on christian

Most organized religions usually become part and parcel of the existing power structure, helping to hold in place. But there are numerous radicals who come out of these same traditions of religion, probably because they actually read the texts and saw the inconsistencies in them.
Some say that the "beatitudes" are proof that Jesus was a socialist.

[Azooz]

17. How it works

Arab Christians call the Quran "Fitnah" (temptation) for good reason, those verse for example - just read a few before and a few after and you get the full meaning - it is how the Quran does it's magic. In Arabic it is much easier to understands what those verses really mean, it's much clearer as an idea and thought, and the words are more exact anyone with basic Arabic gains an automatic advantage.

Take it from the view of a child reading it in English, the "unbelievers" are anyone (Muslims to) who harms his or her parents, here the words are comforting for the child sees something nicely worded and the fighting is to protect him or her - but for an adult it is worded that he or she is of "unbelievers" even Muslims. In English it is not as clear but in Arabic it is very hard to misunderstand and pleases the child more and scares the adult a lot more to.

The verses of the Quran are not poetry but you have to treat them as if they were poetry because the verses explain one another, the verses or war always will be refined by the verses of peace and mercy before and after them. Just mind to read more carefully in English with emphasis on the proper word choices and you will see it.

>>K 9:073 ...strive hard (Jihad) against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them...

Jihad is word Arab Christians like and a name they call there sons by, if a parent needs help his son is there, such a son will be doing Jihad for his father even if he takes out the garbage or cuts the lawn. Try to harm either parent and Jihad will fear God not you - he has orders from God to protect his parents and nothing is more important than that fear.

>>K 8:055 Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve;
Do a full read of the Quran, it is not about war - the war verses are worded to please and sooth children and only scare adults, the more harm in the adults the more they scared they become. The very worst people in the Quran are Bedouins (Desert Arabs), the worst of all infidels and hypocrite, they like the Quran just fine but as adults it hurts - nothing else works that well.

The Quran is exact in one thing about war, soldiers go to hell whatever their religion if they do not fear God in the children, there is no escape from eternal hell for a Muslim soldier either - One must avoid war war as much as possible and do as little damage if they are forced into it. A Muslims always says the word "Peace", if he lies then he is an unbeliever (Kafir), if he pretends to mean it he is a hypocrite - if he means it then he is Muslim, if he does good in peace by God then he has faith to - as judged by God alone.

I'll explain any verse you think sounds unfair, intolerant or too violent, but I hope you'll try looking at them yourself first.

Peace

[trotsky]

19. Yes, that's the same standard set of answers liberal Christians give.

"They take it out of context."
or
"They apply it to the wrong situation."
or
"It's really not that bad, here's what it really means..." followed by a how-it-could-have-been scenario to try and get the offending passage viewed in a different light.

Thanks but it doesn't really answer anything.

[cosmik debris]

20. You noticed that too.

It sounds just like Zeb with a different book.

[Azooz]

23. ahh - but a great difference exists

I do not know about Zeb's book, but I am glad to see the Quran talked about in any context. I do not mind what anyone says about the Quran at all as long as they say it often and all over the MSM and internet. It is all free advertising for a great read. I can supply the neocons with many verses that fit in closer with their hate mongering, it all helps to make some people actually read it and decide what the verses really say for themselves.

Liberal Christians (God bless them) are not telling everyone to "read the Quran!" nor do they point out it's verses out of context - but the religious and political right do, so most new America Muslim converts were conservative Christians. I do not preach Islam and very few Muslims do, but we do not need to with the 700 club and others promoting it to over 100 million Americans each Sunday.

I do not have to prove what those verses say because they explain themselves well, it is a very simple English book that anyone reading it can understand.

>>It sounds just like Zeb with a different book.
I am sure I sound much more boring than Zeb, but he did not have Fox news, Rush, Bill O'Rilley and the whole Religious right promoting his book for him - he'd have to pay millions daily to get even half the advertising the Quran is :)

A bit off topic, this current issue with Saudi text books is a topic I see at least ten times a day on the Republican sites like freeper and LGF. I do not mind at all and hope they continue. Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes are blogging the Quran on Hot Air:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/26/hot-air-introduces-blogging-the-quran/

I am almost certain that this constant mention is the main reason Islam is spreading so fast in Republican states. I see that most of the American converts on youtube are former republicans, it'll simply keep up till they stop promoting it.

[cosmik debris]

24. Only in YOUR mind

If you substitute Bible for Quran it is hard to tell the difference in your arguments.

Of course the main similarity is that you both assume that your own book is superior without presenting "actual evidence" to support that fact.

You both have a book full of contradictions and vague notions.

You both have the same very strong opinions about your own book.

You both argue that you have the correct interpretations of your own book.

And you both seem to expect others to agree or at least accept your opinions.

The only difference I see between you and Zeb is the title of the book you are selling. And I'm not buying.

[The Magistrate]

21. A More Economical Explanation, Sir

Is that the 'war verses' emerged in the context of the actual warfare engaged in by Mohammed and the first generation of his followers, and served the common purpose of much war-time propaganda, strengthening the morale of the men in the fighting line and their families of the home front. It is not necessary to wax poetic over the matter....

[Az]

25. Well there are countless suras

providing Allah's rage and hatred of any that do not believe in him. That in itself should be sufficient to show the intolerance within the Quran. And while the claim may be attempted that the rage is for Allah and not for believers to abide in, the implication is fairly hard to miss. Be pissed at any that do not believe. But those are not the bits I am interested in.

If you could, please explain this particular sura:

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Now I met an individual this past week who is an atheist living in a Muslim state (Katar) and his life is severely constrained by this verse. For if he ever openly admitted that he is an atheist in his native country he would be killed, no questions asked. This would seem to be the Quran put into action.

[Az]

18. So it seems Muslism share a problem with Christians

They both have extremists that twist the words of their doctrine to be turned against those who do not believe. But even more problematic is that they both have moderate and liberal adherents that for whatever reason refuse to speak up against the misrepresentation of their beliefs by these supposed radicals. And has been stated by far wiser people than I, all that has to happen for evil to triumph is for good to remain silent.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Actually, I think moderate Muslims get more of a pass

because their extremists are, let's say, more prone to follow up on their hate with action.

I fault them less for not speaking up. Moderate Christians in Western countries, OTOH, have NO excuse.

[onager]

26. Right. They get frequent death threats.

Even though "moderate" is probably not exactly what we Westerners think of as "moderate."

Being in Egypt, I get a kick out of reading people like Souad Saleh, the female professor of Islamic law at Al-Azhar University. (The oldest Islamic unversity in the world, located in Cairo.)

When Saleh issued a fatwa saying the Koran did not require women to be completely covered, one True Islamic Believer called the media and offered to cut her throat. (He didn't leave his name.)

Saleh also got involved in a pretty funny episode a couple of years ago. On one of Egypt's popular "ask-an-Imam" TV shows, a woman called in and asked if it was a sin for married couples to be completely nude when they had sex.

The TV Imam said, indeed, that was a sin and the couple should be wearing something.

Two of his next callers were Saleh and another female religious expert, who said the Imam was "crazy." Among other things.

However, in the article reporting that incident, Saleh was careful to note that some sexual practices were absolutely forbidden because they were "dirty." She listed anal sex and having intercourse during the woman's menstrual period.

Here's a link to an article about her, and some excerpts:

Saleh is no feminist, though, and abhors notions of Western feminism that pretend that women have the same duties and responsibilities as men. The first duty of a Muslim woman is to be a conscientious mother and home-maker. The Muslim man is the head of the family and the bread-winner. If a woman feels that she can honestly combine a career with her first obligation as a mother and home-maker, then so be it.

You can probably figure this out from the context. But hijab is the head-scarf, niqab is the outfit that covers everything but the eyes, and a woman wearing that outfit is a munaqabat:

There is no Quranic text that promotes niqab, Saleh says. The injunctions urging Muslim women to don the hijab are clearly stated in Surat Al-Nur and Surat Al-Ahzab. "The Quran clearly states that a Muslim woman should wear the hijab, even though the face should not be veiled." Saleh recounts how she has had to force her munaqabat students at Al-Azhar University to remove their facial veils when they sit an exam. "How else can I ascertain the identity of the young woman? How do I know if another individual is sitting in her place. The niqab, in my view, is not acceptable..."

Music is not in itself haram (prohibited by Sharia). Only decadent music is," Saleh explains. "The sexually suggestive video clips are most certainly haram."

Now I find this interesting. Just like their theological cousins the Xians, even the Expert Muslims have a little trouble figuring out who is a "real Muslim." And Saleh quotes Karl Marx while bashing one branch of Islam:

Saleh rolls her eyes at the mention of Sufism. "Now that is a subject that fascinates many Westerners. Orientalists, in particular, see Sufism as the acceptable face of Islam," she says without hesitation. "Contemporary Sufism is a product of Western colonialism. Indeed, the colonialists encouraged the spread of Sufism and Sufi orders in the Muslim world in order to divert the colonial people's attention from the anti-colonial struggle. Sufi Islam was the opiate of the masses."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/766/profile.htm