Despite mountains of evidence that Muslim schools are turning out terrorists, Beirut's Dar Al-Hayat editorializes against any Western-influenced revision of Islamic textbooks.
"Several Arab countries have declared that they are in the process of changing or improving their educational curricula in order to remove all material, which incites fundamentalism, violence and hatred. We do not know if Arab governments are truly convinced that their curricula encourage terrorism or their position comes in response to the American hurricane, which is howling that there is no room anymore for hatred and radicalism. Donald Rumsfeld has already declared the defeat of terrorism which is accomplished not only through military might but also through the 'war of ideas,' hinting to the danger that the Islamic religious schools represent. . . ."
Of course, no piece of this kind would be complete without the obligatory accusation of the Jews: "In fact, if the Americans read the material that Jewish students read in Israel, they would be shocked because of the incitement to kill those who are different."
Why not change the books? "The problem is that the Americans will not be satisfied with changing some texts in the curricula but they will demand rigorous work in terminating the sources of religiosity in society."
Why? Are the sources of religiosity then synonymous with the sources of terrorism?
"This will lead to a negative counter-reaction as far as internal and external violence are concerned; especially that the American understanding of Islamic text will surely be frivolous. Will it be required to change the texts regarding the concepts of atheism, faith, and Jihad (holy war) because they might be interpreted as hostile to others?"
I hope so! Certainly in regard to the texts about jihad.
"What about the political issues like the Crusades or the historic battles between Muslims and Jews or the Israeli occupation?
"Therefore, the media publicity, the changing of curricula as well as the American 'war of ideas' will only succeed in promoting hatred and instability in Arab countries, if their leaders are receptive to the Americans."
So we are to believe, evidently, that teaching that Qur'anic verses such as "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Sura 9:5) must not be applied to today's political situation will foment more hatred, not less? (Thanks to Nicolei.)
I have seen several warnings to Islamic textbook writers about not changing their terrorist message.
Good.
I say "good," because as we get pushed to the wall more and more, we will begin to see the light and eventually, we will change our own textbooks to reflect the reality of the situation.
We are capable of reason; they are not. Therefore, we are capable of evaluation and change; they are not.
While they paralyze themselves in a mode that is doomed to failure, we are in a position to see the big picture, change, and ultimately win.
We see reality; they see "revelation."
Reality always wins in the end.
In all respect,I have to disagree with you:
We are not capable to "see reality",nor to face it, because we are too civilized,for our own good...we are politically correct.
What the Quran does to muslims it is similar with what PC does to us,but a hundred folds more dangerous for our survival as a great nation.
We are indeed politically correct. For now. But as the irrationality demanded by the Islamic sacred text--the prohibition against any thought other than that contained in the Koran--continues, they find themselves paralyzed.
We, on the other hand, are not bound to remain politically correct; there is no law, no force of government, that threatens us should we choose to recognize the threat posed by Islam.
For the moment, we choose not to recognize it. The operative term is "choose." Unlike them, we are not FORCED, under threat of government retaliation, to remain ignorant.
The reason for our freedom to choose has its origins in Aristotelian philosophy, which was the source of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. It was then that a group of young friends in North America began writing what was later to become known as "Cato's Letters," a series of pamphlets that many looked to as justification for the American Revolution.
One of the young men was concerned about the fusion of religion and state,because he thought that if government were seen as a creation of God, then any sort of criticism of government would be considered a sin, and not honest intellectual disagreement. His thinking was later incorporated into the new United States Constitution.
There were other issues involved in the separation of religion and government as well, such as the possible seizure of the force legitimately granted by the people to government in order to protect their individual rights. If a religion possessed that force, ultimately it would tend to compel others to recognize its belief system to the exclusion of others by means of some sort of threat. For the young nation, such a problem wasn't history, it was current events.
Those are only two of the reasons that the United States, the first nation ever created from "scratch," was specifically designed to keep religion separate from government. The only mention of God in the Constitution was to accomplish this goal.
If we fuse religion with government, we become another version of Islam, and like Islam, we will become intellectually paralysed, since to think thoughts not in line with whatever religion has the force of government supporting it would not be permitted.
If that should happen, we are indeed doomed.
Political correctness is about as close as we have come to such a state of affairs, but thanks to the Constitution, we are free to change.