Anne Applebaum of Slate investigates new Saudi school text books 

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.

Comments

Search

emperorbma  - Jesus   |2008-07-22 11:44:42 Never mind that Jesus (whom Muslims consider a prophet) says: Quote: Matthew 5:43-48 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Of course who wants to wager that these folks would assume that this is just another part of the Bible that they officially teach that we Christians were supposed to have corrupted? To the radical Muslim we must logically be the epitome of all evil by preaching the love and forgiveness of God...

patronpeter  - Option D   |2008-07-23 09:11:52 I'm glad you brought that up, I heard those verses (not voices) ringing in my head as I was reading the options, so, D is the right answer (love everybody)

PineHall  - Is this a case of ...   |2008-07-23 10:50:10 the Law without any grace? It seems that either you are 100% right or you are effectively an unbeliever. It also seems to give a good reason for Muslims to allow the killing of other Muslims. Am I seeing this right or have I taken it too far?

OrionBlastar  - Of course   |2008-07-23 11:52:36 Hate the sin, love the sinner. :)

Shenango   |2008-07-27 12:55:20 Emperor that criticism is way off the mark and unfair... First of all, using a Wahhabi textbook, as another member said, is like using Hagee as example of Christian love. Both are probably the worst examples. Your quote of Matthew and self-backpatting about love and forgiveness was also completely out of context and unnecessary, though I suspect that doesn't matter much as long as it made you feel better about yourself and inflated your ego all the more.

emperorbma   |2008-07-27 15:39:48 Quote: To the radical Muslim we must logically be the epitome of all evil by preaching the love and forgiveness of God... I don't think I was talking about Muslims in general, chief. I was making a comment on the abject hypocrisy of the Wahabi (aka radical) branch of it. If you thought I meant this as a general comment on Islam, you are quite mistaken. As you said, if I were using this as a comment on Islam in general, then I would be pretty much doing the same thing as non-Christians would be in using Hagee as an example. Perhaps I could have noted my specificity better as you seem to have taken this as having a scope which it wasn't intended to, but as I demonstrated above I did intentionally limit the scope of my comment. (as for ego, I'll leave that to God to judge...)

Shenango   |2008-07-27 23:39:21 I know you were aiming at radicals, but it's still a little too rich to say extremists hate Christians for preaching love and forgiveness. It's akin to the absurdity of President Bush's assertion that the terrorists hate us because they hate freedom and democrary and the like. Like...puhhleeze! In any case, what is wrong with Wahhabism isn't extremism/radicalism per se, but rather extreme literalness of interpretation. Extremism is stretching interpretations of texts to beyond reasonable limits, in effect reading between the lines too much for the majority's comfort zone. In that sense Wahhabism has the opposite problem on the spectrum, that is, not reading at all between the lines. The Qur'an has it's fair share of verses which rail against the unbelievers, but most of these have a strong political context vis-a-vis the Jewish/Christian/polytheist resistance against the prospering of the early Islamic state. While a normal Muslim could make the distinction between a political context and a personal one, and so could see things as multi-layered, the Wahhabi view is almost always flat, grounded dead in the literal words. On the other hand the Qur'an also contains verses which demonstrate the love of God and His forgiveness and mercy, and the Wahhabis would take these as very literal as well. So you can't be simplistic and say they hate love and forgiveness. The short of it is that there's a depth to the issue your post didn't appreciate, whether it was directed at radicals or not. When Jesus (PBUH) preached love and forgiveness he meant this in a personal context (ie, you stole a few bucks from me, causing me personal harm, so I forgive you). Muslims have identical teachings too, both in the Qur'an and Hadith. Whether one is a "normal" Muslim, or a radical or a Wahhabi, all are aware of these teachings. It's important for you to appreciate this fact.

emperorbma   |2008-07-28 03:10:56 Quote: The short of it is that there's a depth to the issue your post didn't appreciate, whether it was directed at radicals or not. Perhaps. I would obviously not be familiar with any nuances about Islamic teaching, but I do know what I have observed that leads me to this conclusion. The first thing is, my statement is a response to an article which says that Wahabis actually teach that one must "hate the unbeliever" in order to be a "true believer in God." I treat this as an established fact. What does this mean for the idea that one should love one's enemy? From my perspective it seems to say that they don't consider that to be a valid expression of godly behavior. To the contrary, it appears as if they would seem to find it reprehensible or at the very least a "false worship of God." Now, given that we Christians teach the exact opposite... Scripturally, even... it is inevitable that someone might conclude that this could induce some hostility. Now, just how much hostility this creates, I honestly have no clue.  However, I don't think that this Wahabi sect views Christians as positive role models given their teaching to "hate the unbeliever." Also, if we add in the Christian evangelical imperative, this sect of Wahabi are more than likely to be none-too-friendly towards Christians. After all, they literally must compete with this mindset in order to keep their Wahabis following their doctrines of "hating the unbeliever." Now, if worst comes to worst, the article may be at fault. If that is the case, my syllogism would self-deflate anyway.  However, on the basis of the article I think it is safe to consider it a valid reason to put up some extra suspicion toward the Wahabi movement. On a tangential note, "radicalism" seems to have undergone a meaning shift from that usage because its use in modern parlance tends to equate it with "fundamentalism." (which may be a more apropos description of Wahabi-ism, given)

Shenango  - re:   |2008-08-05 14:53:33 emperorbma wrote: The first thing is, my statement is a response to an article which says that Wahabis actually teach that one must "hate the unbeliever" in order to be a "true believer in God." I treat this as an established fact. What does this mean for the idea that one should love one's enemy? From my perspective it seems to say that they don't consider that to be a valid expression of godly behavior. What I was trying to explain is that your understanding of "hate the unbeliever" isn't what Wahhabis mean by I it. Politics go to the heart of Islam, and the Wahhabis' hating of the ubelievers has less to do their divergent beliefs (hey, anybody can be spiritually lost, can't they?) than their assumed (on account of their unbelief) opposition to Islamic political expansion. They care much less for your beliefs in Trinity and Divine Sonship and what not, and one could say almost nothing for your beliefs about love and loving enemies. Their hatred for you doesn't go to the spiritual, personal level you're taking it to. This is why I described your response as ridiculous dude.

emperorbma   |2008-08-05 18:00:14 Very well, it is quite probable I have misunderstood the situation if that is the case. The language they were using is quite confusing in that regard. However, I would still note that there is a conflict at play here. Western Christians are not likely to be agreeable to Islamic political expansion of a fundamentalist variety. The reason being that such Islamic political structures tend to be very unfriendly to the Christian evangelistic imperative I mentioned above. We Christians, particularly in the West, don't "play along" and ignore the Muslims in evangelism and I doubt that many Western Christians want to accept second-class status and a "protection tax." So, even if they are not opposing the theology, they would find the political opposition that they are told to "hate," would they not?

Shenango   |2008-08-06 01:35:24 emperorbma wrote: So, even if they are not opposing the theology, they would find the political opposition that they are told to "hate," would they not? Yeah...unless I'm misunderstanding your reply...yes the Wahhabis would see Christians(and other non-Muslims) at large as the [i]de facto[/i political enemy of Islamic expansion solely based on Christians' not being Muslim, hence almost positively non-supportive of the Muslim aim for the globe. It usually isn't an unfair assumption to make about non-Muslims vis-a-vis these aims. And if Christians are in opposition of Islamic political expansion, then they're an enemy of Islam to the Wahhabis, plain and simple. On the other hand Muslims would consider Muhammad (PBUH) to have been a supremely excellent example of Jesus' message to love and show mercy to one's personal enemies, an example who converted hundreds to thousands, including Jews and Christians by his character. And Muslims are instructed to follow his virtuous example. In principle, a Wahhabi father would not teach his young boy to, if a a Christian child steals his lunch money, pick up a dagger and stab him in the back. This is hating one's enemies, and it's a little disingenious of you to suggest a Wahhabi would do something like that or hate other parents who would teach their kids otherwise, whereas a Christian father would teach his son to ignore this slight and even offer to buy the lunch-money thief lunch the next day as well. The Islamic principle is harshness against the political enemies of the Muslim community/state at large, and mercy, love and kindness to our personal enemies on an individual basis. The problem, or rather one of the problems with the Wahhabi movement (and it is properly a movement, NOT a sect), is that its rhetoric against Islam's political enemies has of recent decades taken an extremist bent by making this rhetoric more personal in nature, to the point where individual non-Muslims could find it insulting and offensive, if not downright hostile. The offending text in this textbook is just one example. The political dimension of Islam is something that adds another layer of complexity to the faith that Christians and other non-Muslims at the very best still misunderstand completely, and at worst are oblivious to it totally. I think Christians miss the boat entirely when it comes to comprehending Jesus' teachings in Matthew about loving one's enemies and going the extra mile with love and forgiveness were intended in a strictly personal/individual context, as virtuous behavior from individual to individual. But when politicized in Christian eschatology, Jesus (PBUH) becomes a pretty merciless dude against the political enemies of God's kingdom, doesn't he? So if Christians can appreciate that difference, why do they continue to insist on directly comparing political Islam's harsh values to Christianity's personal virtues as if Islam has none? I've labored tirelessly over the years on Christdot and now here to get through on this point to Christian posters, had them agree in principle, only to go back a few months down the line and make another post that so obviously features that misunderstanding yet AGAIN. Either they are incapable of understanding faith in this sort of high capacity, or they genuinely believe that Islam is devoid of teachings on personal virtue, such as forgiving those who wrong us, or that Muhammad's teachings aren't comparable to Jesus' (which is not true). Either way, this to me is an untenable situation which I will continue against my heart of hearts (which doesn't believe I will ever truly reach you people) to attempt to change, so help me God.

emperorbma   |2008-08-06 03:24:27 Let me, first, apologize if I've upset you. It seems that I probably have, but it was not my intent to be a cause of distress. Quote: In principle, a Wahhabi father would not teach his young boy to, if a a Christian child steals his lunch money, pick up a dagger and stab him in the back. This is hating one's enemies, and it's a little disingenious of you to suggest a Wahhabi would do something like that or hate other parents who would teach their kids otherwise, whereas a Christian father would teach his son to ignore this slight and even offer to buy the lunch-money thief lunch the next day as well. I actually didn't understand "hatred" in this context to mean that someone would take a dagger and stab someone for the merest slight. I understood hatred to mean it's obvious definition of "hostile inner disposition." Of course, I also recognize Christ's statement that "whoever hates his brother has murdered him in his heart," but I, like every Christian, interpret this to mean that simply being hostile to someone is equivalent to the sinfulness of murder. I didn't mean to imply that every Wahabi is necessarily premeditating murder, however. I would imply, however, that the inner hostility can sow a seed that may grow into violence at some point if it isn't checked. As you say, Christ's example would contravene that impulse as far as it is truly applied. Perhaps the confusion is resulting from a different interpretation of what is actually being described here. Quote: But when politicized in Christian eschatology, Jesus (PBUH) becomes a pretty merciless dude against the political enemies of God's kingdom, doesn't he? Someone could make that claim and it wouldn't be without merit, but Christians do not actually interpret it to mean that Christ will one day actually spit swords from His mouth at massive hordes of raving unbelievers. (... images c/o Revelation) This is mainly seen in the context of the Final Judgment and the final victory of the faith itself. In that vein, we Christians also have songs describing a "Church Militant."  In either case, we do not interpret this sort of rhetoric as a call to take up arms against others.  Even the Final Judgment itself is generally seen as a bittersweet statement that the fruits of unbelief will be brought to pass at the end rather than a joyful prediction of a slaughter of the unbelievers at the end of time. The major difference is that we Christians do not associate Christianity with a worldly political structure as Islam does. We take Christ's statement that "My Kingdom is not of this world" quite literally. This also probably serves to complicate any dialog you and I would have on this topic. Quote: So if Christians can appreciate that difference, why do they continue to insist on directly comparing political Islam's harsh values to Christianity's personal virtues as if Islam has none? Ac-tually, I wouldn't say that Islam doesn't have personal virtues at all. On the contrary, it shares many of the same virtues that Christianity has. Someone would have to be deluded or just mistaken to think otherwise. The Law of God is the same for all and to some extent, all belief systems have some sort of virtues which derive from the Law of God being written on the human heart, although it is also marred due to human sinfulness. Even atheists aren't totally immoral due to that fact. With that said, however, Islam is probably one of the closest to Christianity in terms of striving for personal virtue. It isn't the Muslim's desire to keep God's Law that I would question, but rather the ability of mankind in general. I believe that only by faith in Christ can the Law of God be truly fulfilled, and this claim is the only thing on which we actually differ with regards to interpreting virtue.

laika  - Your PetroDollars at Work!   |2008-07-22 22:23:06 empy wrote: To the radical Muslim we must logically be the epitome of all evil by preaching the love and forgiveness of God... and i guess we must seem the epitome of stupidity, too, seeing as how we paid for those textbooks.

cb  - re: Your PetroDollars at Work!   |2008-07-23 05:35:46 laika wrote: and i guess we must seem the epitome of stupidity, too, seeing as how we paid for those textbooks. What, and leave reporting like this up to oral accounts?

PinocchiosFurniture  - Bush Faith Based Doctrine?   |2008-07-24 01:04:05 Hasn't "c" pretty much also represented the Bush 'faith based' doctrine of the last 8 years? c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers. Pretty much how it has sounded to me.

OrionBlastar   |2008-07-24 12:59:50 That is the Christian Fundamentalist view. They also hate anyone who isn't a Christian Fundamentalist like Catholics, etc, as not being real Christians. Like John Hagee, etc believe that, and had to apologize for it later.

Alison   |2008-07-29 17:17:41 Not really...

BeenDrawn   |2008-07-24 12:55:58 It's written Jesus did say a time is coming when people who kill you will think they're doing a service to God. [John 16:2] (Seemingly) Originally referring to the Jews, for a few decades I thought the mantle had fallen on some purporting to be Christians (I lived just a few blocks from the B'ham Planned Parenthood bombed to bits back in the 1990s), but now it seems like the Muslims vying for first place in this category. That and the "prize" of invading and influencing as many countries as they can by having their own population booms inside them. Here's something else from Yeshua that's relevant. Luke 17:1-2. ~ Causing others, especially children, to sin, leading them to temptation, instilling logic that's fundamentally against God's values, is a major NO NO!

Shenango  - re:   |2008-08-09 01:02:33 emperorbma wrote: Let me, first, apologize if I've upset you. It seems that I probably have, but it was not my intent to be a cause of distress. No apology is necessary, and you have not caused any upset or distress. Quote: I actually didn't understand "hatred" in this context to mean that someone would take a dagger and stab someone for the merest slight. I understood hatred to mean it's obvious definition of "hostile inner disposition." I realize that, but I was exaggerating some to get the point home. I hope I didn't over do it. Quote: The major difference is that we Christians do not associate Christianity with a worldly political structure as Islam does. We take Christ's statement that "My Kingdom is not of this world" quite literally. This also probably serves to complicate any dialog you and I would have on this topic. Agreed. Now see I know that Christians don't believe in a faith-based worldly political structure. I am simply frustrated at why it is so difficult for other Christians to understand that Islam isn't the way... It's impossible for me to count how many times errant Christians on Christdot have treated misguided political Islam in action (ie, Bin Laden, suicide bombers and co.) as example of Islamic personal virtues and sneeringly held up Christian personal virtues as far superior. There are some things in this world that aggravate me on a regular basis than this, but they are few. It's a misunderstanding I realize, but I wish everyone could have come as far in bridging it that you seem to have, Emperor. In any case I intend to keep up the good fight.

emperorbma   |2008-08-09 09:01:58 Quote: No apology is necessary, and you have not caused any upset or distress. Aye, but I've borne "false witness" by implying that a Christian would be viewed with animosity due to the Wahabi's statement. Even if it was (mostly*) done in ignorance, it is still, from my theological perspective, a "sin in thought, word and deed." I should at least apologize for that and any false interpretations I may have unwittingly led others to. * In fact, I was aware of the political nature of Islam as we had discussed it before, but I wasn't actually aware that it also entailed this sort of rhetoric... Quote: Agreed. Now see I know that Christians don't believe in a faith-based worldly political structure. I am simply frustrated at why it is so difficult for other Christians to understand that Islam isn't the way... Yeah, but (as I'm sure you are aware) there's other factors besides education at play. It's not all ignorance. The first is mindset. Some people either are unable or unwilling to consider a different mindset. It's an unfortunate side-effect of one's commitment to what one believes that it is sometimes hard to break out of one's mindset. The problem isn't always bad, since it is sometimes a characteristic of honest beliefs (particularly conservative ones), but it can become terminal if it develops into a case like Richard Dawkins or a hard-line fundamentalist. There's also the fact that it is a natural polemic. Not all people who take the polemic are deliberately disingenuous, of course.  Some do so out of ignorance, some out of indifference and others knowingly. It is also easy to parrot a polemic without investigating its basis in truth or to accidentally stumble into a false criticism based on ignorance. Challenging one's co-religionist is harder than parroting an inaccurate statement about another religion. Overall, however, if someone is acting compassionately and honestly, you should be able to reasonably convince them of the truth eventually. They may, however, have some mental blocks because of their mindset which take time and patience to overcome. I wouldn't wish the difficulties you've had on anyone, however.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."