Textbook jihad
February 20, 2003 8:13 AM Subscribe
It's a nice juxtaposition of articles - but I thought the first was a lot more interesting.
posted by Spezzatura at 9:43 AM on February 20, 2003
posted by Spezzatura at 9:43 AM on February 20, 2003
In my opinion, the second isn't a big deal anyway, as that's the more broad and accurate definition of jihad. Yes, jihad includes the notion of armed resistance and 'holy war', but it's much broader than that. The fact that certain rabid anti-muslim writers like daniel pipes claim that jihad can only be used in the context of a holy war doesn't make it true. And neither does the fact that there are extremists who think of jihad only in this sense.
There is neither understanding nor recognition of the abuse of Islam by radical Muslims and how they use this distortion to make war on America — and indeed on the millions of peaceful Muslims who do not share their distorted theology.
So let me get this straight: She's upset because textbooks aren't teaching kids how some radical factions misinterpret islam? So when they teach about christianity, do they teach about all of the crazy pseudo-christian sects and cults as well?
The American Textbook Council says the distortions, inaccuracies and omissions in the study of Islam are the result of complacency, not anti-Americanism
OK.... And why would we assume that these "distortions, inaccuracies, and omissions" were the result of "anti-americanism"?
posted by jnthnjng at 10:38 AM on February 20, 2003
There is neither understanding nor recognition of the abuse of Islam by radical Muslims and how they use this distortion to make war on America — and indeed on the millions of peaceful Muslims who do not share their distorted theology.
So let me get this straight: She's upset because textbooks aren't teaching kids how some radical factions misinterpret islam? So when they teach about christianity, do they teach about all of the crazy pseudo-christian sects and cults as well?
The American Textbook Council says the distortions, inaccuracies and omissions in the study of Islam are the result of complacency, not anti-Americanism
OK.... And why would we assume that these "distortions, inaccuracies, and omissions" were the result of "anti-americanism"?
posted by jnthnjng at 10:38 AM on February 20, 2003
Good points, jnthnjng.
posted by drstrangelove at 12:41 PM on February 20, 2003
posted by drstrangelove at 12:41 PM on February 20, 2003
« Older Cheer up | Are they spraying for more Medflies? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:40 AM on February 20, 2003