Following in MrSpur's footsteps... New York Times October 30, 2001 Drilling for Tolerance By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN In April 1988 Saudi Arabia asked the U.S. to withdraw its newly appointed ambassador, Hume Horan, after only six months. News reports said King Fahd just didn't like the U.S. envoy. What the Saudis didn't like about him, though, was that he was the best Arabic speaker in the State Department, and had used his language skills to engage all kinds of Saudis, including the kingdom's conservative religious leaders who were critical of the ruling family. The Saudis didn't want someone so adroit at penetrating their society, so — of course — we withdrew Mr. Horan. Ever since then we've been sending non-Arabic-speaking ambassadors to Riyadh — mostly presidential cronies who knew exactly how to penetrate the White House but didn't have a clue how to penetrate Saudi Arabia. Yes sir, we got the message: As long as the Saudis kept the oil flowing, what they taught in their schools and mosques was not our business. And what we didn't know wouldn't hurt us. Well, on Sept. 11 we learned just how wrong that view was. What we didn't know hurt us very badly. On Sept. 11 we learned all the things about Saudi Arabia that we didn't know: that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of the Taliban, that 15 of the hijackers were disgruntled young Saudis and that Saudi Arabia was allowing fund-raising for Osama bin Laden — as long as he didn't use the money to attack the Saudi regime. And most of all, we've learned about Saudi schools. As this newspaper recently reported from Riyadh, the 10th-grade textbook for one of the five required religion classes taught in all Saudi public schools states: "It is compulsory for the Muslims to be loyal to each other and to consider the infidels their enemy." This hostile view of non-Muslims, which is particularly pronounced in the strict Saudi Wahhabi brand of Islam, is reinforced through Saudi sermons, TV shows and the Internet. There is something wrong with this picture: Since Sept. 11, the president of the United States has given several speeches about how Islam is a tolerant religion, with no core hostility to the West. But the leader of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the Muslim Holy places, hasn't given one. The truth is, there are at least two sides to Saudi Arabia, but we've pretended that there's only one. There is the wealthy Saudi ruling family and upper middle classes, who send their kids to America to be educated and live Western-style lives abroad and behind the veil at home. And there is an Islamist element incubating religious hostility toward America and the West, particularly among disaffected, unemployed Saudi youth. It is said that truth is the first victim of war. Not this war. In the war of Sept. 11, we've been the first victims of our own inability to tell the truth — to ourselves and to others. It's time now to tell the truth. And the truth is that with the weapons of mass destruction that are now easily available, how governments shape the consciousness, mentality and imagination of their young people is no longer a private matter. We now have two choices: First, we can decide that the Saudi ruling family really is tolerant, strong and wants to be part of the solution, and thus we can urge its members to educate their children differently and ensure that fund-raising in their society doesn't go to people who want to destroy ours. If so, I don't expect the Saudis to teach their kids to love America or embrace non-Muslim religions. But if countries want good relations with us, then they have to know that whatever religious vision they teach in their public schools we expect them to teach the "peaceful" realization of that vision. All U.S. ambassadors need to make that part of their brief. Because if tolerance is not made universal, then coexistence is impossible. But such simple tolerance of other faiths is precisely what Saudi Arabia has not been teaching. If the Saudis cannot or will not do that, then we must conclude that the Saudi ruling family is not really on our side, and we should move quickly to lessen our dependence upon it. I was for radical energy conservation, getting rid of gas-guzzlers and reducing oil imports before Sept. 11 — but I feel even more strongly about it now. "Either we get rid of our minivans or Saudi Arabia gets rid of its textbooks," says Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy specialist. "But one thing we know for sure — it's dangerous to go on assuming that the two can coexist." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/opinion/30FRIE.html
now i have absolutely no idea if this textbook mandate to kids in saudi arabia is true....that they must be hostile to all infidels and loyal to anyone who calls himself a muslim...but if it is this gets me back to my point about whether or not there is something about Islam that is more easily perverted than any of the other major world religions. again, i don't know if this is true and would have really no way to confirm it...but supposing that it is, this isn't just some band of radicals on the fringe here. this is a textbook adopted in what we have considered to be a moderate muslim state and our supposed ally.
I don't think it is the religion so much as the time. The early days of Christianity had the same problems. For all intents and purposes, these are the early days of Islamic popularity in the world. Supposedly, there are 1 billion Muslims or appx. 1/6th of the world population. When Christians had the crusades, it was at a time when it fell into the hands of powerful people who used it as an excuse for widening their scope of power and conquering other parts of the world. When you read about the Taliban, for example, it works in a similar fashion. They rule over the poorest of the poor and enact incredibly harsh and restrictive rules meant to control the populace. In many ways, their rule is similar to Communism because the leaders are corrupted by power and wealth while the citizens suffer. The only major difference is that the citizens there actually carry weaponry. We have just entered a time when Islam has fallen into the wrong hands and they are using it (perversely) to control people and in an attempt to exercise dominance in that region of the world. In the time of Christ, the Romans had sided with the Jews and used the Jewish religion as a way to exercise power over the poorer gentiles, many of whom had very primitive belief systems. The Jews were educated and had money while the gentiles did not. I see this as a much greater social problem than a religious one. By the way, Afghanistan wasn't always this way. In the late 60's and early 70's, it was still predominantly Islamic but was quite advanced. Women were educated and held positions of power both in government and socially. They had a thriving culture and were considered by many one of the next powers on the world scene. When the Soviets invaded, all that changed. As a result of all the fighting, death tolls and poverty that ensued, most of the educated people fled to other parts of the world and only the poorest were left behind. When the US helped force the Soviets out of Afghanistan with aid to the then "freedom fighters," many of those same freedom fighters took power and eventually installed the harsh regime we see today.
As for the education issue, I'll ask the same question I did before but never got an answer... Shouldn't we then regulate our own religious schools as well? Shouldn't those who homeschool for the purpose of teaching prejudice and hate be forced to teach peace and tolerance? When I went to religious schools, they didn't teach anything remotely resembling tolerance. Shouldn't our own citizens be subject to the same rules that this gentleman would have us enforce on others?
Interesting article by Friedman. This raises the question, Treeman, of whether you would be willing to die to prevent the overthrow of the Saudi Monarchy by its own people. We have troops there right now. According to one of my "secret" sources, a very close relative who spent 20 years in the special forces, including Saudi, this is the principle reason we have to have the troops in Saudi, even though it pisses off the whole Muslim world. Jeff, I'm with you on the homeschool issue. We used to live in a neighborhood where there were no small children when our son was 7 years old. After they had been living there well over a year we discovered that some renters across the street had two children very close in age. They never let the children out in the front yard in a safe neighborhood. They homeschooled the children, so very little coming and going. Theyu did host religious meetings from time to time. When the children discovered each other they were very eager to play with each other. After playing together once or twice this was not allowed any more. The family did come over once to knock on our door and give us a copy of some Jehovah's Witness propaganda. I felt so sorry for the little kids forced to stand there looking miserable in front of their explaymate's house while the father did his little routine. Last time we saw the kids up close. They moved about six months later.
Jeff -- I shudder at the thought of regulating private education, particularly when it's based in a religous context. I don't agree with the Saudi textbook position...but in this country they'd certainly have a right to print it. And we'd all stand up and defend that right, I hope. I agree with you it may very well be the times and who's in power that is using Islam for these purposes. During the Crusades, there weren't many copies of the bible around...they were usually only interepreted in a church by church leaders. When church = government, that's a big problem. So these people who had no clue what the Bible said were being told that Christ called them to spill the blood of Muslims and Jews. After the Reformation and the printing press, that changed...the focus was brought back to what Christ actually taught...an individual relationship with God and pouring over Scripture. I was really concerned when I heard Muslims here say that clerics tell them that their english translations really aren't all that effective and they're missing the true meaning if they can't read it in original language. Certainly we have translation problems with the Bible, but we don't deem the translations worthless. That smells like the same crap the church leaders were doing back in the time of the crusades.
