Not sure what to make of your indignant, self-promoting and obcenity-riddled reply; other than your obvious hostility to my own way of thinking.
:::shrug:::
I don’t recall having written that the USA should be the “benchmark” But neither am I particularly fond of the moral relativism you seem to espouse. Maybe you haven’t noticed the number of people trying to get out of those primitive societies as opposed to the number trying to get in? Or do you suppose the migration issue has nothing to do with the standard of living in those societies?
Thanks for the pedantic quibble – which would apply to much of western media – on the spelling of the religious schools and the ensuing geography lesson. But I have a quibble of my own, ‘wrote memorization’ and ‘brainwashing’ are not the same thing. Might want to try talking to a graduate of a madrasa and one from a “wrote learning institution” to notice the difference in the uses.
Agreed. And thein lies the problem I addressed from the start. bringing these societies into the 21rst Century.
"Seeing literally hundreds of children bobbing their heads back and forth while endlessly reciting some mantra is perhaps the most bone-chilling image captured in this whole affair.
Non-responsive and patronizing. You don’t know the first thing about me.
“Now, I don’t claim to know just how widespread this kind of practice is, but I do know that brainwashing techniques such as these are frowned upon in Western civilization”
Interesting turnaround. You now say that there is a difference between the two. Of course, I suspect you’re never wrong.
Impressive CV? Ego stroking? Anyhow, I’ll let you know when I’m hiring in that region. My own, much more modest opinion is that extremism in Islam is much more widespread than we’ve been lead to believe. Of course, there are a great number of Muslim scholars and other experts in this site that would agree: Islam Today. You’ll notice that some agree with my ideas and just as many that would agree with yours. So, for all of your chest-thumping, it proves nothing other than a difference of opinion.
Lo que encuentro parcializado en su cobertura es que no hablan de terrorismo islámico, sino de ‘aquello que América llama terrorismo’, los presentadores de Al Yazira no califican a Osama Bin Laden de ‘terrorista’ ni tampoco de ‘disidente saudí’, sino simplemente como ‘jefe del movimiento Al Qaeda’. Ademas, su retrato aparece regularmente en la pantalla con una mirada beatifica y un indefinido aire de heroe rovolucionario a lo ‘Che’.
In between all the invective, I sense that we basically agree on this one. Al-Yazira is biased towards the totalitarian regime and Bin Laden and extremely popular in the area. Those ratings indicate that at least a few million are tuning in and agree with what they see – or else, like any other capitalist enterprise worth their salt, Al-Yezira would change its tune.
Actually I made an educated and conservative guesstimate. And no, you don’t have to “pull anything out of your ass” on my account – thanks for the warning though.
Seems the longer you write the more you need to use profanity – I’d hate to read anything longer. But from what I can discern from the above filth, I’d agree that the “mf problem is going to be internationalized”
In closing, if this is the habitual way in which you express yourself, this is, in fact, the last post of yours I’ll respond to. Perhaps what is missing from your CV is a bit of modesty and a touch of class. No need to wallow in excrement to get your point across.
What to make of it? Well lots of different bloody things I suppose: Hostility to ignorant easy characterizations. As for obscenities, well I’m not a little fucking child so I use fucking obscenities when I bloody well feel like it. If your delicate self doesn’t like, too fucking bad. It’s part of this forum’s idiom. Just to cater to your tastes.
Standards of living and morality are not synonymous. Neither are political liberties and economic liberties, although there are some correlations in the long turn. The process of getting there is quite another.
But then I could give a fuck if you’re “fond” of moral relativism. That’s not the bloody goddamned question. The question is what works. I could give a fuck whether comfortable Westerners are fond of percieved moral relativism. I’m concerned about what works.
Primitive societies indeed. Patronizing bullshit is what I call that.
Pedantic quibble? One should at least get the word right if one is complaining about something. I haven’t seen Madras mistaken for madrasa(h) in the media.
I have, quite often, spoken with graduates of madrasaat and other educational institutions in the region. Wrote memorization is not the same thing as brainwashing. Not everyone who goes to madrasaat gets an Islamic radical education.
No, they have to bring themselves to their own 21st century. Patronizing bullshit which does not understand either history or current problems ain’t going to get anyone nowhere.
A little wrote memorization of religious education may or may not be harmful in the long run. Certainly thousands of Americans survived Sunday school. However the facile image doesn’t address the actual problem: lack of resources. If thousands of children were learning a solid bit of math and enough letters to get by and got a dose of dogma in the bargain, well that might not be so bad. In an situation with 2-3% population growth and perhaps 3% real economic growth, and 40% or more of the national account going to paying debt, upgrading the memorization routine of the madrasa might not be a bad idea indeed.
Impressive CV? Ego stroking? Anyhow, I’ll let you know when I’m hiring in that region.
[/quote]
Context, my dear, context. I hardly need your assistance in job searching.
I’m familiar with most of those writers. I can’t say that any of them strike me as agreeing with your POV as you’ve presented it thus far. Debate over the problem of extremism, over its extent. But then with the phrase more widespread than we are led to believe is sufficiently vague as to be impossible to refute or even address.
For that reason, I’ll simply say it doesn’t strike me that the body of opinion agrees with your original statements.
As for my “chest thumping” – well my ideas come from actual experience. Years on the ground. Keeping up with the media. Yours, well yours are from where yours are from.
I disagree al-Jazeerah doesn’t talk about “Islamic ‘terrorism’” although the phrase what American calls terrorism is heard. As for the presentation of ObL, sure, al-Jazeera does not present ObL as a terrorist 24/7 – usually the phrase is head of the al-Qaeda organization. (Tantheem al-Qaeda, rather than harekat al-Qaeda). As for presenting him as a “revolutionary hero” like Che, no I wouldn’t say that at all. Some speakers on al-Jazeera have. Many have not. Nor do I think Ajami’s recent piece on the matter was entirely fair, but Fouad has issues.
Their eschewing the charged language hardly makes them the “mouthpiece” of al-Qaeda. Or the Taleban – indeed for those who’ve followed al-Jazeera for more than 3 months, it is clear the secularly oriented producers and reporters on al-Jazeera have little natural sympathy for the Taleban. Their reporting is better characterized by reflexive distrust of the USA rather than pro-al-Qaeda and Taleban sentiments.
Then you sense wrong. Al-Jazirah is biased towards a distrust of the USA. Towards Taleban, no I don’t think that would be accurate, nor towards ObL. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you.
As for popularity, of course its popular. No punches pulled. Frank discussion where every viewpoint is aired – including Western ones when we decide to show up. Which isn’t often. Our absence is our own fault, not theirs. Israelis have made use of al-Jazeera to good effect – although overwhelmed by other political events.
I presume by this simple minded analysis that the Arab viewers who tuned in to see pro-Israeli viewpoints and actual Israeli spokespersons on al-Jazeera in the past year were “agreeing” with “what they saw”? al-Jazeerah knows what pulls audience. Controversy, punchy images, a degree of playing to the audiences’ opinions while challenging them enough to be interesting. Sounds like the Western media, eh no?
The dominant theme in al-Jazeera is not support for the Taleban per se (although people appear on it who do, as do they do on BBC Arabic Service and other non-American news sources in Arabic, English and French). No the dominant theme is more along the lines of bombing is barbaric and the common guy is going to suffer the most. But they don’t override the basic facts. Are they wrong in their approach? To an extent, although the reports on our bombing errors are purely part of the news – errors occurred.
Educated and conservative estimate? Oh really? Normally speaking educated means depending on some learning in the area.
Well, that’s your fucking problem then, isn’t ? If your delicate motherfucking ears are so easily offended, the you shouldn’t walk into no fucking Irish bar in fucking New York then should you?
Bloody qaouid.
The very nature of the region makes problems in the region fucking internationalized, that was the motherfucking point.
Oh indeed it is pretty fucking habitual. It’s my fucking hobby. As for stinking modesty and “class,” I could give a fuck about either little bougie institution.
“Whereas traditional Islam places the responsibility on each believer to live according to God’s will, Islamism makes this duty something for which the state is responsible. Islam is a personal belief system that focuses on the individual; Islamism is a state ideology that looks to the society. Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide, perhaps 10 to 15 percent”
Daniel Pipes danielpipes
*Mohammed, 10, is ready for war
Mohammed is a product of the Madras Darul Naumania, one of hundreds of madrassahs or religious schools that are dotted across the poor neighbourhoods and dusty refugee settlements in the frontier town of Quetta, in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan.*
*"Whatever it is that took place beginning on September 11 and going into some unspecified point of time in the future, this is the ultimate “faith-based” conflict. Mr. Bush and others have gone to considerable lengths to bifurcate the complex religious ideology of Islam into two camps, those “extremists” ostensibly allied with Osama bin Laden, and “good Muslims,” especially those in America who cooperate with the FBI, or those living in “friendly” Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.
The true picture is bleaker, and infinitely more complex.*
American Atheists Bin Laden could be a terrorist for the rest of the world, but not for a large section of the Islamic world that sees him as a messianic leader. The ISI has not only been helping the Taliban but also bin Laden with intelligence and material support. It cannot afford to an exposure of its nefarious activities in establishing and aiding terrorist networks across the world, especially in India.
The Pioneer
*"At stake, Deng argues, is not only the fate of 10 million black Africans living in the bombsite of southern Sudan, but, potentially, all of Africa.
“Islamic fundamentalism as practised in Sudan is a very aggressive ideology. Savage, barbaric,” he says.“If religion is interpreted in the way this religion is being interpreted, there is no sense of humanity. In their eyes, it is a jihad against all non-Islamic people, and they believe that to Islamise southern Sudan would create a gateway to the rest of Africa: Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, South Africa.”*
From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
The focus of Islamic faith is obedience to God and holy law. A Muslim believer is faithful by virtue of submission to God’s will. A good Muslim is one who keeps all the rules, whereas a good Christian is a sinner who yet believes and repents. The contrast of cultures is combustible. In the estimation of Islamic extremists, Americans are at liberty to indulge in permissiveness and sensuality, because they are certain to be forgiven.
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”
*Still, the evidence suggests that a sizeable percentage of Britain’s two million Muslims cherishes separatist religious and ethnic sentiments. A Sunday Times survey of 1,170 Muslims showed 40 percent thought that Osama bin Laden was justified in waging war on the U.S., another 40 percent thought that Britons were justified in fighting with the Taliban, 68 percent thought it was more important to be Muslim than British, 73 percent thought that Tony Blair was not right to support the U.S., and a staggering 96 percent thought the U.S. should stop the bombing of Afghanistan. *
National Review
I certainly find it amazing that so many people would dare disagree with the self-proclaimed expert on this site.
Nonsense. Collounsbury is a cuddly little Pooh-bear .
Howdy, RedFury. If you want my opinion ( yes, that’s a rhetorical question ), you are not entirely incorrect, but I think you are overstating in the opposite extreme. There are probably a larger proportion of extremeists in Islam today, than in other major religions. But I don’t think it is quite as overwhelming as is my impression of what you think it is ( it can be rather hard determining folks positions on the internet at times ). More importantly, I think it is a lot more heterogenous than I get the impression you do and rather less intrinsic to Islam per se. I agree with most of Collounsbury’s corrections
For example, re: the above quote - Without getting into the question of actual numbers, which I do think would be harder to estimate accurately in the “Third World” than the “West” and would vary widely from country to country, I’ll just note that I don’t think Collounsbury’s main quibble on this point was the numbers per se. Rather it is just that Islamist and terrorist aren’t synonomous terms. Not all theocrats advocate terror as a weapon.
And even among terrorists, there are differences of opinion. I’ll note one of the first Muslim clerics to condemn the bombing of the WTC as an atrocity was the fundamentalist Shi’a Grand Ayatollah that is the spiritual head of Hezbollah ( not a fellow known for his pro-American views ) and that al-Quaeda has already had one internal split ( in 1992 ) over the proposed killing of civilians.
I think ObL gets a lot of misguided support in the Middle-East, but I suspect most of it is underdogism combined with a lingering dislike of the popularly perceived bully, the United States. I sincerely doubt that ObL’s arguments for the sanctioned killing of innocents gets more than a teensiest glimmer of agreement from the Muslim world. Actually what I get the impression is much more common, is that many radicalized ( and less informed )Muslims think that the WTC bombings were engineered to make ObL look bad and that ObL’s own statements are doctored inventions :rolleyes: .
Yep, pretty sad. But hardly a definitive moment in the Muslim world as a whole. Most children don’t go to madrasas in Pakistan to learn to kill Americans. This is a local development, in a desperately poor region, with a violent tribal culture, that has been at war continuously for over a quarter century. Hardly conducive to sane child-rearing .
As an atheist, let me just say that I find this article a wee bit shrill. This group has an axe to grind and although they make some legitimate points, I think there are guilty of both over-generalization and panic-mongering. This is just IMHO, however .
Again, political propaganda in an Op-Ed piece, from somebody with an axe to grind. Plenty of facts in there ( and it’s true the Pakistani government are certainly not sweethearts, the ISI least of all ), but some of them twisted.
I’ve seen no reliable backing for the idea that “most of the Islamic world” sees ObL as a messianic leader. Even if we accept the 10-15% figure worldwide for Islamists, it has already been shown that even not all of those are behind him ( The Iranian hiearachy, for example, despises his brand of Islam ). This statement is pure hyperbole.
Further there is no such thing as a unified, hiearchical clergy in Sunni Islam. So statements by the “Ulema of Pakistan” are meaningless. The “Ulema of Pakistan” might be two guys with a fax machine in a corrugated tin shack. In point of fact it is probably a sizeable and influential group. But hardly all-encompassing or all-powerful. Most analyses I’ve seen, have seem to indicate that a majority of Pakistanis are ( or were ) uncomfortable with the bombing campaign, but that only a minority were actually pro-Taliban to the point of whole-heartedly embracing their ideology. A substantial and formidable minority, to be sure. But still only a minority ( and this in the country with the closest geographical and cultural ties of any in the world ).
I have no problem with the quote above - It’s probably quite true . But allow me to counter-quote from the same article and same speaker :
“Religion is being used for political purposes,” Deng says. “The ordinary Christians and Muslims live in Sudan peacefully. But the religious divide can be used at the political level to entrench people in power. Bashir wants the war to go on to preserve his power in the north. John Gangary ( head of the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army ) wants the war to go on to preserve his power in the south.”
In other words, actual religious belief is secondary to the conflict in the Sudan and most Muslims get along at some level with non-Muslims.
Not a bad article. To counter-quote again: This is not Islam, any more than the Ku Klux Klan is Christianity.
I actually disagree factually with the above quote ( the one I quoted ). It is one face of Islam, much as the KKK ( or more accurately, groups like the CID ) are one face of Chritianity. But I agree with the tenor of his remarks.
Interesting little piece and an interesting take on the proble. Not sure I absolutely agree, but it is worth considering.
Shrug Al-Quaeda’s fatwa. They’re fucking loons - You certainly won’t get any arguments from me on that point. Which is neither here nor there, really. There will always be a lunatic fringe.
Another interesting article ( which shouldn’t be taken to mean that I agree 100% with his conclusions ). This poll was the cause of a heated debate in an earlier thread, you can probably find it in a quick search. I thought it spoke well of the author that he mentions some of the same potential flaws with the poll as conducted, as did some of the people on this board in that thread.
In brief, though I don’t at all trust the results of that particular poll, I am disturbed by the anti-Americanism in the Muslim world as a whole and the Middle-East in particular. But I don’t think the support for ObL, as I mentioned earlier, is generally motivated by religious fervor. Rather, it is a “common enemy” theme and a “closing of the ranks” against a perceived Imperialist bully. Terribly short-sighted, IMO. And I feel that aggressive counter-propaganda is needed to quell this unfortunate attitude. But I don’t think it is an irreparable split.
I disagree with him from time to time - Heck, I’ve even criticized him for being a little short-fused once in awhile . But he’s a sharp cookie, well-educated and well-informed on these matters, and with wealth of personal experience that most ( almost all, I suspect ) of us here lack. He tends to be right a lot .Further, occasional irritability aside, I think he’s usually fair. Course, YMMV, and in this case, it suspect it will .
Ok, you all can debate all you want on the religious fervor of various adherents to various religions. Are they fantatics? Are they terrorists? What do they want? Who’s really the bad guys? etc. It’s all a bunch of intellectual drivel to those of us who essentially believe in the notion that everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs. Clearly, the problem comes in when my beliefs include the notion that everyone else is wrong and needs to be converted to my way of thinking. Regardless of the political or religious basis for these beliefs, there can be no civilized societies anywhere as long as some people are trying to change everybody else. There’s no way to condone, justify, or rationalize the killing of others, aside from self-defense. We’re in a hell of a lot of trouble when people can use their intellects to explain away such heinous acts. Religion is not only the opiate of the masses, it’s the amphetamine and angel dust, too. What a pathetic turn of events it is to discover that as far as we’ve come, we’re no farther along than the animals that fight over territory, or mates, or food. And with our major adaptive organ, the brain, we’ve been reduced to growling idiots, skulking about in the dark to attack the others. I’m sick to death of all the talk of peace and love and goodness from the zealots. They’re the fucking hypocrites - sorry, Red. There’s an enormous difference between beliefs and behavior, and until civilized people are able to confront that distinction, we are apparently doomed to suffer at the hands of powermongering, self-righteous assholes, of all persuasions. This is not a good time in history.
First off, allow me to thank you for your well thought-out and measured response. A refreshing change to say the least.
Secondly, I’ll just note that not everything written in those articles corresponds with my personal views – which, BTW, I like to think are always open for review. My basic contention in quoting those sites was simply to present a counterbalance to the oft-expressed mainstream view that this conflict is reduced to a few fringe elements of Islamic society. Which is essentially what I said from the start:
Now, I am not suggesting that whatever percentage agrees, at least in principle, with the more militant aspects of Islam are also willing to go to the same extremes as the militant organizations themselves. In fact, your own statement provides a better perspective of the perceived support:
And the underlying problem is how to diffuse that perception while at the same time maintaining the pressure on the terrorist groups. No easy task. As for the rest of the articles quoted and your responses to them, once more, our views are not dissimilar.
However, if I may, I’d like to ask a question of you. Namely, when you mention the Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, you also say that you: “don’t think it is an irreparable split.” Question is, “how,” as in “how do we close that split?”
You see, while I agree that there are many posters on this board – on either side of the issue – who far surpass my knowledge of the events, in the end no matter how erudite they might be, none provide an answer to the most fundamental of questions: Can humans live in peace? My (admittedly) limited knowledge of history suggests that a resounding “NO” is the only obvious conclusion. For I ask you, have we ever managed to do so before for any extended periods of time? If someone can come up with a positive answer, than perhaps they could also explain the religious, socioeconomic and geopolitical considerations that where in place during such an idyllic period. High time we copied them.
Contrary to the tone, this is not meant as a nihilistic message of impending doom but rather as a plea for peace. My own faulty logic suggests that the only way we we’ll ever come close to any semblance of universal accord is could be summed up in two small words: Respect and tolerance. Unfortunately, I find both of those lacking from the vocabularies of the parties in conflict. And least we forget, there won’t be any winners in a WW-III.
Hate to close on that note, especially when I think of my eleven year old son and what the future might hold for him and all of our children.
Well, RedFury, I see you have posted a generalization or falsehood and been bloodied in combat with Collounsbury. Collounsbury’s standard approach to falsehood or inaccuracy is usually a blistering assault that tends to strip the flesh right off the bone. He is not right all the time, merely very frequently. If you’re arguing a solid point, it is especially useful to lure him into a discussion when you need assistance against particularly obtuse ignorance, as I shamelessly did here.
But let’s take a look at your latest question:
That’s at least TWO questions, not one. I will attempt to answer the first one, which is “how do we close the split between the US and the Islamic world?”
I have mentioned before that education is the crucial weapon, and many of the problems we have today stem from a lack of knowledge about the other side, as well as gradual or severe demonization through myth. It’s been said (by me in these boards, but also in print by someone whose name I can’t remember now) that there are different kinds of generals important for every war, but propaganda generals are the most important of all. What you want to do in this case is at least three-pronged:
study your audience (the US and the bulk of the Islamic World, so it might take a while), observe the main areas where any knowledge and sensitivity in respect to each other can be improved, and charge a pool of Communicators and Educators to design programs to patch up the holes. It is particularly important to remove all pockets of ignorance, and there are many on both sides
at the same time, intensify diplomatic efforts to balance out everyone’s interests as much as humanly possible. I doubt all sides will ever be completely happy, especially with causes such as Jerusalem ready and available, but the attempt has to be made
Instil tolerance in everyone
As long as each side makes progress in understanding the other, the harmful myths will be demythicized (the violently zealous and fanatic terrorist Muslim/ the uncultured, imperialist, loud, disrespectful American bully).
I note that Point 1) and 3) are something that takes place routinely on this board with quite a good degree of success(although we have more than our share of nonsense-spewing idiots as well). Point 2) is obviously a little difficult, as the source of all conflict (violent or not) is always the incompatibility of interests.
RedFury, I know it’s a minor detail, but I would like to reiterate that the images you’ve seen of children reciting mantras in the classroom is not as significant as it has apparently been made out to be. I went to school in Pakistan and unfortunately children are expected to memorise all their lessons - Geography, Chemistry and even English! (English Literature is taught by having children learn passages from their textbook by heart. Often the teacher writes out a number of questions and answers on the blackboard. These must be diligently copied out so that they can be parroted back word for word in the exam. If the answers are merely paraphrased, the child won’t get a good grade and might even fail.)
This reliance on rote memorisation does show how poor the standards of education are in these countries; however it is not a sign of brainwashing, any more than you were brainwashed if you learnt the alphabet or multiplication tables by heart.
I’m not arguing that children in religious schools aren’t brainwashed, but I just wanted to shed some light on the particular images of this which shocked you.
Another side point which you might find interesting is that many of the better schools in Pakistan are religious schools - convents.
Fair enough. Actually, I wasn’t entirely certain where you stood, so I’m glad you clarified a bit. As long as we’re in agreement that the actual terrorist threat, as opposed to the larger propaganda threat, is limited to a few fringe groups.
Well, I think Abe is on the right track on this one, so I’ll just stand with his answer for now. Education is indeed the key. The specifics of implementation I leave to smarter people than me.
That’s quite an abrupt shift to the deep philosophy there, guy .
Is conflict inevitable? Sure. Humans are pack animals. Pack animals squabble over “property” - Be it territory, culture, or other tangible and intangible assets. The world is just to big and to variable to ever harmonize into a single community. Not too mention that we as a species will always produce those freakish statistical outliers, like sociopaths, psychopaths, and the like.
But, although in general I tend to adhere to the rather negative principle that “pessimists are never disappointed”, I think this is one case in which a certain amount of pragmatic optimism is not just warranted, but mandated. Violent resolutions to problems can be reduced, understanding between different cultures and societies can be increased. This will NOT solve the problem of conflict, which is inherent to humanity ( and all other living things ). But we can work towards minimizing this strife.
Despite the catastrophic death tolls, frequent exceptions, and numerous steps backwards, I remain convinced that we are, overall, making progress. Heck, even this teeny corner of the internet is a step towards the light in its own modest way.
Think of your “universal accord” as the speed of light . You’re never going to quite get there. Achieving total world peace is truly an impossible, sisyphean task. But you can get a lot closer than we are now. Of that I’m convinced.
Abe, your proposals are excellent, positive, workable. I’d suggest that at least in the US, there be another prong, or maybe a blended version of two of them: we need to be sending diplomats and ambassadors to other countries who are historians and experts in the lands they are visiting. We have used ambassadorships as political payback, and in doing so, we have sent idiotic, rich, fat cat political contributors to other nations as liaisons between our countries. The damage done by such foolishness is well documented. Ignorance can be benign, of course, but it can also be terribly terribly damaging. Education is the key.
And, while I have the floor, I’d like to put in my two cents about education, itself. We now understand more than ever about the way we learn and about the development of understanding. This is to say that rich, deep comprehension of large ideas and concepts may rely in some measure on some ROTE memorization and recipe following, e.g. learning the alphabet, some understanding of the phonics of written language (in English, anyway), etc., but in the long run, education must be about something much richer and deeper than that. It must engage the learner. It must have personal meaning. It may even involve creativity, play, problem solving, and - most threatening to most people who haven’t learned this way - a different type of power relationship in the classroom, in which the minds of the learners are the focus - not simply the agenda of the teachers. These are some of the keys to real education, not simply schooling. Clearly, here and abroad, we have a long way to go. But folks in the edubiz, such as myself, continue to be excited about the possiblities - in today’s world nothing could be more important. Keep your fingers crossed.
(I don’t know how to get that cool quoting mechanism to work in my posts, but this relates to Tamerlane’s comment about reducing violent resolutions to conflict): A few years ago we had a theater troupe do a presentation at the school where I taught. The actors created, with the help of the students, a situation in which there was some sort of conflict - central, of course, to the concept of theater as a form of literature - and then they called students from the audience to help resolve the conflict. Their only rule, however, was that no one could resolve the conflict using violence, because, as they said, violence only makes for more problems. It was such a simple, and maybe even simplistic, approach, yet I felt it taught a powerful message and taught it well. The student-proposed solutions to the problems were, perforce, creative and peaceful. It’s possible to teach all sorts of things.
It would take a great deal more than a few uncouth words uttered in an Internet board to make me bleed no matter how allegorically. As for “Collounsbury’s standard,” color me unimpressed – I’ve seen more arrogant and pedantic twits in my day than I care to remember, what’s one more? So he’s smart, bully for him, but once he tries to ram his vindictive-laden knowledge down my throat, it becomes my business – and it ain’t happening. Like I said, I remain thoroughly unimpressed.
Let’s move on shall we? The rest of your reply is what really interests me, and yes, obviously education is the key. A key feared by many I might add, for it opens many doors they’d rather keep tightly shut and will no doubt put up quite a resistance to the handing out of these ‘keys’. No doubt that to make your three-pronged attack feasible you’ll need to defeat them first – though as you mention, point number 2 also looms large. How many years have Arabs and Jews been at it now? What is and isn’t fair in that conflict? Does anyone know anymore? Depends on who you speak to…
However, peace negotiators to the contrary, the ME crisis doesn’t quite seem to fit in with the timetable we’re working on – there were clear signals from the White House today, that Iraq is next in line. And the merits of that particular move warrants a thread in its own right.
Appreciate your response.
Tamerlane writes:
Indeed, we agree. But would you also be ready to concede that he longer and deeper this crisis gets, the more likely some of those groups currently ‘sympathetic’ to the cause would find justification for ermmm…“further involvement?” That’s what concerns me.
Guilty as charged. I have this habit of drifting into the bigger picture. And this one keeps getting more vivid by the day.
Well put, but for the sake of devil’s advocacy, have we done this? IOW, are we now, more than at any point in history, closer to reducing our differences? Or is Huntington the new Nostradamus and we’re heading right into the ultimate clash of civilizations?
And I wonder, as much as I hate them, are there any cites that would back you up in your convictions? Haven’t the death tolls through conflict actually risen in the past century?
Hmmm…until you and a few more gentle souls finally appeared on this thread, I could have swore it was the opposite
Pennylane,
Yes, but the point I am specifically trying to make, is with regard to the madrasas and what I’ve read and seen about them. No geography, no chemistry, and certainly no English. Just massive doses of the Koran and glossy-eyed boys rocking back and forth reciting verses. From your own knowledge, how prevalent would you say they are? I seen and read reports that place them in the thousands and growing – mostly run by Taliban for the children of Afghan refugees but also backed by most conservative ulamas. True, false, maybe? Just how wide-raging is this type of indoctrination?
As far as religious schools being the best…well, being a Spaniard, can’t say I’m surprised. Religions always seem to have the best of everything, yet they are always claiming abject poverty. Must be one of those miracles they’re always on about
I understand the point you’re trying to make, RedFury, and I’m not arguing with it. Children probably are brainwashed in religious schools. I was just trying to say that the fact that they rock back and forth while memorising their lessons isn’t indicative of this. In fact, memorising passages from the Quran is usually the way Islam is taught even in non-religious schools. The children don’t speak Arabic so the passages are meaningless to them. What is more worrying is the possibility that the religious teachers are discussing their personal interpretations of these passages with the students, rather than expecting them to merely recite the verses from memory. I think that is where the real danger lies.
These schools are not very prevalent in the major cities. But their numbers may be growing. Education is neither free nor compulsory in Pakistan and many people can’t afford to send their children to regular schools (which is why the convents were originally set up in the early 20th century - for Christian children in poor families). Madrasas are usually free and lower-income parents can be more easily persuaded to send their children there. Although they are not common, they have been a problem since before September 11th. Often they are simply a façade for other, covert operations. Newspapers reported on cases in which, typically, a young boy failed to return from his madrasa, and weeks later the parents were presented with the child’s body and informed that their son had become a martyr.
Never realized that kids are learning something meaningless – as in memorizing something in a language foreign to them. Wow…that left me befuddled, just naturally thought they understood what they were reading and/or chanting. What is the point to this practice? I mean, I can certainly see what you mean by the danger of the teacher’s interpretation. In a sense, makes the whole process even worse than I’d imagined…the text is irrelevant to the agenda. Holy cow, I find that bit of knowledge highly unsettling. Poor kids.
BTW, who subsides these madrasas? are their agendas supervised at all by third parties?
Well, certain Quranic verses are prayers, and Muslims (at least in Pakistan) believe in reciting them in the original Arabic (although if you want to pray for personal things you can add this in your own language). So children are naturally taught these verses in Arabic. They are also usually aware of the general meaning of the verses, as different prayers are more suited to different occasions.
However, the more religious parents or teachers believe that even ordinary Quranic verses (which wouldn’t be used as prayers) should be memorised. I don’t know what the point of this is, but as I said, rote memorisation is a well-loved classroom device in Pakistan. There are translations of the Quran available, but in most cases children (especially younger children) aren’t taught them and won’t bother to look at them. They are also usually taught about the basic teachings of Islam, and the life of the Prophet Mohammed, but memorisation of Quranic passages is definitely a component.
I don’t know who subsidises the madrasas or whether there is any outside supervision… but I don’t think there is. These madrasas are usually pretty small and consist of one or two self-professed mullahs who conduct the lessons.
), you are not entirely incorrect, but I think you are overstating in the opposite extreme. There are probably a larger proportion of extremeists in Islam today, than in other major religions. But I don’t think it is quite as overwhelming as is my impression of what you think it is ( it can be rather hard determining folks positions on the internet at times ). More importantly, I think it is a lot more heterogenous than I get the impression you do and rather less intrinsic to Islam per se. I agree with most of Collounsbury’s corrections
) and that al-Quaeda has already had one internal split ( in 1992 ) over the proposed killing of civilians.
.
.