Ken Connor has written to express his concerns about a new Arabic school in NYC.
Abraham Lincoln once famously observed, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next."
The truth of Lincoln's observation is, no doubt, at the core of the apprehensions that New Yorkers have expressed about the Khalil Gibran International Academy scheduled to open next month in Brooklyn. Adding to their apprehensions is the fact that KGIA is just three blocks from a mosque which has a history of employing radical imams and which was frequented by one of the terrorists implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
It takes a lot to rankle Gotham City dwellers, but, given their experience with radical Islam, one can sympathize with their angst. Mind you, KGIA is a public school and will be funded with public tax dollars, some of which will come from families of the victims of 9/11. World Net Daily reports that the school's curriculum "will integrate intensive Arabic language instruction and the study of Middle Eastern history and historical figures," including the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. WND also explains that field trips will include destinations in the Middle East and that "teacher materials will be adapted from publications supplied by the Council on Islamic Education." New York City school officials have tried to assure the public that the school will be "non-religious" and will not promote a political or religious ideology, but skepticism abounds.
He seems to be concerned about the school training terrorists. He also insists that
...it is duplicitous to suggest that one can separate Arabic culture from the religion of Islam. That's like trying to square a circle. It can't be done. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state. Islamic fundamentalists do not draw a distinction between religion, culture and politics. The three are united under Sharia law. These religious zealots see the state as a primary vehicle for advancing Islam. Indeed, the coercive power of the state is essential to spreading the teachings of the Koran. ...I suspect that we can't really know what the aims of this school are until its curriculum can be reviewed. I would have to agree with Connor that a public school should not teach Islam any more than a public school should teach Christianity. However, I do believe that the school should be able to teach ABOUT Islam, Christianity or any other religion in order to enable students to understand others and other religions. (Perhaps Connor would have benefited from a unit on Islam in his schooling.) The biggest problem with a curriculum about religion is determining who should teach it and what the 'truths' are that should be taught, since there is so much variation even between different denominations of the same umbrella religion. (Try asking a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness what Christianity is, and you will get 3 very different answers once you get beyond belief in Christ as the Savior.)
------------------------------------------
Another right-winger, Doug Giles, has written to insist that "Allah" should not be used to talk about the Christian God, because he ignorantly believes that it is only used by Muslims. Giles goes so far as to personally attack a Dutch bishop, who suggested using "Allah" in Christian ceremonies. Giles writes:
Tiny Muskens, a Dutch Roman Catholic Bishop in Amsterdam, released another nifty idea this week upon his wooden shoe wearing sheep. Minister Muskens, well-known for stupidity aplenty, came up with a fresh game plan of which he said would aid the Dutch, yea, the entire world in getting along with Muslims Gone Wild. Tiny proposed “that people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to foster understanding.”
...
According to the Netherlands' biggest-selling newspaper, De Telegraaf, Tiny, after tabling his plan to reporters, said he had no further comment. He simply smiled, did a pirouette, stripped down to his pink boy shorts, put on a spaghetti-strapped yellow sun dress which he had in his exorcist kit and then started skipping down the cobblestone street with Boy George blaring from his iPod mini.
Well, I'm not sure where Giles gets his copy of De Telegraaf, but I read the two articles that come up on when searching for "Tiny Muskens" and "Allah" ("Muskens: 'God' vervangen door 'Allah' - telegraaf.nl" and "Bisdom: Muskens sprak niet namens bisschoppen - telegraaf.nl") and found no reference to 'no comment' (or to what Muskens might have been wearing - maybe De Telegraaf should sue for misrepresentation) and even found that some other Dutch bishops disassociated themselves with Muskens' suggestion, but noted the following:
Het bisdom wijst erop dat Allah in het Aramees, de taal die in de tijd van Jezus werd gesproken, Heer betekent. In het Arabische taalgebied is het voor zowel christenen als moslims en joden de meest gangbare naam om God aan te duiden. Oosterse christenen, vooral de kopten, gebruikten het woord Allah al, voordat de islam in de zevende eeuw ontstond.
For those who don't read Dutch, this can be translated as:
The bishopric notes that Allah in Aramaic, the language spoken in Jesus' time, means Lord. In Arabic language region, it is the most common name used to refer to God for Christians as well Muslims and Jews. Eastern Christians, especially the Copts, had already used the word Allah before the inception of Islam in the seventh century.
While it is true that many of the idioms used in Arabic are tied to the Islamic faith, it is not necessary to believe in Islam to learn Arabic. When I was learning Arabic over the summer, 'Alhamdu-llah' and 'Ensha'allah' were very common phrases that everyone picked up. They made an atheist student feel weird, because they referred to God. They made me feel weird, having grown up in a Protestant tradition, because it sounded too much like taking God in vain. However, we have the same idioms in English: 'Thank God' and 'God willing'. It's really not that you have to become indoctrinated into Islam; it's just that you need to become more comfortable with hearing 'God' frequently.
It is also important to note that the Koran is written in Arabic, so Muslims consider the Arabic language to be sacred. For a copy of the Koran to be considered legitimate, it must include the original Arabic, even if there is another language translation provided.
Not all Muslims are Arabs. Many Muslims have only a very limited knowledge of the Arabic language; just enough to read from the Koran. Sometimes, they don't even understand what they are reading; they may have just been trained in recitation. One might consider the relationship of Christianity to Latin, particularly during the Middle Ages (though this is also not the best characterization, since the Bible was not originally written in Latin).
The Bible exists in Arabic as well and is used by Christians throughout the Arab world.
So, I think that it is safe to say that Arabic is spoken by non-Muslims, and Muslims don't all speak Arabic. Therefore, there can be a distinction made between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment