This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)
Nina SheaSaudi Arabia’s public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other “unbelievers.” But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis — that was all supposed to change.
A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom’s religious studies curriculum “encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the ‘other.’ ” Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.
According to this Washington Post article by Nina Shea–which appears in tomorrow’s paper–the Saudis still need to do some work in cleaning up their textsbooks. With so many years of intolerance and anti-Semitism forming a core of the education system, I’m not surprised that the work in cleaning it up is taking a long time. Some of it is so deep that those who repeat it don’t even realize what they’re doing.
Continuing to reference the fraudulent “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” though, is just inexcusable. Far more, perhaps even a media campaign, is going to be necessary. This sidebar article from the Post suggests why: Perpetuating the ‘Protocols’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
May:21:2006 - 11:08
The problem isn’t textbooks–it’s the primitive sect of Wahhabism.
Maybe in a century or two, we can count Saudi Arabia amongst the civilized countries of the world . . .
May:21:2006 - 17:27
I think if you actually take a look at what’s going on in the KSA, they’re trying to get a handle on the extremists. Most of the Wahhabis aren’t fire-breathers, after all. In fact, over 90% of Saudi youths used those texts. A miniscule proportion has been radicalized to the point of terrorism. The books cannot have good effect and they need to be further cleaned up. But they are not the sole source of radicalism.
May:22:2006 - 00:29
Mind you if you wanted to rule a police state with a majority male population and 50% under 25, you would want a way of directing their natural martial aggression towards an enemy other than your police state. A bunch Jews who are trying to destroy you all and enslave you all and kill you all is a real helpful enemy to propogate. Wahabism instills a sense of comradeship wahabist people to wahabist ruler to God. Enemy out there, comrades here – stable dictatorship.
May:22:2006 - 10:33
Except that 1) Saudi Arabia isn’t a dictatorship and 2) the Saudi gov’t has been opening doors to the Shi’a and Sufi populations over the past couple of years.
They have also tried (and not yet succeeded fully) to clean up the education system. That’s not solely for purposes of an enlightened view of religion, of course. It’s mostly because the school system is not turning out people competent to hold modern jobs. The result will be the same, though.
May:22:2006 - 14:56
John,
Agreed that continued acceptance of the Protocols is unacceptable – and baffling. Why do you think this persists?
Looking at the material from the textbooks, I would hope that Freedom House makes the books themselves available to the public in the original Arabic to ensure that there is no dispute about translations, context and edition.
Beyond that I noted that – as with similar efforts by this group in the past – some of the opinions cited as objectionable are similar to the views of non-Muslim religious groups. The notion that one’s religion is the “one true faith” is commmon to many Christians and Jews. President Bush once famously dodged a questions as to whether non-Christian would go to hell. And former Attorney General Ashcroft is reported to have held the view that even many Christians were not “saved”.
Critics of Saudi Arabia are right to point out canards such as the Protocols and outright bigoty. They are on weaken ground when they attempt to tie belief in Islam as a unique and final revelation as evidence of such sentiments.
May:22:2006 - 17:52
Replace dictatorship with absolute monarchy.
May:22:2006 - 18:31
Nope… not an absolute monarchy either!
May:23:2006 - 07:59
Curious to find out what oversight any independent parliament or house of nobles have over his royal highness.
Can find reference only to a consultative council appointed by his royal highness.
Although in theory hrh is constrained by the will of God as expressed through the prophet (pbuh) and defined in Sharia, it is unclear how direct an interest God takes in the affairs of state. And the reliance on the clergy on hrh for funding may allow for an open interpretation of that will if it benefits hrh benefits the clergy.
May:23:2006 - 14:28
Any reputable history of Saudi Arabia will note that the King is constrained by several major players:
1. Other family members
2. The Ulema
3. Tribal interests
4. Major business families
6. The Council of Ministers
7. The Shoura Council
8. Increasingly, public opinion
Several of these can be played off each other–sometimes–but they can’t all be ignored simultaneously. The powers of the (appointed) Shoura Council are expanding. They are not yet a fully-empowered parliament, but they do have a voice on the budget and the promulgation of laws.
The Shoura Council is also being expanded (most recently, to 120 members) taking in broader cross-sections of society.
Besides, just because a committee or commission is “appointed” doesn’t mean necessarily that it follows the lead of whomever did the appointing. Unless you’re suggesting that somehow Saudi groups don’t act the same way.
May:23:2006 - 20:27
Those constraints are what the king must conform to in order to maintain position. There is no law or body that the king cannot cross, if doing so is in the best interests of the king. I contend that providing a passage for aggressive youth to practice violence against foreign powers is more beneficial to the king than educating these youths in the relative merits / disadvantages of foreign cultures. If the latter were to occur it might allow for analysis of the relative merit / disadvantage of having this king, which would be of no interest.
The King of Nepal after he had dismissed the parliament had similar powers. There was no legal oversight of his actions when he ordered troops to fire upon the demonstrators.
You are correct it is not inconcievable that appointed officials may choose to defy those that have appointed them, I understand that members of the electoral colleges change sides during Americas presidential elections – not often though.
May:23:2006 - 22:38
The current leadership in Nepal comes pretty close to a textbook definition of “despotic”. And that’s a far cry from what prevails in the KSA.
You note that the king has to follow constraints to maintain his position. Well, it’s a funny thing, but very few people actually play “King for a Day”. They intend to have long reigns. Doing things which would end their reigns abruptly are generally not in the plans.
While there may be some logic in assuming a plan to send troublemakers abroad, it lacks evidence. It’s particularly difficult to sustain when the new king, Abdullah, is doing exactly what you prescribe: teach youths about difference in cult and culture. His awarding 10K scholarships for study abroad, his opening discourse with both Shi’a and Sufi, with his acknowledgement of regional differences within the country are all steps in the right direction. But he has to fight to get those through, against the opposition who are sure that there’s no merit in anything outside the borders or outside the Quran. Do take a look at the materials that are filling the pages of the Saudi papers. There’s a real war going on, with the government on the side of modernity and tolerance.
May:23:2006 - 23:37
The Royals are on the Royals side.
They do not want a prosperous, educated, powerful middle class who might wish to gain power and the Royals will therefore not favor modernity to any large extent. Any reform now is likely a balancing act against the Ulema, who have become very influential and problematic.
May:24:2006 - 00:01
You can believe that if you wish, but it simply doesn’t match up with either commentary from within or without the KSA. The Royals do not have a suicide wish, of course. But stasis is as suicidal as too-rapid change.
June:21:2006 - 06:12
John Said said : Saudi Arabia isn’t a dictatorship
Are you serious ? one of the worst if you ask me and im an arab and muslim . but because of the special relationship with the US , the media does not put them in the spotlight .
Today 21/06/06
they have arrested a lawyer , who has already served a year in jail for simply contacting Al Jazeera and airing his view about Al Zarqaoui .
June:21:2006 - 06:24
Forgot to add many People insisting on Reforms have also been jailed too.
Ex: Ali al-Dumaini, Dr. Matruk al-Falih and Dr. Abdullah al-Hamid
They have also arrested al Quwai’i for his thoughts ! but saudi does not make the front pages of most papers because of their oil .
June:21:2006 - 08:40
Fatima, I have to disagree. Syria, during the rule of Hafez Al-Asad was a dictatorship; Iraq, during the rule of Saddam was a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is not in that category, though it is not the freest nation on earth.
Saudi Arabia comes in for constant critical reporting in the US and UK, as well as the new media. Search the blogs on Saudi Arabia and see how many are pro-, con-, or as I hope this one to be, neutral.