Texas Board of Education - Pro-Islamic, Anti-Christian Distortions’

[Squonk]

The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge.

how did he prove that?

It isn't like they were theologians. They were told by the pope that they should do this and recieve a remission of some.

Why do you think they obeyed him if not for religious reasons?

Attacking a city that tried to have you killed and threw you out of hardly counts as signifigant warfare. Besides, after the passages talking about attacking Mecca, th Qu'ran repeatedly mentions the value of peace and defensive war.

It's not Mecca that attacked Medina, but it's muslims from Medina that attacked Mecca, as long as I remember.
Peace and defensive wars? I don't think so. After Mecca, he proceeded to conquer entire Arabia. Apparently you didn't go by the link. here, let me scroll it down for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Conquest_of_Arabia

\
Same as above. The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge.

OK, thank you. Did the quote state that

Urban believed so.

doesn't that make the possibility that he actually believed God wants a crusade stronger?

anyay, that doesn't prove your point. One can believe whatever he likes, it doesn't make it so. I mean an intersubjectively logical, or literal, interpretation.

Considering the Bible was still read in Latin and knowledge of Latin outside the clergy or high nobles was rare, I believe. Besides, that was only one part of his justification.

Sorry, I miss your point in saying this.

If there is a bias and they didn't notice it when they were going over the book in years before, sucks to be them. They should be coming up on their 'book cycling' time where they get new textbooks (considering the book is around 10 years old) but because Texas is in effect broke (Ha! In yo face Libertarians!) they can't afford new books. They can't accomplish anything right now

all this isn't relevant to the issue if there's a bias or not, nor if they have the right to point out this bias. of course, it'd be better if they did it earlier etc, but it's another matter.

and all that is being achieved is perpetuating an 'OMG! Evil pro-Islam teaching in invading our schools trying to turn them against Christ!' myth. While they obviously believe there is bias, what is bias can vary drasticaly. As I have either said before or hinted at, considering the track hrecord of the Texas School Board it makes any claim of bias highly suspect to say the least.

The opinion of nutjobs, which perhaps they have earned rightly, I don't know, makes them being right less probable, but it doesn't allow people to dismiss all they're saying and ridiculing it without actually investigating into this matter and confirming they were wrong again.

 

[Ajidica]

how did he prove that?

Through scholarly research. It was put out by Oxford so it isn't some crackpot.

Why do you think they obeyed him if not for religious reasons?

Religous reasons don't always equate to religous teachings. Andrea Yates killed her kids for religous reasons, yet the Bible almost universaly condemns infancide unless the kids has defied their parents.

It's not Mecca that attacked Medina, but it's muslims from Medina that attacked Mecca, as long as I remember.

Mohammad was kicked out of Mecca and they tried to kill him. I believe also Mecca tried to conquer Medina.
As for the conquering all the other tribes:
I'm not sure to what degree that was Islam, and to what degree it was simply a unifying factor based on natural conversion.

The opinion of nutjobs, which perhaps they have earned rightly, I don't know, makes them being right less probable, but it doesn't allow people to dismiss all they're saying and ridiculing it without actually investigating into this matter and confirming they were wrong again.

And I have confirmed they were wrong. Besides, bias to one person is not bias to another. Look at Faux News for an example.

 

[Squonk]

Through scholarly research. It was put out by Oxford so it isn't some crackpot.

I'll take Oxford's word for it, but I am actually curious how did he prove it.

Religous reasons don't always equate to religous teachings. Andrea Yates killed her kids for religous reasons, yet the Bible almost universaly condemns infancide unless the kids has defied their parents.

But Andrea Yates wasn't anyone's religious leader, and she was mental.

Mohammad was kicked out of Mecca and they tried to kill him. I believe also Mecca tried to conquer Medina.

I'm not really sure, so I'll check some book
Even if Meccans indeed started the war (which I think was not the case), was it enough a reason to conquer it and destroy its sanctuary, turning it into a muslim shrine?

As for the conquering all the other tribes:
I'm not sure to what degree that was Islam, and to what degree it was simply a unifying factor based on natural conversion.

"natural conversion" of such a giant area in a couple of years? Some tribes acknowledged Medina's rule without a fight, either from fear or from actual commitment. I suspect fright, because as soon as Arabs thought they can (after Muhammad's death), they wanted to get ridda of islam and had to be forced back into submission by Muhammad's successor.

And I have confirmed they were wrong. Besides, bias to one person is not bias to another. Look at Faux News for an example.

One should try to mesure it.
You haven't "confirmed they were wrong". I've learned thanks to this discussion that there's a bias against crusades, not against all christian conquests as compared to muslim ones. When it comes to the rest, I don't know: I find 2x more mentions of islam a bias in its favour and many will agree with me, although some, like you, will not. You haven't disproved their claims that the definition of gihad is flawed; your defence of the describing crusader massacre of Jerusalem while not even mentioning massacres by muslims is not very convincing; your defence of not mentioning social problems in the muslim world is not fully convincing as well. You claim that there was not enough space: I claim that 1 line would be enough. They claim - and have some literature in their support, allegedly - that the schoolbooks are indicting christianity for the same practices (e.g., sexism, slavery, persecution of out-groups) that they treat nonjudgmental, minimize, sugarcoat, or censor in the former; you'd have a point if it was only about "censoring", that is not mentioning. if there's minimizing or sugarcoating, you have not. We'd have to check the books they refer to in order to see what they mean. It's very possible they are exagerrating. But I don't know that for sure.

 

[Ajidica]

But Andrea Yates wasn't anyone's religious leader, and she was mental.

And? She still acted through religous beliefs that were not supported by scripture.

One should try to mesure it.
You haven't "confirmed they were wrong". I've learned thanks to this discussion that there's a bias against crusades, not against all christian conquests as compared to muslim ones. When it comes to the rest, I don't know: I find 2x more mentions of islam a bias in its favour and many will agree with me, although some, like you, will not. You haven't disproved their claims that the definition of gihad is flawed;

There is a distinction is Islam between the personal struggle for faith (greater Jihad) and the external struggle (lesser jihad), furthermore the 'convert or die' mentality is primarily derived from selective interpretation of passages.

In his work, The History of Baghdad, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, an 11th-century Islamic scholar, referenced a statement by the companion of Muhammad Jabir ibn Abd-Allah. The reference stated that Jabir said, "The Prophet... returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, 'You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad—the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires."[14] This reference gave rise to the distinguishing of two forms of jihad: "greater" and "lesser".


Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)."[15]

In modern times, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish "just moral-social order",[16] while President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia has used it to describe the struggle for economic development in that country.


The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[20][21] In later centuries, especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.


Whether the Qur'an sanctions defensive warfare only or commands an all out war against non-Muslims depends on the interpretation of the relevant passages.

As for the rest of the bias, while there may well be some passages or parts that could be interpreted as bias, it was likely not the intent. (Remember, the Board Members don't write the books.)

 

[Tee Kay]

There is a distinction is Islam between the personal struggle for faith (greater Jihad) and the external struggle (lesser jihad), furthermore the 'convert or die' mentality is primarily derived from selective interpretation of passages.

You Westerners like to make these distinctions and claim "oh but there are peaceful elements of Islam". Rubbish. Islam is a violent religion - and good for them. It's about time they turn on the Western imperialists now that they have gone soft from their liberal attitude.

 

[Squonk]

And? She still acted through religous beliefs that were not supported by scripture.

Personal convictions of a believer are not (as?) relevant for a religion as the officially proclaimed opinions of the leader of this religion. Especially if this believer is mental.

There is a distinction is Islam between the personal struggle for faith (greater Jihad) and the external struggle (lesser jihad),
[/quite]

They didn't question existance of non-violent gihad, nor did I. They argue against denying existence of the violent one, as they claim that the definition provided in the book "excludes religious intolerance or military aggression". If they are right in this claim, if the definition indeed does (and I've seen such attempts), it is flawed. Gihad was used for describing religious warfare (I've already posted some examples from Al-Qur'an and hadiths), and I believe it is the basic and popular understanding of it, not only in Europe or USA.

A "crusade" isn't always a military expedition either, but to deny that it could be one would be flawed as well.

furthermore the 'convert or die' mentality is primarily derived from selective interpretation of passages.

as well as "peace, tolerance" mentality.

As for the rest of the bias, while there may well be some passages or parts that could be interpreted as bias, it was likely not the intent. (Remember, the Board Members don't write the books.)

The existence of bias and if it was intentional are two separate matters. If there's something that can be interpreted as a bias, one should strive to correct it, and only when there's no possibility of this, to defend it.