So I was browsing the headlines of Yahoo News and found this. Note the headline, which reads:
Massachusetts Father Mad Just Because Public School Teaches ‘There Is No God But Allah.’ Now this would be a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment, were it not for the fact that the slightest examination of the article and its accompanying photo reveal that the school did not in fact “teach there is no God but Allah.” In other words, Massachusetts father is an idiot, and the Daily Caller is apparently staffed by ignorant morons.
If one watches Fox New, there’s always some manufactured controversy about how Christians are supposedly persecuted because some atheist group forced their local school board to follow the pesky Constitution. In nearly all these cases, anyone with a gram of reasoning capability can easily surmise that the same people claiming persecution would blow their stacks if a Muslim group came into their kids’ school and put up a picture of the Kaaba or some other equivalent to the things Christians always want to see in public schools. Just take a look at this video and tell me you don’t think these people would shit bricks if Muslims wanted to put up their own religious plaque in their local school.
This case in Massachusetts would seem to vindicate this claim, except in this case it wasn’t a matter of Muslims trying to bring Islam into the school. The article’s author goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that the passage in question, which is pretty unambiguous in spite of their attempt to crop out as much context as possible, clearly refers to the beliefs of Muslims, using part of the adhan or call to prayer as a summation of that belief. It could have been more concisely presented in the shahada, the Muslim statement of faith which anyone wishing to convert to Islam must pronounce: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah(God), and Muhammed is his servant and prophet.” In any case, it is clear from the photo in the story that the book in question does not “teach Islam,” but rather it is a history book explaining the beliefs of Muslims.
It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that efforts were made either by the author or the editor to conceal the true nature of what happened at this school. The author ignorantly says the book’s passages about Mohammed are “rah-rah,” as in supportive of Mohammed, and that the book claims the pagan Meccans used to kill baby girls before they converted to Islam after the Muslims conquered that city. Well I’m very sorry, Daily Caller, but those claims about Mohammed reported by the history book in question are indeed true, including the claim about female infanticide. Infanticide was commonly practiced in many European cultures, along with human sacrifice, until the spread of Christianity in many places. The story about Mecca becoming a corrupt and lawless place until Islam took over is essentially true and agreed upon by all scholars in the field. Of course in reality, Islam has failed to fully eliminate many pre-Islamic practices all over the world, and in many cases it has been twisted to justify such tribal or traditional practices. The fact that Islam was overwhelmingly positive for the Arab peoples is beyond debate, however.
As for the question of a pro-Islamic slant, this is simply nonsense. Mohammed, much like Jesus, was a reformer. He appears in a decaying society with a new message and originally the effect is very positive. Of course eventually Islam, like Christianity, turned into the religion of a state and later an empire. That’s when the spiritual doctrine gets shackled to the needs of the ruling class. In any case, I doubt this father would have been angered by a historical passage which read thus: “During the reign of Tiberius, a man named Jesus of Nazareth preached a message of peace, charity, and a personal connection to God. After being crucified, Jesus’ followers claimed he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice on Earth would bring eternal life to anyone who believed in him. This belief can be seen in the Biblical passage John 3:16…”
This is not teaching Christianity. This is teaching about Christianity. Ditto for that history book text on Islam. So what we have here is a deliberate attempt to create a scandal where one does not exist. The lie begins with the headline. It’s basically “Dog bites man” when in fact nobody got bitten at all. Just something to keep in mind when we criticize the Russian press I guess.