SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Newsweek reports that ISIS has announced a new curriculum banning the study of math for students in areas of Iraq and Syria it controls. Also banned will be the teaching of music, social studies (especially anything about elections or democracy), and sports. Books cannot include any reference to evolution and teachers must say that the laws of physics and chemistry "are due to Allah's rules and laws." Students will instead learn all about "belonging to Islam," and how to "denounce infidelity and infidels." Teachers who break the rules "will be punished," according to fliers posted in ISIS-controlled territory.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Islamic State Bans Teaching Math to Students
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 70 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There are no data that cannot be plotted on a straight line if the axis
are chosen correctly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @09:54AM
Not trolling. It's quite clear that Islam wants nothing more than to take the world back 1,000 years or so - this theme is repeated over and over again from the Taliban to IS. Women are to be treated as property, men should be kept stupid and turned into good little fanatics willing to die for the cause. And kids of both genders exist to be raped because it's ok if you marry them afterwards even if they are 6 or if you are an imam. This is islam.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:23AM
s/Islam/islamists/g
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:59AM
Yes, thank you. Let's make a distinction between radical Islam and the others, please. Most of the Islamic world is peaceful and pleasant - visit Indonesia and Senegal, for starters, two countries with a reputation for tolerance that exceeds the average (there are exceptions of course, but there are exceptions everywhere).
As for stupid ISIS policies, assuming this is for real, it is going to be self-limiting and ultimately self-defeating. There is no cure for stupidity, but as the economies tank in ISIS-controlled areas, the people will rise up and throw those ISIS nutsacks down the well where they belong.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 5, Insightful) by weeds on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:09PM
That sounds good and all but no, the distinction has to be made by them, not by us. When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:15PM
Well, then you'll be pleased to know that the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, Iraq (for whatever that government is worth), and Kuwait are generally US allies in the fight against the radical factions. Even Iran is thinking of getting on board against ISIL. The current governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco are to varying degrees friendly or allied with Western powers on this issue (I'm leaving out Libya because their post-Qaddafi situation is complicated at best).
So yes, it's safe to say that the vast majority of the Islamic world is not supportive of the radical Islamist groups.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:16PM
AFAIK Syria would like to help too, but some interest group(s) are instead financing rebel troops, which might turn out to be on the side of ISIL after all.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:52PM
Indeed, I am pleased to know!
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:00AM
And you will be not so pleased to know that much of their support will be in the form of allowing US military personnel to be stationed at bases on their land, provide fly-over rights, logistical support, a (somewhat tepid) moral support in the form of tut-tutting their extremist co-religionists, and not much more. Actually joining in the fight? Not so much. :-(
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Thursday September 18 2014, @02:33PM
They have been. If you are unaware of this, the fault is yours. Central Asian Muslim bodies (usually closely entwined with secular authoritarian leaders who don't want the unstability that religious fundamentalism brings) have taken great pains to turn their followers away from radical interpretations of Islam. Those states also called for armed action against the Taliban. Groups like Ismailis and Ahmadis, who suffer violence and other forms of persecution from fundamentalists, have been speaking out for decades against Islamism in media here and abroad.
(Score: 1) by turgid on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:58PM
Here in the UK the media have been pretty bad at reporting on-goings. However, today the Guardian has a piece [theguardian.com] about British Muslims speaking out against the atrocities of IS/ISIS/ISIL.
The is an absurd meme going about in the UK just now that "all Muslims" believe in IS/The Caliphate and Islamism/Islamofascism and that they're all waiting to pounce on us, chopping off heads, crucifying non-believers and claiming the UK for the Caliphate. It has given rise to some very ugly right wing extremism [bbc.co.uk],
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:18PM
When all of the "peaceful and pleasant" Islamic world joins (or leads) the fight against the radical factions, then the distinction will be obvious.
Here's a couple of thousand denunciations by muslim leaders and institutions who have been denouncing islamic extremists for years. [muhajabah.com]
ISIL is a local phenomenon, not much different from hundreds of other groups of violent fascists that have come before around the world. That they wear the uniform of islamic extremism doesn't say anything about islam, just that they are yet another group of extremists. Focus on the extremism and you'll get understanding, focus on the religion and you'll just wander off into the weeds.
It really isn't the job of all regular muslims to fight ISIL any more than it was job of all regular atheists to fight the Khmer Rouge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @01:37PM
Moderates don't matter. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:23PM
Right, let's radicalize the other 80%.. What a cunt.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday September 18 2014, @05:59PM
Moderates don't matter.
I believe she's wrong, I find it hard to believe many those stats, but it is thought provoking.
I note that nearly all the examples are pre-television.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 19 2014, @10:39AM
What's more, she is wrong when she says that the peaceful Germans in WWII were irrelevant, the peaceful Japanese and Russians etc were irrelevant:
1 - In all of the examples she gave, there were resistance movements and people working against the tyranny of their governments. They played a part in the downfall of the regimes they opposed. Many of them were killed and tortured for their commitment and bravery. They were not irrelevant.
2 - When the dust settles and the war is over and it's time to work out how to move forward, who do you turn to in order to rebuild the nation under more new ideals? How do you think Japan and Germany were able to become peaceful and productive countries after 1945/6? That's right, the peaceful majority. You need to keep them on your side and to give them the support and respect they deserve, not brush them off as "irrelevant".[1]
3 - All the examples she gave were nations. Islam is not a nation. It has no borders, no central government. It's an idea. The only way you can attack an idea is with other ideas. If we are to kill this idea of "destroy the infidels", we need a better-but-compatible idea to replace it. Who is currently holding all the ideas that represent the best compromise between western ideals and Islamic militants? That's right, the Islamic moderates. They are not irrelevant.
4 - I fully expected the Youtube link to be a "Four Lions" reference. If you haven't seen that film, go watch it.
[1] Except we don't do war like that any more: We don't rebuild afterwards, it's just blunder on in killing randomly with no objective other than blowing shit up and then arbitrarily declare "mission accomplished" and leave them to come back for the sequel, more bitter and fucked up than ever before.
(Score: 4, Informative) by keplr on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:00PM
The problem with fundamentalist Islam, are Islam's fundamentals. It's hard to point out exactly where these people are going astray. They are presenting and implementing a very plausible version of the faith. Their actions are easy to justify, right from reading the Qur'an. It's the problem of those who say Islam is a religion of peace, that they must bend and twist the words of their scripture to support that assertion.
If they were Jains [wikipedia.org] acting this way, it'd be easy to point out how they're being incoherent. Muslims acting violent and intolerant are simply implementing a straightforward version of their religion.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by monster on Thursday September 18 2014, @04:26PM
No sacred book is a clear, coherent group of rules. Incoherences and implicit meanings are plentiful in all of them, so it's not strange that the same book can give reasons for radically different interpretations, even more if you include as canon the interpretations of "respected fathers of the church" like encyclicals, fatwas and so on. In that aspect, islam is no different than cristianism, buddhism, judaism, hinduism and the others.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 18 2014, @06:01PM
Well, in this particular case Mohammed had to get his followers fighting against enemies while he was still alive and writing the scriptures. So it's not too surprising that they are more violent than most current religious scriptures. (Most are created by people who aren't required to fight as a religious duty during the lifetime of the prophet.) The only other case that's as violent, that I can think of, is the Biblical Old Testament...and even that has long periods of peace, or at least periods when the people grabbing up weapons weren't the Jews.) Going further field the Vedas were equally violent in origin (certainly the Bhagavad Gita is equally, or more, violent). So are the Norse Myths..at least the ones that deal with the doings of mortals more than gods. The ones that deal with gods are pretty violent too, though.
So we've here got basically two classes:
1) The "inspired" work of a prophet that is elaborated by generations following, but is pretty much intact, probably. Usually peaceful.
and
2) The mythic history of a people. Usually violent.
The Muslim faith is an outlier, being an example of 1 that's nearly as violent as 2. This is because the prophet had to fight for his religion during his lifetime as well as write the scriptures...so the scriptures has to justify his actions.
OTOH, it is neither true that believing a peaceful faith makes one peaceful nor that believing a violent faith makes one violent. There are entire centuries where the Muslim world has been relatively peaceful and civilized while the Christian world has been violent and barbaric. It's true, however, that since the peaceful Muslim world went down in flames under Tamerlane, the muslims have tended to be violent and barbaric. An important word here is tended. This is an artifact of history, not inherent in their religion.
People have an extremely strong tendency to do what they want, and then justify it in terms of their religion.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Thursday September 18 2014, @07:26PM
centuries where the Muslim world has been relatively peaceful
I'm not sure you want to commit to this statement. Peace was achieved within Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, because everyone was converted, killed, or subjugated. The borders of this vast empire were painted with the blood of Kufir, the heretics--all non-Muslims who refused to live under Islamic jurisprudence. It just happens that they went through a period of time when their internal divisions and fissures were temporarily mastered and allowed a bit of breathing room for science, art, and literature (though still stifled by the limitations imposed by Islam). Art, for example, suffered the restriction of human figures being forbidden. Although this did lead to a stunningly beautiful tradition of calligraphy and geometric art.
A culture anchored by a violent religion will absolutely lead to violence above the human baseline. There are simply religious forms of violence which are unthinkable in a secular culture. No secular culture engages in honor killings, human sacrifices, or executions for blasphemers. These things require a religious substrate. Secular cultures can be violent also, but those types of violence just won't be found.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @08:32PM
Yay! A jihadwatch devotee comes to soylent.
As usual over-simplification is harnessed for political ends.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/figs/hd_figs.htm [metmuseum.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @01:11AM
Well, technically, you are correct. On the other hand, The Khmer rouge, and the NK regime come pretty darn close in spirit, if not in actual fact. But that seems to me to be a distinction with barely a hair's width of a difference.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Friday September 19 2014, @06:03AM
I can play that game in the other direction, and say that North Korea is actually running a state religion--making blasphemy as a crime nothing unusual. Christopher Hitchens said that DPRK was the most religious society he had ever visited, and he was no stranger to the middle East.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday September 19 2014, @07:29PM
I think, though I'm not sure, you need to check your calendar. I'm talking about the period characterized by cities like Samarkand along the silk road. Yes, there were wild people along the frontiers, like in Egypt, but the civilization was peaceful. (Yes, there was civil unrest. There nearly always is if there aren't external enemies.) These were people who made their wealth from the caravan trade along the silk route...and depended for their wealth on the caravans feeling secure within their walls, and relatively secure within the territory that they controlled.
For that matter, the Muslim conquerors of northern Africa and into Spain were considerably less oppressive than the Christians of the same time period. Their preference was not to kill those they couldn't convert, but rather to subject them to a punitive tax rate until they changed their minds. (Not that they weren't fierce in battle, I'm talking about times where there weren't armies in collision.)
OTOH, the Muslim countries do traditionally have a greater tolerance for slavery and physically brutal punishments for religious infractions than do modern Christian nations. (Do note the change in time.) The problem here is that the physically brutal punishments are written into Muslim tradition, where the Christians were always conflicted about this, and Jesus is essentially explicit in denouncing it. Mohamed, in contrast, considered it reasonable and proper. This makes it difficult for the adherents to his scripture to adapt to the changed circumstances. (Though one should note that the "followers" of Jesus have often been quite willing to claim religious sanction for brutality and violence, no matter what the words of their "Savior" say.)
So while I will agree that the fanatical followers of a religion may well have attitudes towards violence that are different from the human baseline, I'm not at all convinced that this is true for the ordinary adherents of that religion. (And I'm not certain how well founded in the Koran is Sharia Law, though it is clearly a strong part of existing Muslim culture. It's amazing how different people are willing to make different generalizations from the same facts.)
Also consider that many of the Catholic inquisitors may have both read the Bible and yet believed that what they were doing was sanctioned by Jesus. Verbal beliefs don't necessarily have much to do with belief motivated actions. Often the later verbalizations sound more like justifications only constructed after the fact, but then believed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday September 19 2014, @07:41AM
Quran is quite clear about allowing "peoples of the book" (christians and jews) to keep their faiths and customs unmolested, as long as they don't proselitize on the faithful. What is punished is converting to islam and then abandoning it, or falsely converting. In the first century of its existence, there were a lot of conversions, but they also conquered a lot of countries where the people who decided to keep their faiths could do so without problems, like with Armenia, Syria or Al-Andalus. That part of the book was respected, no matter what. However, there was also a non-religious reason to convert: Quran forbids taxing their believers, taxes can only be applied to peoples of other religions, so by converting people gained a "tax free" status and (later*) also better options to achieve social status.
That people can choose to ignore certain parts of a doctrine to achieve their goals is neither new nor exclusive to islam. How can christians find compatible the mandate to "put the other cheek" with warring and crusading is shocking. Same with judaism and "Thou shall not kill".
*For some generations, administrative and gubernative posts in islam were exclusively for arabs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:58AM
You say that as though Christians didn't do the same at the same time. The Muslims of the time were a lot more moderate while the Christians were a lot more like the Muslims of today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @12:13PM
> take the world back 1,000 years or so
Sounds a lot like the Christian fundamentalists too.