What the Textbooks Say
The coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved, offering students a detailed look at the Muslim world through the centuries, one that explains its origins and tenets, including the difference between the Sunni and Shiite sects, and one that dwells on the splendors of Islamic art and architecture, learning and science, medicine and knowledge through the ages. But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions.
Jihad
In understanding the history and nature of Islam, the concept of jihad is uniquely important. The term embodies an element of friction that exists between many Muslims and nonbelievers -- Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist -- enmity grounded in Islamic desire for political and territorial power. Jihad in its historical usage refers almost exclusively to armed warfare by Muslims against non-Muslims. Most editorial boards have no difficulty digesting this idea, nor do the nation's political and military elites. On the other hand, many prominent academics deny any martial aspect of the Muslim faith, ignoring or dismissing violent Islamic jihads from Algeria to Indonesia and locating the problem in Western colonialism.
What is jihad? Bernard Lewis, writing in The Middle East, states: The term ‘jihad', conventionally translated ‘holy war', has the literal meaning of striving, more specifically, in the Qur'anic phrase ‘striving in the path of God' (fi sabil Allah). Some Muslim theologians, particularly in more modern times, have interpreted the duty of ‘striving in the path of God' in a spiritual and moral sense.
The overwhelming majority of early authorities, however, citing relevant passages in the Qur'an and in the tradition, discuss jihad in military terms. Virtually every manual of shari'a law has a chapter on jihad, which regulates in minute detail such matters as the opening, conduct, interruption and cessation of hostilities, and the allocation and division of booty. . . . Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad it was concerned primarily with the defence or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. . . .
The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. In the latter case, those who professed what Muslims recognized as a revealed religion were allowed to continue the practice of that religion, subject to the acceptance of certain fiscal and other disabilities. Those who did not, that is to say idolaters and polytheists, were given the choice of conversion, death or slavery.
Lewis concludes this passage, saying: "The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law." World history textbooks fail to make this simple but ultra-important point. A 1999 Library of Congress report on global terrorism says of jihad in its glossary:
An Arabic verbal noun derived from jahada ("to struggle"). Although "holy war" is not a literal translation, it summarizes the essential idea of jihad. In the course of the revival of Islamic fundamentalism, the doctrine of jihad has been invoked to justify resistance, including terrorist actions, to combat "un-Islamic" regimes, or perceived external enemies of Islam, such as Israel and the United States.
In U.S. classrooms, jihad is defanged or oversimplified. World history textbook editors formulate definitions uncritically, using guides issued by Islamic advocacy groups as their road maps. According to a Council on Islamic Education subject guide intended for publishers, jihad means "‘struggle' or ‘exertion' and refers to any spiritual, moral or physical struggle," and "struggle in the cause of God, which can take many forms. In the personal sphere, efforts such as obtaining an education, trying to quit smoking, or controlling one's temper are forms of jihad."
The term holy war, the Council says, is a misrepresentation. Jihad is transformed into an esoteric form of Muslim self-improvement.
A widely adopted seventh-grade Houghton Mifflin world history, Across the Centuries, says that jihad is merely a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil." This interpretation has on its face an element of accuracy; anyone or anything not under Muslim rule and control may be characterized as evil. But this textbook is not in any way exceptional.
One high-profile high school textbook, Houghton Mifflin's Patterns of Interaction, a world history textbook for high school students adopted in Texas in November 2002, does not even mention jihad, a lapse as noteworthy as any imaginable on the entire subject of Islam.
Prentice Hall's Connections to Today, which names the Council on Islamic Education as an editorial reviewer, is the nation's most widely used world history textbook, also adopted by Texas in 2002. The textbook says: "Some Muslims took on jihad, or effort in God's service, as another duty. Jihad has often been mistakenly translated simply as ‘holy war.' In fact, it may include acts of charity or an inner struggle to achieve spiritual peace, as well as any battle in defense of Islam". Its glossary says: "jihad: in Islam, an effort in God's service".
It is inconceivable that a textbook writer would formulate this definition without external prompting from an Islamic source, given the peculiar and vague choice of words and language.
Not all textbook content is this misinformative. Yet other explanations remain opaque and puzzling. Holt, Rinehart and Winston's Continuity and Change, a third high school textbook, contains two definitions in one: "One important requirement [of faith] was jihad. Europeans, threatened by Muslim armies, later translated this term as ‘holy war,' but a more accurate translation would be ‘struggle for the faith.' In the early years of Muslim expansion, however, jihad did mean primarily fighting and dying for the faith. Muslims believed that a warrior who died in battle for the faith would immediately be admitted to paradise.
The term also means the constant inner struggle people experience in their effort to obey God's will or any effort in the cause of faith". Glencoe's The Human Experience comes closer to the reality of jihad and its ambitions. "The Arab armies were successful for several reasons.
First, they were united in the belief that they had a religious duty to spread Islam. The Islamic state, therefore, saw the conquests as a jihad, or holy struggle to bring Islam to other lands". The glossary says: "jihad: Muslim struggle to introduce Islam to other lands". Since this textbook also lists the Council on Islamic Education as an editorial reviewer, it may be concluded that some social studies editors take the Council on Islamic Education's instructions more seriously than others.
Islamic organizations indignantly insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Historical evidence often points to a different conclusion. Much is made of the Koranic injunction against attacks on innocent, unarmed people. Less is made the fact that "enemies" and infidels do not fall under the protective umbrella. The annihilation of Israel and the U.S. may be the just vision and dream. For Muslims who are devoted to victory over the satanic West, this definition of jihad fits quite well.
Sharia
As in the case of jihad, Islamic holy law -- sharia -- is tailored and cut, making an appearance as an alternative legal system or perhaps as a lifestyle. Holy law is explained in abstract, sketchy, and cryptic language that fails to convey the truth of the matter. Of sharia, historically, Bernard Lewis says, "In an Islamic state, there is in principle no law other than the shar'ia, the Holy Law of Islam." Elsewhere, he states, "There is, for example, no distinction between canon law and civil law, between the law of the church and the law of the state, crucial in Christian history.
There is only a single law, the shari'a, accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating all aspects of human life: civil, commercial, criminal, constitutional, as well as matters more specifically concerned with religion in the limited, Christian sense of that word."
Lewis adds: "The principal function of the Islamic state and society was to maintain and enforce these rules" and that "the idea that any group of persons, any kind of activities, or any part of human life is in any sense outside the scope of religious law and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought."
The Council on Islamic Education ignores all of this. Its construction of sharia is at once cryptic and lyrical: "Literally ‘the path,'" says one Council definition, "this term refers to guidance from God to be used by Muslims to regulate their societal and personal affairs. The sharia is based upon the Qur'an and the Sunni of Muhammad, and is interpreted by scholars in deliberating and deciding upon questions and issues of a legal nature."
At best, this is an incomplete explanation.
How do world history textbooks define sharia? McDougal Littell's Patterns of Interaction contains an absurdly abstract explanation: "This system of law regulates the family life, moral conduct, and business and community life of Muslims. It does not separate religious matters from criminal or civil matters, but brings all aspects of life together. Because shari'a applies to all who follow the teachings of the Prophet, it brings a sense of unity to all Muslims".
Prentice Hall's Connections to Today states as vaguely: "Islam has been a shaping force in the Middle East for more than 1,300 years. As in the past, the Quran and Sharia provide guidance on all aspects of life -- from religious faith, law, and government to family and business relationships". Unlike some other textbooks, it offers a clear view of sharia's reach and at least distinguishes it from Western legal traditions: This Islamic system of law, called the Sharia, regulated moral conduct, family life, business practices, government, and other aspects of a Muslim community. Like the Quran, the Sharia helped unite the many peoples who converted to Islam. Unlike the law codes that evolved in the west, the Sharia does not separate religious matters from criminal or civil law. The Sharia applies the Quran to all legal situations.
These passages are similar in tone and content to Holt, Rinehart and Winston's Continuity and Change: "The shari'ah guided the personal conduct of all Muslims, including religious observances, marriage, divorce, business affairs, and inheritance. It also outlined the appropriate practices of Islamic government. Adherence to the shari'ah soon became one of the most important elements of the Muslims' sense of identity".
Continuity and Change also says, mixing vagueness and arcana: The Qur'an and the sayings and deeds of the Prophet were the most important sources of the shari'ah. In cases not covered by these sources, people were to draw a parallel with some case that was covered. The net important source of legal authority was the consensus of the community. Human reason as a means of interpreting the law was to be used only through this highly disciplined process. Al-Shafi'i was not the only Muslim scholar dealing with these issues. Eventually, four major schools of Islamic legal interpretation emerged -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- each named for its founder. In later years, these schools of interpretation became associated with particular geographic regions in the Islamic world.
Of sharia, The Human Experience says merely: "Law cannot be separated from religion in Islamic society. Islam has no ranked order of clergy. Instead, generations of legal scholars have organized Islamic moral principles into a body of law known as the shari'ah. Based on the Quran and the Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, the shari'ah covers all aspects of Muslim private and public life".
Such textbook explanations are almost meaningless chatter. What aspects of sharia do most world history textbooks fail to convey? That the Islamic state is an agent of religion. Civil society, separation of church and state, limited government, an independent judiciary, and the underlying notions of personal liberty and individual freedom, notably freedom of religion, are alien concepts. So are such items as due process, trial by jury, and chartered protection. Holy law is not a variant of jurisprudence as it is known in the U.S. and Western democracies. Sharia bears no resemblance to American law based on the Roman and British constitutions, a tradition that stretches from the second century BCE and Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a legal system as Americans understand it.
It is instead an accreted medley of precepts, proscriptions, and religious devotions tied to the Koran, interpreted as dicta by an authoritarian, priestly caste. Sharia can be a system of religion-based behavioral control in which certain crimes are punishable by stoning, flogging, amputation, and beheading, punishments intended to inspire subjection and fear.
In Part Three, I will discuss the remaining two of the four significant Islam-related subjects and how they are covered in our textbooks.
# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Editor Gilbert T. Sewall is Director of the American Textbook Council, a former history instructor at Phillips Academy and an education editor at Newsweek. The American Textbook Council is an independent New York-based research organization established in 1989. "Islam And The Textbooks," by Gilbert T. Sewall, is a Report Of The American Textbook Council.