Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Rightwing Smearers of Obama Don't know a School from a Madrasa

The rightwing smear campaign against Barack Obama, waged by a magazine funded by the far rightwing Korean businessman and part-time messiah, the Reverend Moon, has foundered on CNN's good reporting. The allegation was that he had gone to a radical "Saudi-funded" madrasah. Wolf Blitzer had the professionalism to send out an experienced reporter to the school that Obama attended when he was 6 years old in Indonesia. He found it just an ordinary modern school with boys and girls and both male and female teachers, which taught modern subjects.

The smear campaign would be hilarious if it weren't so satanic.

First of all, let's explain about the word madrasah. In Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, words are mostly made up of three-letter roots. In Indo-European languages, words tend to have two-letter roots. In roots, you don't count short vowels. So in Arabic, the root for to learn (as in school learning) is d* r *s*. Arabic is an elegant, almost mathematical language. If you put those three-letter roots in certain "molds," it produces a linked vocabulary. Dars is a lesson. Darrasa with a doubling of the "r" is "to teach." You make a noun of place by putting an "m" in front and a soft "h" at the end. Thus, madrasah is the place where you study. Thus, madrasah means . . . school.

Now, there are lots of kinds of school, after all. But an ordinary elementary school attended by boys and girls and offering a modern curriculum would be called a madrasah in Arabic, i.e. a school. And this word has gone into lots of languages, especially ones spoken by Muslims, as a loan word.

So, yes, if one is speaking Arabic, Barack Obama went to a "madrasah," i.e. an elementary school! So did you.

The schools for young children that train them in specifically Muslim subjects are not properly called madrasah/school but rather they are maktab (from the root kataba, to write) or kuttab.

Now, it is true that there are higher seminaries for training clerics that are called madrasat al-`ulum, or "seminary for religious sciences" (`ulum is the plural of `ilm or knowledge, which here means 'religious science'). That phrase is shortened sometimes to madrasah. But you don't send 6-year-olds to a seminary for higher education. They have to start studying religion in a maktab. Apparently in Pakistan the distinction is sometimes lost, but they are not native Arabic speakers.

By the way, very few terrorists or suicide bombers have ever graduated from a seminary/ madrasah of `ulum. The lead hijackers on 9/11 had all gone to modern schools and Western universities. Relatively few seminary students or graduates in Pakistan even bothered to come out and demonstrate in fall of 2001 against the building US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In places like Egypt, Muslim political activists tend to be engineers with a modern university education, whereas the clerics trained in seminaries/ madrasahs of `ulum are typically coopted by the regime and are relatively moderate. So not all Muslim seminaries are hotbeds of radicalism.

A lot of words in Arabic have both an older, religious meaning and a newer, secular one. Thus, `ilm means "science" in modern Arabic but can also still mean "religious branch of knowledge." Someone who specializes in `ilm is an `aalim, plural `ulama'. But in Arabic you can only tell by context if someone is talking about `ulama'/scientists or `ulama'/ clerics. Thus dual meaning is also characteristic of the word madrasah or school.

So the entire report was brain dead and deeply ignorant and offensive. Let's judge Barack Obama on what kind of person he is, how likely he is to prove a great public servant. Who his father was or the religion of his paternal ancestors is not relevant.

By the way, most Europeans have some Muslim ancestors if you go back. The British royal family is descended in part from Muhammad. Many Sicilians have Arab ancestors. A lot of Latinos/Latinas have direct Muslim background, given the forced conversion of hundreds of thousands of Spanish Muslims to Catholicism from the 1400s and subsequent intermarriage with them. In fact, by the principles of population genetics, almost all persons of European heritage probably by now have some Arab ancestry. You have a million ancestors if you extrapolate back a few centuries. How likely is it that none was from Southern France, from Sicily or from Spain, where there had been Arab Muslim populations in the medieval period?

The real question is why foreign billionaire cultists own so much of America's media. Lou Dobbs, who is so concerned about illegal immigration, should leave the poor alone long enough to look into the rich and influential, rightwing aliens. This smear was brought to us by the media owned by the Reverend Moon (who did jail time for tax evasion) and by Rupert Murdoch (which picked it up shamelessly). Americans will never get back their purloined liberty until they stop letting the super-rich tell them what to think.

8 Comments:

At 5:48 AM, Blogger ecclOneNine said...

Bravo! Thank you for elaborating from your field of expertise. I think (hope?) most people recognize that a report like this is just a sleazy smear, and this one particularly seems even more brazenly so, to the point of being outright laughable -- and laughable it would be, were these not such stupid times. But it is always welcome to have this extra level of debunking.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger ejh said...

The British royal family is descended in part from Muhammad.

You couldn't tell us a little more about that? I've not come across that one before.

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger Walton said...

It's a rare pleasure to read intelligent comment.

 
At 12:12 PM, Blogger knowbuddhau said...

Prof. Cole writes:
Americans will never get back their purloined liberty until they stop letting the super-rich tell them what to think.

Couple this with "grumbling about a few decades of the Bush and Clinton families," the title of today's (1/23/07) post on HuffPo by Steve Clemons.

Considering our history since the hieratic states, and going back into our evolutionary history, does humanity have a predisposition towards aristocracy?

Does democracy go against our grain?

I'm certainly not arguing for a return to monarchy. But I do think this highlights the promethean challenges to democracy. Bringing home the fire of democracy from the wilderness of our bestial past turns out to be harder than just "toss the bums out."

Add to this the Western assumption of life as a holy war between absolute good and absolute evil, which are assumed to be ontologically as separate as separate gets, and I think this goes a long way toward describing the much lamented recurrent patterns in our history.

There are notable exceptions. I heard Rep. Kucinich say the most remarkable things in his recent CSPAN interview. He talked of our interdependence, of how we must do away with "us vs. them" thinking. He sounded positively Buddhist!

Dr. King also spoke of the impossibility of anyone being an 'enemy' because we are not separate from each other. We share being.

I think the widely held assumption of an absolute self/other divide, in the context of our historical and evolutionary pasts, makes genuine democracy all the more difficult: How can 'we the good' ever make peace with 'them the evil'?

The mutual demonization arising from the assumption of life as a holy war leads us all straight to hell. We can't outrun that juggernaut by bombing our siblings back into the Stone Age in a futile attempt to enforce a spurious separation. But we can sidestep it quite easily.

Meet the new boss/ Same as the old boss --The Who

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger rwgate said...

The British royal family is descended in part from Muhammad.

Muhammad was born in the early 6th Century, predating Charlemagne by 200 years. Charlemagne is approximately 26 generations removed from our current time. If you had Charlemagne in your direct lineage he would be one of 67,108,864 direct grandparents. Add another five to seven generations for Muhammad and he would be one of 2,147,483,648 direct grandparents.

So the question is not whether you could be related to Muhammad (or Charlemagne) but how you could not.

Of course, we know that the lineage of Charlemagne exists today (19 Presidents, including Jefferson, Washington, both Bushes are directly related) but we are uncertain whether the lineage of Muhammad continued unbroken. Muslims believe that the imams are direct descendants of Muhammad, but based on the numbers, most middle eastern Muslims are probably related.

Just a thought.

 
At 8:21 PM, Blogger Rob Price said...

Great entry!

Ending your thread on presidential candidate Obama with mention of tax evasion (Moon), reminds me Spiro Agnew left office Oct, 1973 over tax evasion. August the following year, Nixon was out. Critics Fall, 1973 dismissed impeachment as taking off, indicating little support in Congress. Reminds me of late 2006 (minus tax evasion, but how is Libby these days? Jury finalized yesterday?)

Great to tie billionaire corporate giants, media, and political influence in the final sentences. With all the multi-billion dollars of influence, (right down to the lapel flags), it's a miracle images of pre-war protest made it to the nightly wire.

Speaking of money and making waves in American politics, Ken Silverstein's article, Barack Obama Inc. (Harper's Magazine. November, 2006) might be of interest to some.http://www.harpers.org/BarackObamaInc.html

Barack Obama's official rebuttal is located on his political website. Google, "harper's magazine + obama"

And then google, "harper's magazine a bit more on barack" for Ken Silverstein's response to Obama's press release.

 
At 2:21 AM, Blogger Zack said...

Not to sound sycophantic, but that was really interesting, one of the most interesting things I have ever read on this site. Thank you very much.

 
At 2:12 AM, Blogger Johanna said...

It's not that I disagree with you on the fact that the smear campaign against Barack Obama is disgusting, but I have to wonder...

When you write "Apparently in Pakistan the distinction is sometimes lost, but they are not native Arabic speakers," do you mean to imply that the Indonesians are? They do have their own language, and it's different from Arabic. And, incidentally, the Indonesian word for a simple, ordinary school is not madrasah, it's "sekolah", derived from the Dutch word for school.

In Indonesian, a private Islamic school (mostly they are rural boarding schools centered around a Sufi convent) is called pesantren. A madrasah is a state-run school with a partly religious curriculum, but teaching stuff like maths and English as well. The government curriculum, as far as religion goes, is really moderate, promoting religious tolerance etc. So, there is really no harm in having attended a madrasah, but it's not true that it's simply a nondescript secular school either.

In essence, I agree with you, of course. Just not in the linguistics, as far as Indonesia is concerned. :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home