View source for How The Dogmatism And Zealotry Of The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement Compare With Religous Dogmatism And Zealotry

(c) Copyright 2003, Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has participation from a broad range of individuals, both ethnic Hawaiian and non-ethnic-Hawaiian. They span the full range of social, economic, and educational levels. Some are attorneys, including two former Associate Justices of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, a former Governor, and a currently sitting United States Senator. Some are medical doctors. Some are ordained and accredited ministers working as respected pastors of mainline churches. Some are professors in a wide range of academic departments, mostly in the "studies" departments or social science departments such as "Hawaiian Studies", "Ethnic Studies," "Womens Studies," Political Science, Anthropology, History, etc. Some professors active in sovereignty are at universities far from Hawai'i, including Wesleyan (Connecticut) and Harvard. In the middle of the scale of respectability are poorly educated self-proclaimed ministers who have never had a congregation but who have a loud mouth and plenty of followers; and "traditional" or "native" practitioners who offer herbal healing, massage, and prayer. And there are also the usual assortment of "riff-raff" one finds among ex-convicts, odd-job laborers, and people who know how to milk the welfare system.

But Hawaiian sovereignty activists are not typical political activists. Many of them have a level of zealotry that is far greater than Republicans or Democrats working in a political campaign. Their zealotry is often comparable to that of a medaeval Christian martyr or a modern Palestinian suicide bomber.

Following are some of the characteristics Hawaiian sovereignty activists share with religious zealots.


"WITNESSING" (aggressively preaching; and showing the flag)

Hawaiian sovereignty activists are like the teenage Mormon missionary or Seventh Day Adventist who comes to someone's home uninvited, to "witness" for his faith. He is always ready to spend hours aggressively proclaiming "truth" and unwilling to take "no" for an answer. "Witnessing" is an act of ego whereby the speaker fulfills a sacred duty to spread the word of God, thereby making himself feel he has served God and has earned brownie points in the quest to get into heaven. Everyone wants other people to agree with himself, to get validation of his own worth. But zealots feel an overwhelming need to preach the message even when they know it will fall on deaf ears; or even when merely "preaching to the choir" of fellow true-believers. Like a cat scent-marking its territory, or an explorer planting his nation's flag on unclaimed territory, the zealot eagerly sprays his message as far as possible because doing so makes him feel powerful and wise.

One particularly zealous witnesser is a medical doctor who has no Hawaiian blood but who has a Chinese ancestor who became a naturalized subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This medical doctor has attended all the major Hawaiian sovereignty rallies for many years, and in parades he carries an enormous Hawaiian flag specially made to have the 2x1 length x width ratio of the Kingdom flags.

The Kingdom flag flies over 'Iolani Palace, where the U.S. flag is never allowed to fly because the State of Hawai'i allows the sovereignty independence activists to imagine that the Palace is their Capitol of the still-living Kingdom of Hawai'i. For details of the on-going battle of the flags in Hawai'i, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawpatriotpost911.html

July 31, 1843 was the date when sovereignty was restored to Hawai'i after a rogue British naval officer had taken over the Kingdom. The date was celebrated as a national holiday for the remainder of the Kingdom, and that holiday has been revived among Hawaiian independence activists. For details about Ka La Ho'iho'i Ea (Sovereignty Restoration Day), see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kalahoihoiea.html

One extreme example of Hawaiian sovereignty zealotry combines Sovereignty Restoration Day with the displaying of the Kingdom flag at the highest point in the Hawaiian islands. Mauna Kea has become a battle ground for sovereignty activists because they object to the presence of astronomical telescopes at the summit, claiming it is sacred ground. For a discussion of the sacredness of Mauna Kea, and why the telescopes actually fulfill Mauna Kea's spiritual essence, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/maunakea.html

On Sovereignty Restoration Day, July 31 2003, a small group of independence zealots displayed several Hawaiian Kingdom flags at the summit of Mauna Kea, and also made offerings at a lele (raised offertory platform) recently built there. 

[[Image:MaunaKeaHawFlag073103.jpg]]

 Another example of “witnessing” and zealotry was the red-shirt march on September 7, 2003. A pro-apartheid march by 5,000 to 10,000 ethnic Hawaiians and supporters took place in Waikiki. The purpose of the march was to protest the Arakaki2 lawsuit as well as the two Kamehameha School desegregation lawsuits. Some observers see this march as a turning point in ethnic Hawaiian activism, zealotry, and perhaps militancy. On September 7, 2003 the shirts were red. In the 1930s in Germany, the shirts were brown and black. A march of 5,000 -10,000 in low-population Waikiki feels comparable to a march of 50,000 - 100,000 in Berlin; and the Waikiki march was more ominous because some marchers dressed in the style of warriors and carried ancient Hawaiian weapons. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/redshirtsept2003.html


VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE

Thus far most sovereignty activists have stayed clear of actual violence. Some activists have used aggressive physical tactics, such as a very large man entering the office of a petite female college administrator and banging loudly on her furniture while demanding cancellation of a "politically incorrect" course.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/uhacafreegoodconk.html

Verbal harrassment by telephone and in person, as well as property damage and death threats, have also occurred in many incidents over a long period of time; and such harrassment and intimidation have been tolerated by officials at the University of Hawai'i.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/uhacafreemorebads.html

Some activists have committed virtual violence by warning that "Our backs are up against the wall" and by warning people who refuse to give in to extortionate demands for race-based money and power that "Hawaiians are a warrior people."
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/maxwellwarrior.html

In that regard it should be noted that the Hawaiian national anthem, now the official anthem of the State of Hawai'i, is "Hawai'i Pono'i" which includes a pledge to Kamehameha that "we warriors will defend you with spears."

Chanting and singing have also been used as weapons to build solidarity among friends and to intimidate opponents. For example, in May 2003 the Maui News reported that a Christian wedding ceremony on private land next to an area containing Hawaiian burials was interrupted and forced to disperse because of ethnic Hawaiian protesters using songs and chants explicitly for the purpose of disrupting the wedding, which was seen as a defilement of the bones of the ancestors buried in the nearby sand. Another example: at the WIPCE conference in Hawai'i in summer 1999 (World Indigenous Peoples' Conference on Education), a traditional welcoming ceremony was arranged on the beach to greet foreign guests staging a re-arrival by boat. The greeting ceremony had been planned for several months, and included training hundreds of "greeters" in a traditional chant modified for the occasion. The chant described stringing a lei with flowers. The training made clear the chant would be sung twice -- the first time softly and lovingly, the second time loudly and harshly. The first time was a loving welcome for the guests; the second time (identical words) was a warning that unwelcome invaders would be pierced with spears (as a needle pierces the flowers being strung on a lei) and their dead bodies lined up alongside each other would constitute a "lei" of resistance.


A CLAIM TO EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY

According to Judeo-Christian scripture, when God had led the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, God summoned Moses to Mount Sinai and carved into stone tablets for him the Ten Commandments. The very first of those Commandments is reported in Exodus, XX, 2-5 as follows: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

The zealot possesses the Truth; therefore all conflicting views are not only incorrect but also perverse or sinful. Not only must the true believer avoid sin himself, but he must also stop other people from sinning. He who tolerates the sinning of others insults God by permitting it. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all been guilty of persecuting unbelievers locally, and waging war in the name of God, against people or nations of other faiths. The medaeval crusades and the Spanish Inquisition come to mind, along with the Puritan Salem witch trials.

Hawaiian sovereignty activists belong to sovereignty groups, similar to religious sects, constantly quarreling over major principles and minor details. Religious followers can be charged with heresy and excommunicated if they deviate from the proclaimed Truth; similarly, members of the Ka Lahui sovereignty group have been charged with treason and expelled following a trial. Religions have fundamentalists (adhering to the letter of the law as written in scripture) vs. liberals (interpreting scripture to fit modern times). Likewise, Hawaiian sovereignty activists debate whether the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists and therefore its Constitution must govern the re-establishment of the Hawaiian nation, vs. whether it is a "living nation" which has grown and evolved under American occupation and has the authority to reconstitute itself under whatever laws it chooses to create. Keanu Sai claims to have followed the procedures set forth in Kingdom law to establish himself as Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom, asserting an ultra-conservative need to follow Kingdom law as the only legitimate law of the Hawaiian Islands. Henry Noa claims to have reinstated the Kingdom government by following Kingdom law to hold elections of a legislature to fill the vacancies created by the deaths of the legislators who held office at the time of the overthrow; thus, the reinstated legislature is empowered to make changes in Kingdom law to suit modern times. Bumpy Kanahele and his followers claim to have established a sovereign, independent Nation of Hawai'i on land leased from the State of Hawai'i in Waimanalo; they wrote their own Constitution, different from any of the Kingdom Constitutions, and had it approved by a radical University of Illinois law professor as meeting the requirements of "international law." Several persons have proclaimed themselves to be King because of their lineage and have held coronation ceremonies (for example, Akahi Nui). Others claim to be heir-apparent for the day when the monarchy is re-established, such as Princess Abigail Kawananakoa and Princess Owana Salazar. But just as a beehive might have several princesses who fight to the death to determine which one shall become queen, so Princess Owana's claim is described in an article from "Midweek" magazine of August 12, 1998 (100th anniversary of Annexation):
http://hawaii-nation.org/midweek-owana.html
and also in her testimony to the Clinton administration's "reconciliation" hearings in December 1999:
http://www.doi.gov/nativehawaiians/pdf/salazaro.pdf


A RELIGIOUS CLAIM TO RACIAL SUPREMACY

If the Bible stories are to be believed, the Jews are God's chosen people. God made a covenant with Abraham, promising him that his descendants through Isaac would be a powerful nation with an eternal right to possess the land of Israel. Somehow the Israelites were led off to captivity as slaves in Egypt. But the Old Testament tells that God selected the infant Moses to be a deliverer. God protected him while growing up. God later empowered Moses to call down plagues upon the Egyptians to force them to let the Israelites leave Egypt, sent miracles to help the Israelites cross the Red Sea into the Promised Land and to drown the pursuing Egyptians.

The Jewish people are defined by geneology as descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac. Circumcision is a ritual required of all Jewish male babies, because it is through the penis that the geneology gets passed along, and because the use of a ritual knife to cut the foreskin is symbolic of Abraham's willingness to cut the throat of Isaac for the sacrifice he thought God was demanding.

Just as Jews believe they are God's chosen people, and are defined by geneology as descendants of Abraham through Isaac; so ethnic Hawaiians believe they are the chosen people of the Hawaiian Islands, and are defined by geneology as descendants of Wakea and Papa through their daughter Ho'ohokukalani who mated with Wakea to give birth to Haloa, the first kanaka. For more information about the Hawaiian geneological claim to racial supremacy, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/religgeneol.html

The greatest theological dispute in the first century of the Christian faith was the question whether non-Jews could become Christians. Jesus was a Jew -- the fulfillment of a long line of prophecies for a coming Messiah who would be a first-born male in the geneological line from King David. All the disciples were Jews. All the earliest Christians were Jews. But the Apostle Paul began reaching out to non-Jews. He traveled through many countries, offering salvation to non-Jews who would believe in the divinity of Jesus. Paul did not require these gentiles to be circumcised, and he did not require them to obey the Jewish dietary laws. Paul's work among the gentiles created an uproar among the Jewish Christians. But he brouight in so much money, and so many converts, that his views became accepted. The non-Jewish Christians were said to have undergone a circumcision of the heart, and they were accepted as Christians in good standing.

A corresponding theological dispute has erupted among ethnic Hawaiians. The question being discussed is whether people who do not have native ancestry can still become Hawaiians. The Kingdom of Hawai'i had substantial numbers of Kingdom subjects who had no native ancestry. Some of them were naturalized immigrants from Europe, America, and even a few from Asia, who gave up their citizenship in their land of origin and swore an oath of allegiance to the Kingdom. Some people with no native ancestry, whose parents did not naturalize to Hawai'i, nevertheless did not need to undergo naturalization, because they were automatically Hawaiian subjects by being born in the Kingdom -- Sanford B. Dole was one of these. Thus the history of Hawai'i dictates that political status should not depend on race. Also, the tradition of "hanai" indicates that people from outside a family, including non-natives, can be taken into the family and given full status as family members (but see below).

Most Hawaiian sovereignty activists today believe that race (they call it geneology) is decisive. For example, the Akaka bill for federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian "nation" is limited to racially-defined Hawaiians. In a lawsuit against the Kamehameha Schools racially exclusionary admissions policy, a boy who lacks native ancestry but whose mother was hanai'd into an ethnic Hawaiian family filled out an admission application claiming to be "Hawaiian." The boy's application was accepted. When it was discovered the boy lacks native blood, the school rescinded his acceptance. Judge Ezra ruled that the boy must be admitted temporarily while the legal issues are pursued in court, but the judge made public statements that he understands the tradition of hanai and that was one good reason why the admissions policy should accept the boy. The judge's comment produced an uproar in the ethnic Hawaiian community, where most of the activists claimed that hanai has never conferred geneological lineage or property rights. Whether to include persons of no native ancestry as members in full standing in a Hawaiian nation is comparable to the question whether to include non-Jews among the Christians. The question is whether genetics is decisive, or whether spirituality and cultural commitment can overcome lack of native blood. The Jewish Christians of the first century decided to hanai non-Jews who wanted to become Christians; and these gentiles were welcomed as full members able to become church leaders and able to go to heaven. Will the blood Hawaiians of the 21st Century decide to hanai the non-bloods who want to become members in full standing of a Hawaiian nation? Or will they persist in the zealotry that blood trumps all else?

Some Hawaiian independence activists have begun to say publicly that all descendants of Kingdom subjects should be considered part of the Hawaiian nation, even if they lack the magic blood. A few activists would go further, allowing descendants of sugar plantation workers who came to Hawai'i after the overthrow, or even recent immigrants, to become naturalized as members of the Hawaiian nation after giving up allegiances elsewhere, taking a loyalty oath, and passing loyalty tests. But even these more "liberal" or revisionist activists nevertheless insist that blood Hawaiians must always have racial supremacy in the Hawaiian nation, because of "indigenous rights."

This demand for racial supremacy is a hard and fast doctrine of Hawaiian sovereignty zealotry. It is reminiscent of Nazi claims to Aryan racial supremacy. But even in Nazi Germany, the anti-semitic leaders realized they needed the talents of some of the Jews. Historian Bryan Mark Rigg recently published a book entitled "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of the Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military." From personal interviews and archival research, Rigg estimates there were 150,000 Jews who served in Hitler's military, including decorated veterans and high-ranking officers, in return for being designated "honorary Aryans." Perhaps that's similar to non-natives joining Ka Lahui as "honorary citizens" and similar to Governor Lingle getting an OHA-issued race card (paid for with government money) identifying her as an honorary Hawaiian.

More recently than Nazi Germany we have seen the religious zealotry of the Ku Klux Klan symbolized in the burning cross, and the claim to Black supremacy made by Nation of Islam prophet Elijah Muhammed, the early period of Malcolm X, and the on-going teachings of Minister Farakhan. Nationalism defined by race is an ugly stain on civilization, and it is at the core of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, both the independence wing and the Akaka wing.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sepnatcommoncore.html


NATIONS DEFINED BY RELIGION -- HOW EDUCATION IS USED FOR POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION IN IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, SAUDI ARABIA

Religious zealotry is at its peak when religion is used as the very definition of a nation, and the government schools are used to indoctrinate children with political and religious opinions. For example, after the Roman emperor Constantine enbraced Christianity, the nation became the Holy Roman Empire and spread Christianity throughout the world. Centuries later the Christian crusades to Jerusalem tried to capture the "Holy Land" in the name of the Christ. The Pope became extremely powerful in world politics. When Columbus returned from his voyage of discovery in 1492, the Pope had sufficient political power to draw a line on the map dividing ownership of the New World between the two most powerful nations, Portugal and Spain. The Church decided what books could be published and what contents they would have. Universities were established under the governance of cathedrals, and libraries were owned by monasteries.

In modern times the unification of church and state is most obvious in the Islamic nations. In the late 1970s the people of Iran staged a revolution against the Shah. The spiritual leader of the revolution was the Ayatollah (comparable to a Catholic cardinal) Khomeini. The people of Iran voted to establish Iran as an "Islamic Republic" in which the religious leaders would be given supreme power, and the Islamic religious law would become the actual government law (including chopping off the right hand of a convicted thief, and stoning to death for a woman found guilty of adultery). Later, a revolution in Afghanistan saw a victory by militant Muslim extremists known as the Taliban, eventually giving rise to a government-sponsored Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group known as Al Qaida, a religious/political/military leader Osama bin Laden, and the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York with the death of over 3,000 people.

The nation of Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship run by a very large family, following Islamic law as interpreted by the government-established extremist sect of Islam known as Wahhabism. Below are excerpts from a description of Wahhabism as taken from the Public Broadcasting System website. The excerpts are chosen to give a general understanding of wahhabism, and to focus on the way the Saudi education system indoctrinates the nation’s children. Following these excerpts about Wahhabism and Saudi education, there will then be evidence that the Hawai’i public school system is providing a home to at least a dozen “Hawaiian Culture Immersion Schools” which are indoctrinating ethnic Hawaiian children at taxpayer expense with doctrines that are explicitly racist and anti-American. Likewise, the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa is an engine of religious and political indoctrination at taxpayer expense.

----------------

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California. Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE's interviews with Mai Yamani, an anthropologist who studies Saudi society; Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism; Maher Hathout, spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California; and Ahmed Ali, a Shi'a Muslim from Saudi Arabia. (Also see the Links and Readings section of this site for more analyses of Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia.)

The religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia teaches you that people are basically two sides: Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others. They are either kafirs, who are deniers of God, or mushrak, putting gods next to God, or enervators, that's the lightest one. The enervators of religion who are they call the Sunni Muslims who ... for instance, celebrate Prophet Mohammed's birthday, and do some stuff that is not accepted by Salafis. And all of these people are not accepted by Salafi as Muslims. And all of these people are supposed to be hated, to be persecuted, even killed. And we have several clergy -- not one Salafi clergy -- who have said that against the Shi'a and against the other Muslims. And they have done it in Algeria, in Afghanistan. This is the same ideology. They just have the same opportunity. They did it in Algeria and Afghanistan, and now New York. ...

... Yes, Prince Nayif condemned bin Laden, and other princes... Prince Turki condemned bin Laden. They did not condemn that message. They condemned bin Laden. ... Bin Laden learned this in Saudi Arabia. He didn't learn it in the moon. That message that Bin Laden received, it still is taught in Saudi Arabia. And if bin Laden dies, and this policy or curriculum stays, we will have other bin Ladens. ...

Well, here, this is a book, hadif, for ninth grade. Hadif is a statement of Prophet Mohammed. This is a book that start for ninth graders. This is talking about the victory of Muslims over Jews. This is a hadif that I truly believe it's not true, as a Muslim:

"The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that." This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.

In middle schools, yes. Official middle schools. This is a book printed by Saudi government Ministry of Education.

... When the Saudi government came to power in 1932, it tried to get rid of these various different groups, or ethnic groups or beliefs, and unify it all into one? Actually, yes. ... [into] the Wahhabi Islamic thought... They regarded it as much purer because it's more fundamentalist, much more conservative than the people who are like in the south, the people in Mecca, who had more mystical religious trends, such as the Sufi trend, which is very mystical.

So the state religion in Saudi Arabia is this pure, stricter form of Islam?

Yes. ... And we're told by people we've interviewed that it's the nature of this thought, its fundamentalist nature, that can be easily manipulated, so that people would, for example, become violent or extremist.

I think that the new mood, the new trend, especially after the Gulf War, has become for all these neo-Wahhabis ... [is to use] Islam ... as a platform for political ideas and activities, using Islam to legitimize political, economic, social behavior. These people have been brought up in a country where Islam legitimizes everything. And they have used the teachings from the religious establishment, but became more political in expressing dissent and criticism of the regime.

We are told that it's this form of fundamentalist religion represented by this Wahhabi-influenced Islamic, if you will, ideology, or view, that has created, if you will, a seedbed for people to become violent, to become anti-American, and to do the kinds of things that we call "extremism" now. Is that true?

There's been a politicization of Islam. You've said it. But bin Laden, and his, if you will, similar people, are using Islam to promote political goals. They base this on a dogmatic interpretation of the religion itself, black and white. Is the base of support that they are gaining a result of this proliferation of this view of Islam ... This gives people the excuse, the platform, to go ahead and express themselves in Islamic language to suit their purpose of political ends.

Is there a connection between the fundamentalism of the Taliban and the fundamentalism of the Wahhabi?

The connection has been growing very, very strong in the past 20 years, and particularly in the past ten years. The dominant school of Islam with which the Taliban associate -- which is known as the Deobandi school -- is very prominent in Afghanistan and also in wide areas of Pakistan. Northern India has increasingly gravitated toward Wahhabi teaching, and has very, very strong organizational ties with various Wahhabi religious leaders.

When we saw the Taliban destroy the Buddhist statues and other artifacts in Afghanistan, is that similar to a Wahhabi view?

Yes, yes. Because Wahhabis don't believe in tombstones, don't believe in images being acceptable, don't believe in statues. They believe all of these are forms of polytheism.

Saudis, by the way, never say, "We are Wahhabis." They say, "We are just Muslims." But they follow the teachings, and the major booklets taught in all schools are the books of Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab. Anyone who's subscribing to someone else is not very much welcomed.

So there's a quote in the [New York Times] article that we were looking at before that basically says that Saudi Arabians believe that their form of Islam ... is the real true form of Islam, and that pretty much any other kind of way of practicing Islam is wrong.

Yes. This is probably some of the Saudi scholars. ... They are playing the role of clergy; there should be no church in Islam. There should be no theological hierarchy. But they acquired that position and, of course, them and the ruling family are very close. After all, Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab is the one who paved the road for Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the patriarch of the family, to conquer the rest of the [Arabian] Peninsula and to rule. So there is very great cohesiveness between the two.

Saudi Religious Education -- Extracts from Ministry of Education textbooks used by 9th-10th graders in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/textbooks.html

Here are two extracts from Ministry of Education textbooks used by middle school students in Saudi Arabia. The books were published in 2000. The first extract, "The Victory of Muslims Over Jews," is from the prophet Mohammed's sayings, HADITHS. The second extract is from EXPLANATIONS [of the Koran]. It also deals with Muslims and Jews and presents an interpretation of part of a Sura from the Koran, which says "murder" is a form of punishment for those who acted in opposition to Allah.

religious textbooks: Two extracts from Ministry of Education textbooks used by middle school students in Saudi Arabia. Approximately 35% of school studies is devoted to compulsory Saudi religious education.

The Victory of Muslims over the Jews

"The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and trees. Then the rocks and tree would call: oh Muslim, oh servant of God! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only "Gharkad" tree, it is of Jews' trees."

Teachings of the Hadith

1/ It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world.
2/ The Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the Jews.
3/ The victory for the Muslims because they are right, and who ever is right is always victorious, even though most people are against him.
4/ God grants victory to the Muslims if they have a true will, if they unite, hold on to God's sharia, if they go by God's ruling, if they are patient.
5/ The material strength won't be enough to warrant victory, it is necessary to invoke God seek his support.
6/ Who ever is with God, God is with him; no matter what hardships and ordeals one would undergo what counts is the final result.
7/ Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers they will never approve of the Muslims, beware of them.

Extract from Sura - 59 (Al-Hashr) The Banishment

This second extract, from EXPLANATIONS [of the Koran], also deals with Muslims and Jews and presents an interpretation of part of a Sura from the Koran, which says "murder" is a form of punishment for those who acted in opposition to Allah (pbuh).

Order Of Revelation 101, Verses: 24

"59.3": And had it not been that Allah had decreed for them the exile, He would certainly have punished them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have chastisement of the fire.

"59.4": That is because they acted in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, and whoever acts in opposition to Allah, then surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil).

"59.5": Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, It is by Allah's command, and that He may abase the transgressors.

Benefits and Rules (Teachings)

God decreed for Ibn Nadhir tribe to leave their bastions and homes and left them for the Muslims. If they were not granted exile, they would have been tortured by God with murder and imprisonment, that was out of his mercy, beneficence and clairvoyance, and for the believers since He granted them (Muslims) their (Ibn Nadhir's) lands, homes, monies without having pained for it. God Says: "And had it not been that Allah had decreed for them the exile, He would certainly have punished them in this world"

The opposition of God and his Apostle and the opposition of His Sharia- is a reason for retribution of Allah that is what happened to the Jews of Ibn-Nadhir. God Says: "That is because they acted in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, and whoever acts in opposition to Allah, then surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil)"

It's allowed to demolish, burn or destroy the bastions of the Kufar (infidels)- and all what constitutes their shield from Muslims if that was for the sake of victory for the Muslims and the defeat for the Kufar


HOW EDUCATION IS USED FOR POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION IN THE HAWAI’I PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM’S HAWAIIAN CULTURE IMMERSION CHARTER SCHOOLS

For more than a decade Hawai’i taxpayers have supported Hawaiian language immersion programs in the public school system. The idea was to revive a dying language (a cultural treasure for all Hawai’i) by teaching children from kindergarten through grade 12 all their courses entirely in Hawaiian language. That program has been successful in starting to produce a new generation of “native speakers.” Although there have been religious and political overtones to the language immersion program, it has not been too badly affected by religious and political zealotry.

However, since 2001 there has been a new sort of Hawaiian immersion program under the banner of the New Century Charter Schools. Out of 25 charter schools authorized by law, 12 were established as Hawaiian culture immersion schools. The concept of these schools was not primarily focused on Hawaiian language, but on Hawaiian culture. Of course the language was a very important part of the program. But instead of teaching traditional (“Western”) subject matter in traditional ways, these schools are making a strong effort to teach ethnocentric subject matter in “culturally appropriate” ways. The idea is to focus on what allegedly makes ethnic Hawaiian children different from everyone else. The explicit purpose of these schools is education for ethnic nation-building. These Hawaiian culture-immersion charter schools have a religious and political zealotry that resembles the Wahhabist madrassa of Saudi Arabia, teaching religious concepts supporting Hawaiian racial supremacy, hatred of “Western culture,” and hatred of America as an oppressor of the Hawaiian people. The consortium of twelve Hawaiian culture-immersion charter schools introduced legislation in 2002 and 2003 to establish an apartheid school system so that it could control its own administrative oversight, its own teacher-training, its own process for certifying additional charter schools, and its own testing standards.

For a thorough exploration of the Hawaiian language immersion program, the culture-immersion charter schools, and the legislation to create an apartheid school system, and the concept of education for ethnic nation-building in Hawai’i, see
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/edforhawnethnicnationbuilding.html

The following excerpts are taken from the website of the lead charter school in the consortium. The school’s name is “Kanu O Ka ‘Aina” often abbreviated “Kanu.” For documentation see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ethnhawcharterschools.html

As public schools these charter schools are required to allow children of all races to attend. In practice, nearly all the children are ethnic Hawaiian. When reading these excerpts, imagine the thoughts and feelings of those children who lack the magic blood. Such children would be like Jewish children attending one of the Wahhabist madrassas in Saudi Arabia! And imagine the thoughts and feelings of the ethnic Hawaiian children in these schools. They would be indoctrinated to believe in their own racial supremacy and their race-based right to rule.

---------

As a Hawaiian model of education, Kanu is tailored towards the distinctive cultural wants and needs of Hawai’i’s indigenous student population. Utilizing our natives values handed down to us in thousands of proverbs as a philosophical basis, Kanu is designed to assist students to achieve their highest level, while at the same time giving them the skills to perpetuate Hawaiian language and traditions. Based on a unique, culturally driven pedagogy, developed over nearly a decade of action research, Kanu involves not only students, teachers and staff but also parents, community partners and native stake holders from throughout the islands in the educational process. The long-term goal of Kanu is to create a native designed and controlled system of Hawaiian education that will empower native communities throughout the archipelago to achieve political, cultural and economic self-determination.

The name “Kanu o ka ‘Aina” evolved from of a Hawaiian proverb that refers to natives of the land from generations back as “kalo kanu o ka ‘aina” literally “taro planted on the land”. This name was chosen because this model wants to give native Hawaiians of all ages the opportunity and the choice to remain natives of their kulaiwi and to perpetuate Hawai’i’s native language, culture and traditions into the future. In addition, Kanu wants to empower Hawai’i’s native people, who are direct descendents of earthmother Papa and skyfather Wakea, to once again assume our rightful stewardship over our archipelago.

The purpose of Kanu is to provide students of Hawaiian ancestry residing in the Hamakua and Kohala area of Hawai’i Island with an equal opportunity to quality education that addresses their distinctive cultural learning styles and allows them to successfully walk in two worlds. Presently students of Hawaiian ancestry, one fourth of Hawai’i’s entire public school population, make up not only the largest, but also the most undereducated major ethnic group in the State. Providing culturally driven education, that is specifically designed to meet the unique wants and needs of native students, is Kanu’s primary focus. While we accept students that do not have Hawaiian blood, these students and their families, like their native counterparts, must make a commitment to be actively involved in the perpetuation of native Hawaiian language, culture and traditions. In addition, they must consent to being taught according to native Hawaiian values and teaching strategies and behave in a culturally consistent manner.

The inclusion of non-natives in Kanu, not just as students but also as teachers, staff, parents, local school board members and community partners – even though they make up only a small percentage - has important implications for our program. Initiated because of the fact that as a public school, Kanu is prohibited from discriminating against race, having non-native representation in all stakeholder groups has provided a vital balance to our program.

Collectively, KANU’s various stake holders join other indigenous peoples throughout the world in supporting the following philosophies and principles:
· We believe that Hawaiian knowledge structure differs significantly from the Western system of education.
· We believe that as an indigenous people, Hawaiians have the right to design and control our own education.

Three major components make up the educational foundations and the resulting instructional framework of Kanu. For one, Kanu is based on a pedagogy of liberation and in that respect Kanu as an educational model is liberatory. Secondly, Kanu is culturally-driven, that is the native culture of Hawai’i provides the underlying foundation of Kanu ‘s structure, educational philosophy and point of departure.

Probably the most unique and critical aspect of Kanu’s educational foundations is the fact that Kanu wants to actively prepare native students to participate in - and perhaps even lead - Hawai’i’s indigenous sovereignty movement. Initially I was sort of hesitant to claim that Kanu represents a liberatory pedagogy. However, the more I reflected on the true purpose of my model the more I realized that my model is definitely designed to liberate. Specifically, Kanu wants to encourage Hawaiian students to become politically conscious, and individually and collectively tackle the problem of Hawaiian oppression by the United States and our subjugation to American law and a Western way of life. In that vein, Kanu has the potential of significantly contributing to the Hawaiian sovereignty effort.

Utilizing problem-posing as an instructional technique, Kanu hopes to make our students realize that the occupation of Hawai’i by the United States of America is not fatal and unalterable, but merely limiting – and therefore challenging. Additionally, Kanu wants to empower our students to accept this challenge and find solutions to this and the many other dilemma, that face Hawai’i’s native people in their homeland today. By actively participating in finding solutions to native problems, it is envisioned that Kanu students will become an intricate part of the process of native liberation from American domination that nearly caused the demise of our native people and our way of life.


HOW EDUCATION IS USED FOR POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION IN THE CENTER FOR HAWAIIAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I, MANOA

A pernicious racial supremacist ideology dominates the University of Hawai'i. It is like an octopus, whose head is the Center for Hawaiian Studies (CHS). Its tentacles reach into every academic department which services substantial numbers of CHS students. These cognate departments enjoy lucrative collaborative projects and consulting contracts for academic research, field studies, and community activities. CHS itself is a propaganda factory whose professors unanimously proclaim the political right of ethnic Hawaiians to racial supremacy, based on the religious myth of Kumulipo. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/uhacafreechsoctopus.html

An amazing speech was given by Professor Haunani-Kay Trask, of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, on September 2, 2002, at an ethnic Hawaiian political rally on the grounds of ‘Iolani Palace. That speech provides a good look at the CHS party line as it is used for the purpose of racial demagoguery on a specific controversy. In the speech, Professor Trask explicitly (and most unrepentantly) “confesses” she teaches her anti-American and anti-white views in her courses at the Center for Hawaiian studies. The speech itself, and an analysis of it, clearly exemplify important elements of the CHS party line. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/leasetofeetrask090202.html

Professor Trask is the best example of zealotry in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. She stands out, not because her views are unusual, but because she has the courage (or is it egotism and political stupidity?) to express those views so clearly and forcefully. For additional information about Professor Trask and additional speeches and writings, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/trask.html

The zealotry at the Center for Hawaiian Studies, exemplified by Professor Trask, has been responsible for severe violations of the right to academic freedom for both professors and students. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/uhacafree.html

For more information about the common core of attitudes in all branches of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement -- racial separatism, ethnic nationalism, anti-Americanism, and racial supremacy -- see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sepnatcommoncore.html