Houghton Mifflin's Fabricated Defense
Houghton Mifflin has greatly revised their defense after our post, Shocking denials by Houghton Mifflin.
Houghton Mifflin's Question and Answer format, to which they posed both question and answer:
Q: The textbooks were used widely in California. Is it possible
that this textbook influenced John Walker Lindh to become Muslim and
join the Taliban?
A: No. The Marin School District, where John Walker Lindh
attended middle school, did not purchase A Message of Ancient Days
and Across the Centuries until 1997. Because John Walker Lindh
is twenty-one years old, he would have been in seventh grade in 1994,
three years before the school bought the textbook.
BlessedCause: There is no "Marin School District." There is Marin
County Office of Education with 20 different school districts, but
there is no "Marin School District." Which
one refused to buy the ONLY California adopted and funded
textbooks since 1991? (California did not have a choice.)
John Walker nor his family nor his attorney will tell you where John Walker went to school. There is an explicit gag order on all of them negotiated at Walker's sentencing. Walker's elementary school difficult information to come by.
IF Houghton Mifflin was able to ascertain which school John Walker attended, then they would know that John did not attend ANY school in 1994. (HM's conclusion). Walker's parents pulled him out in 1993 and homeschooled him for two years (source: Time Magazine, others). If you closely research his age, he was 13 (7th grade) in 1993.
Why would Houghton Mifflin name a fictitious school district during the wrong school year and state that John did not use the textbook? If HM can't research the present and report facts, how do they research history for the textbooks?
Did Walker begin praying to Allah in public school as children do today? Maybe his mother bought the ONLY California adopted textbook herself and asked John to "Assume you are a Muslim soldier" as the textbook instructs. But I doubt it. We moms may not have a credential, but we are not that stupid. It takes a "Houghton Mifflin historian" to ask our children to pretend they are Muslim soldiers in public school. It takes Gov. Davis and his cohorts to enforce the dictates of the thought police.
Q: Did the CIE [Council on Islamic Education] or any other religious group contribute to the writing of either A Message of Ancient Days or Across the Centuries?It is important to understand that although these groups may provide source to be considered for inclusion in the textbooks, none of the reviewers were involved in writing actual content for the textbooks. While our reviewers play a crucial role in helping us present accurate information, none of our reviewers served as authors in either of the textbooks.
BlessedCause:
Oh, so the reviewers didn't pick up the pen and write the textbook...The reason there is so much dancing here is because originally HM denied it completely. When we proved that to be a lie by posting quotes from their editorial director, Abigail Jungreis, HM came up with this answer. HM had to rewrite it to include all the phrases quoted by Jungreis at a Muslim site, applauding the Muslims for supplying their version of the Crusades. "The Crusades" was originally counted as what little there is of a "Christian" section from both books, and the Muslim perspective was not kind to Christians. What a surprise to find it was a Muslim "non-contribution." The article states:
Mifflin textbooks have been able to show what Crusades were like for the Muslims."It is also with the help of the CIE that Jungreis says Houghton
Now that's a whopper of a non-contribution. (see full article)
“We've been able to give several perspectives on an event like that,” she says.
I believe it. Christian beliefs in both books sound more like Islam's beliefs about Christianity rather than Christians.
Q: Does the text imply acceptance of Muhammad’s
mission by occasionally referring to him as "the prophet Muhammad?"
A: No, the text does not imply acceptance of
Muhammad’s mission.
Q: Does the textbook repeatedly refer to Islam as "A
way of life?"
A: No. The statement is made only once, in an exercise in chapter 3
(Across the Centuries, page 64).
I could spend HOURS putting their spin into context, showing blatant fabrication of HM, but I am so weary of this. It literally makes me sick to look at their book. After so many pages of blatant lies from Houghton Mifflin, is it any doubt that Houghton Mifflin has resorted to more of the same? But I would like to make crystal clear a tactic that Houghton Mifflin continues to use throughout.
Below is a chart showing a word count of faith descriptives supporting Jesus and a word count of faith descriptives supporting Muhammad in the Houghton Mifflin textbook. Next to each count is a count of disclaimers, i.e., "Christians believe...," "Muslims believe..." As you can see, there are LESS disclaimers for Muhammad, even though Islam's belief statements as fact FAR surpass beliefs of Christians. (Click on graph to see closeup)
Jesus
Muhammad
disclaimers
disclaimers
When Houghton Mifflin gives examples of their disclaimers (i.e., Muslims believe...), they just about list ALL of them that can be found in the entire unit. People think, "Oh, so there ARE statements of "Muslims believe." HM points out a section is titled "The Teachings of Islam," but that header came after 4 pages of religious beliefs stated as fact and page headers such as: “The Life of the Prophet.” This particular section lists beliefs and wraps it up with:
“These revelations confirmed both Muhammad’s belief in monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God.”
Confirmed?
They compare this to "The Life of Jesus" in the Christian section, but in that section they describe Jesus as "a popular teacher with ideas" and discuss only the parables He gave, omitting miracles or anything that could be construed as holy.
HM's defense posted at their website is fraught with these tactics, taking a sliver of a sentence out of context from dozens of pages of indoctrination, and holding it up as a defense that Islam is presented in a balanced way. They even took two phrases which were paragraphs apart, spliced them together in order to make it appear they were giving a balanced view.
I find it astounding that Houghton Mifflin still claims they never confirm Muhammad as a Prophet when they even have a header: "The Life of the Prophet."
Other statements as belief:
“In fact, the very first word the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad was recite.”
"The Quran is the final revelation, just as Muhammad is the final prophet.”
“Ramadan is a holy time, because in this month Muhammad received his first message from Allah.”
4.“Arabic lettering had a special significance for
Muslims, because it was used to write down God’s words as they had been
given to Muhammad.”
(see so many more)
Along with HM's defense, they list positive Christian occurrences and page numbers that are certainly not in the book my son studies from! Did they find a specific version that got lost?
Should I invest HOURS exposing all the fabrications of Houghton Mifflin's defense again? I must have a hundred pages full of HM textbook and defense quotes at this website already. If people won't listen by now, it's their choice. Somebody get me my baseball glove, I'm going to go pitch to my son!
If this was a book for adults, I wouldn't protest. But these are CHILDREN, a captive audience with impressionable minds. Many of them are God's holy temples. God is ANGRY when His children are asked to get on their hands and knees and recite words of prayer to Allah. No, the book does not instruct that, but many teachers are doing it.
We do not fathom how precious God's children are to Him. The nation is rocking. If we do not stop this assault on our children, God will. I tell you the truth, God will. And when that happens, it will be too late for those who do not know Him. I pray we turn around. For the sake of the lost and the sake of our children, America, turn around.
Coming soon:
When "Christian Educators" Prefer Islam
(We Christians love to rationalize our anger by pointing at Jesus as He
turned over tables. It's usually wrong to do that. But sometimes one can
do no less)