It’s only slightly less ridiculous, what they’re saying now. (To be fair, only 5% of English words are of Arabic origin.)

Oh, and nimed eure saxes!!11!!

Hanque is 100% right: Since Classical Arabic is the language of the Koran and the Hadith, it is kind of hard to learn the language without exposure to those texts. This does indeed present a special set of challenges if language instruction is going to be kept free of religious instruction.

This, of course, is not the same thing as saying that Arabic is bad and scary because “radical Islam advances through the Arabic language.”

It is important to note that the 200 million speakers that Dumpendebat refers to are 99.9% daily speakers of Arabic dialects, not Classical Arabic. There are profound linguistical differences between the two groups. Very, very few people speak Classical Arabic on a daily basis. It is primarily used in religion and media enterprises.

In my personal experience, the content frequently used to teach Arabic goes beyond grammar, syntax and other components of the language. One will encounter ideological inculcation through the materials selected for teaching the language. This is particularly true when one advances toward higher proficiency levels in the language and studies culture, media and literature.

The fact is, the great body of literature which describes, catalogs or studies the language is derived largely (practically wholly) from the study of the language in the context of interpretation of the Qur’an. It is a simple fact that most Arabic grammarians wrote about the language to better understand and teach the meaning of the Qur’an and the Hadith. One cannot have tafsir without a firm understanding of the language. The grammar of the Qur’an is intricate (as is grammar in all Arabic poetry) and the Qur’an is cited in many forums to instruct interpretive meaning in the language.

I would also submit that the language itself has undergone a compromising stagnation (in my opinion) due to the fact it is now forever trapped and linked to the Qur’anic legacy. Classical Arabic has morphed into many dialects, but on its own it has not appreciably changed or evolved. The reason the language has not changed is because it is forever locked in an embrace with the Qur’an and Islam. In itself, that is an interesting phenomena that lends credence to one of the the original commentator’s points - classical Arabic isn’t just another language because in fact, it has not experienced change in the same manner that other languages have.

Classical Arabic is a unique language, it is tied to the Qur’an and the Islam, teaching it may involve the teaching of Qur’anic verses and other religious texts, and the material used to teach the higher language levels carries a lot of social and political baggage with it.

Should a public school be prevented from teaching Classical Arabic? In my opinion, no way. But, any materials used in the language instruction should be unrelated to religious content or teachings. I believe it is important to firmly and resoundly separate religion from education in a public school. The two should not mix under any conditions. This will be challenging to accomplish in the instruction of Classical Arabic.

Stram: Mark Steyn is a tool, in every sense of the word. You should check out his Wingnut All-Star entry at Elementropy.

What an asshole. I am supposedly of British descent (a few hundred years removed) but I can’t stand the damn accent. Maybe..I guess.. it has more to do with the content, but damn, he’s nauseating!