Friday, July 15, 2005
NOT TO GO UNNOTICED:
Comments from John Whiteside and Jo Fish on Sully’s self-congratulations. From the latter:I notice that he claims no credit for the Internet Adult Personal Ad, however.(link added)
Oh, and we shouldn’t let this other post over at Democratic Veteran go without being linked or quoted in part, either:Always keeping in mind that La Sullivina would get down on all fours and lick Preznit Horse Fluffer’s shoes to a mirror shine at a moments notice, it's no surprise that he holds his master to a different standard than he does anyone else (especially Clinton, for whom his hatred eclipses even the most rabid of those who thoroughly dislike Beloved Leader). Andrew Sullivan: a man with the intellectual integrity of Elmer Fudd and common sense of Sylvester the Cat.
posted by Sully 7/15/2005 01:25:00 AM
Thursday, July 14, 2005
THOSE TO WHOM EVIL IS DONE ...:
The Dilpazier Aslam piece is hardly the defense of Islamo-fascism Sullivan wants it to be, unless you’re a regular commenter at Little Green Goofballs, where one would imagine Sullivan got the link (we’re not bothering to check; we just know). It might simply be summed as saying that younger British Muslims are silently seething at the longtime refusal of the religious leaders to speak out on behalf of their fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world done wrong by either their own governments or governments allied to theirs.
In fact, Sullivan should be happy that Aslam explicitly refuses the opportunity to indulge himself in anti-Americanism.
But whither the other allegations? It would not surprise you that Sullivan gets them not directly from the source, but from another blogger who probably Googled till he found something he could use, carefully denuded of context.
And what do we find in the original piece? Here’s the full quote used to justify “world-dominant Islamic state”:Islam demands that we are leaders in science; we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically. This is why we find that in Islamic history the Muslims were the most advanced in the fields of science including optometry, biology and mathematics.OK, you can take that “militarily and politically” to be a call for imperialistic conquest, which Islamic history is not without. But note that he and his coauthor says “lead” not “rule,” which we take to be a carefully chosen distinction. In fact, is there anything all that different between his description of such a state and ... the present position of the United States of America (Bush notwithstanding?)
Sullivan might, if he did not want to be accused of bullshitting his remaining readers, discuss the whole of the piece, in which the writers cite Muslim tradition and the words of Muhammad and others to inveigh against corporal punishment of children, religious education that consists solely of rote memorization of the Qur’an and other texts, forced and/or arranged marriages, nationalism and tribalism and technophobia.
They conclude:We should never confuse tradition and Islam. It is Islam that we must follow, not traditions that contradict it and often emanate from Hinduism and other religions. We should never assume that something is Islamic because it is commonly practiced.There is a word in Islamic tradition for this: ijtihaad, which (yes) comes from the same root as jihaad. It means, within a religiious context, diligence, and is often invoked by more liberal Islamic thinkers.
Sullivan has no excuse for not knowing this, because it’s a favorite of his favorite Muslim writer, Irshad Manji. It sounds to us like she and Mr. Aslam could have a very pleasant lunch together.
And shame on Sullivan for collaborating in this misrepresentation.
Now, to Aslam’s supposed call for a war to destroy Israel. The article in question spends a lot of time, as most journalism does, recounting the facts behind the story. Only near the end does the opinionating start. And one supposes this sentence is Exhibit A:The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State.Now, you can read things into this if you want. You have to know that some Muslims who believe in this reestablished caliphate believe also that all land under Muslim rule in that time must be reconquered before any sort of equilibrium could be reached with the rest of the world. That would include present-day Israel (as well as southern Spain, which makes this thesis sort of, uh, problematic). In that sense you can read that sentence as calling for the destruction of Israel.
But it is never explicitly stated as such in the piece. Much of the invective in it, in fact, is directed at a favorite target of Sullivan’s as well — the late Yasser ‘arafat, whom Aslam, from the comfort of a London apartment, accuses of “play[ing] the role of a willing puppet with much zeal.”
The only explicit demand Aslam makes in the piece, in fact, is for Palestinians not to give up on al-Aqsa, a site of contention for many years now.
Oh, and why no link to that claim that he “openly boasts that his loyalty is not to any nation-state”? (As if he were the first to make such a statement. As if that were peculiar to Muslims).
We would, we agree, like to see Mr. Aslam clarify some of these things. But for now Sullivan has gone too far in that direction.
posted by Sully 7/14/2005 01:48:00 PM
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
It’s often fun to mock some of Sully’s P-Town riffs, but he’s not making it up. John Whiteside has a long meditation on the same subject that makes for interesting comparisons.
posted by Sully 7/13/2005 11:36:00 PM
Monday, July 11, 2005
GONE TOO NATIVE? OR TOO LITTLE?:
Does anybody else find it as amusing or sad as we do that the Sage of South Godstone seems to feel he has to explain his countrymen to us, as if we didn’t all speak (or at least write) the same language, as if Britain were one of those obscure African countries that never get covered in the American media?
posted by Sully 7/11/2005 08:03:00 PM
YOU DON’T SAY DEPT.:The Orwellian fixing of language — by going in and changing online wordage after the fact — is particularly amusing.
He’d know, wouldn’t he?
posted by Sully 7/11/2005 08:02:00 PM
THAT WORKS TWO WAYS:
John Whiteside puts the shoe on Sullivan’s other foot.Funny how nobody asks, for example, why American Catholics weren’t stronger in condemning IRA terrorism, or why American Protestants were stronger in their condemnation of the Oklahoma City bombing. I’m not sure why it is that the average Muslim living in London is somehow more accountable for al Qaeda than anybody else, or why condemning the attacks isn’t enough. But I guess Sullivan is just trying to be the rational face of these folks.(Link to Little Green Goofballs removed)
And Jo Fish shows how Sully’s fundamental ideology hasn’t really changed.
posted by Sully 7/11/2005 07:52:00 PM