Category Archives: War Commentary

Political Commentary, War Commentary

Multicultural

47 Comments

This story is sadly all too typical (and yes, I expect the usual suspects to chime in and say that real Muslims aren’t really like that — they’re just a few “extremists”):

A kebab shop owner, asked on German TV what he would do if Sila were his daughter, replied: “I would kill her. I really mean that. That doesn’t fit with my culture.”

Well, I have to say that I wouldn’t be that thrilled if it were my daughter, either. But I am absolutely certain that my response would not be to kill her. It would never even enter my mind.

This reminds me very much of Mark Steyn’s story of true multiculturalism in British India:

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” – the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

Of course, it wouldn’t do the young woman who posed for Playboy much good if her murderer were afterward hanged. One would like to prevent it. But how to do so, without wiping out the belief system itself? We marginalized one just as vile (and sadly related, given the alliance between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Germany at the time), decades ago. What will it take to do so again?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Thoughts On Muslim Charity

7 Comments

…and fake “reformers”:

Sura 9:60 explicitly says that one category of Muslims to whom alms are to be given is those toiling “in the cause of Allah.” This passage is interpreted by classical Islamic scholarship to refer to those engaged in violent jihadist operations — a proposition for which I cite Reliance of the Traveller and the annotations to the official Saudi version of the Koran that interpret sura 9:60.

It is not an answer to this to say, as Ms. Qudosi does, “I am not an Islamic scholar.” She makes that concession, by the way, in order chastise National Review because “all it takes is a little bit of research and fact-checking to make sure you know what you’re talking about, rather than indulging in bigoted statements that ensure higher readership among a fringe audience.” But who is the one who has failed to do the research and fact-checking? I’d be delighted if Ms. Qudosi’s jihad-bleached version of Islam enjoyed such broad acceptance among Muslims that the interpretation I am writing about could be described as “fringe.” Unfortunately, it is accepted by millions of Muslims the world over, precisely because it represents the Islam of authoritative Islamic scholars and jurisprudents. Saying, “I’m not a scholar,” and putting your head in the sand rather than giving us a compelling reason why these scholars have it wrong may win you applause from Westerners desperate to be convinced, or from Muslims whose idea of “reform” is to pretend that the bad stuff is not in the doctrine. But it is not going to get you anywhere with the millions of Muslims who believe al-Azhar sheikhs and other scholars who’ve spent their lives studying authoritative sources like Reliance of the Traveller are a more reliable guide.

If it were only them sticking their heads in the sand, it would be one thing, but they insist that we all do.