||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Monday, September 03, 2012
When I was acting as contrarian at others' blogs, not all that long ago, I got flack from certain commenters on account I was "defending Islam".
I concede that over the last decade I have defended a few Islamic practices on this blog (inheritance law); I also have long held a soft spot for how Islam handles thieves. But more recently I've separated out stuff Muslims do from stuff Islam teaches; this is what we need to handle here.
This is the meta question: why bother? The Islamic community-leaders, for their part, don't care. They know to make use of the one to support loyalty to the other. Someone not in the community, and under threat by it, might just figure - hang 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out. What I do is more nuanced.
And therein lies the problem. We've been living under Obama's un-nuanced Marxism for so long that not everyone will remember John Kerry's 2004 campaign, but this too was big on "nuance" as opposed to Bush's simplisme. Kerry's "nuance" was bullshit. Everyone then knew that Kerry-nuance meant "capitulation to our rivals". Enough people remember this then, that they suspect me of concern-trolling now.
The first reason I nitpick is that I personally want to understand Islam - for understanding's own sake.
The next reason is that I want others to understand, again, for understanding's own sake, but also because I want the people who protect me from Islam to know how best to do that.
A third reason, further down the line, is that I want to see what works in Islam and to steal it for our own cultures - since those cultures are clearly not gaining ground against this threat.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved