At NR, Andrew McCarthy notes this bit of wit and wisdom from Sistani and concludes:
From the skeptical side of the house, these pearls of Sistani’s wisdom, including this latest raving about the appropriate Islamic response to gay sex, cannot be blithely disregarded as, to borrow Rich’s [Rich Lowry, that is] phrase, “beliefs that seem bizarre to a Westerner” — as if the problem here is our alien ear rather than Sistani’s seventh-century mind. Sistani is not merely saying homosexuality is condemnable, a view shared by many a religious tradition. He holds, authoritatively within his tradition, that those who engage in it should be brutally murdered.It is neither naïve nor reflective of a “lack of imagination” to observe that Sistani’s fatwas are powerfully indicative of a coarse view of human life. In fact, they are powerfully indicative of a view that rejects the very humanity of those who do not adhere to Islam (indeed, Islam as Sistani rigorously construes it).
That view is a sine qua non of terrorism. It matters little that Sistani, in the fashion of lip service, is, as Rich observes, “consistent in condemning terrorism.” He is a central influence in the Islamic world. That is the world which is, undeniably, the font of virtually all modern terrorism. How surprised, then, should we be to find him giving animating voice to beliefs integral to the pathology that is spurring global barbarism? The pathology that says there is an us and a them, and the them is a sub-human species, not fit to be touched and, at least occasionally, worthy of being “killed in the worst manner possible.”...
The only democracy the United States should be building is one based on liberty, equality, the inherent dignity of all human beings, and the conviction that authority to rule is reposed in the people rather than in some external theological or political force....
But when we accept Sharia in our newly-minted "democratic" states, we are not building that kind of democracy. In fact, we are building its mortal enemy.
Read it all.
How does one set the bar low for a culture that officially and divinely mandates crimes against humanity?
It is morally wrong to use the U.S. military to create a "democracy" that defines "human rights" in accordance with the Cairo Declaration on "Human Rights" and the Shari'ah. The problem was not the absence of democracy, but the presence of Islam. The problem now is that the largest party is a theocratic party. There are two solutions: (1) get out and let Iraqis stew in their own juice, or (2) tell them that if they want any U.S. involvement at all the Constitution must support real religious freedom, including civil protection for apostates and civil punishment for those who take the law into their own hands on the basis of Shari'ah.
Further evidence of a growing dissent at NR. Has anyone noticed WFB's articles suggesting that the President take what is, essentially, Hugh's line--declare victory and leave?
If anything, this article is a sharp kick in the shins to Weekly Standard's Reuel Marc Gerecht, who has been a Sistani backer from the word go.
I have been trying very hard over the past several years to convey to those I work for a key part of this truth--that Sistani is far, far more powerful in worldly, follow-the-money, ways, than most expect. This kind of patronage, where a supreme ayatollah disburses tens of millions of dollars on a monthly basis, is extremely foreign to Americans. He isn't in Iran's pocket because he doesn't need their support, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda very different than ours, however superficially they seem to converge.
These values are important to Andrew McCarthy (and to me and to Westerners). They are not values displayed by Islamic nations based on the Qur'an.
If he is saying that we should have enforced those values on the Iraqis and Afghanis, at gunpoint if necessary, then that would be following the policy of the Administration. We see where that has gotten us. Three years later, we are despised by the Iraqi people. We are seen as colonialists and conquerers and infidel invaders, rather than as the saviours who removed a terrible tyrant (or tyrants in Afghanistan) at great cost to ourselves.
If he is saying that we should not be trying to build a democracy, since democracy is sure to bring shari'a with its smiting and stoning galore, then he would be following a more sensible policy: remove the tyrant, yes, but then stand back and let them choose a government of their own making. To borrow a term from economics, it should be a policy of lassez faire. And we should not have high hopes for the results. At this point in history, there should be no surprise, real or feigned, when they begin stoning adultresses, or hanging homosexuals, or disemboweling Christians, or beheading blasphemers, or removing the hands of petty thieves and the feet of dancers.
Which begs the question, did we enter Afghanistan to save the Afghanis or to punish them? If this question could be answered clearly, it would assist in guiding our policies, but the answer from the Administration seems murky at best. And if we really were punishing the 9/11 attackers and their supporters, was Iraq truly the next in line? I mean, really? Can anyone still say this with a straight face?
PS - I am against the policy of giving writing jobs to former Brat-Pack child actors. I mean, I loved Andrew McCarthy in "Pretty In Pink", but do we really need Molly Ringwald writing a column for The Economist, or Judd Nelson reporting for The Nation? Probably not.
PPS - Speaking of writers, was the winner for Hugh's Ides of March contest announced? I know, JW probably wants to have a raffle, but are still trying to find a fishbowl large enough to hold the names of all the people who got it right.
"contest..."
Okay. No one came up with all three names, though two of the three were mentioned. But it was not the names of the three writers alone that was demanded. That was only the beginning. It was the city to which each of them had a connection, and both that city and those different connections were to be given as well. And then there was one more part, which was to connect each of the three writers in some way with each other, or to point out why such a connection did not exist.
I will finish this tonight. Promise. Should you cancel that dinner date you had for this evening, and put off that kiss in the dark in order to stay home in order to be first to read those exciting contest results, and so you can stay home and be the first to read the contest results, Professors Corbin and Farnsworth have just whispered in each of my ears (the way Muslims think Shaytan whispers in ears) teling me that you will thereby have detrimentally relied, and I will have to keep my promise, or else. and I will certainly keep that promise.
"this article is a sharp kick in the shins to Weekly Standard's Reuel Marc Gerecht.."
-- from a posting above
Yes indeed. He, and My Weekly Standard's other Shi'a-boosters, are going to run out of safe Shi'a to boost.
"...My Weekly Standard..."
It is subtle humor like this that convinces me that 90% of the humorous comments and literary references etc. are going over my head. Oh well, I enjoy the few that I pick up on.
Apparently, in the post-Shakespearean world of JihadWatch, Ides of March is March 21. ;->
BGIT-
If the bar is set that low, what's the point of wasting precious blood and treasure on this "exercise in democracy"?
American soliders dying to institute Sharia law in the Iraqi Constitution?
Not worth it, in my view.
Democracy, and Islam
It is apparent that earlier historians and philosophers, regarded Islam and its Leaders with the same apprehension and it would do well for our leaders in the west to listen to what was said.
Kant and Paine :- As soon as you have an established religious institution which is beyond doubt, then, you have tyranny, thought police, an absence of the critical sense that hinders intellectual and moral progress.
While one historian of religion, writing in 1942, finds the fact that the career of Muhammad, the Prophet, presents " certain analogies to that of a nationalist leader nearer to our own day ", disturbing, so many others in the West find this very absoluteness, self-confidence and authoritarianism of Islam acceptable.
The last century was not without its apologists, for example in a remarkable passage from a book written in about 1910, J. M. Kennedy first deplores the quietism of the Buddhists and the theosophists, castigates the Jews for being too soft, and then accuses Christianity of
" inoculating as much of the world as it can reach with the degenerate principles of humanitarianism, let us be thankful that there are many millions of Moslems to show us a religion which is not afraid to acknowledge the manly virtues of war, courage, strength, and daring __ a religion which does not seek new followers by means of cunning dialectics, but which boldly makes converts with the sword
Emphasis on the the phrase "with the sword", it is not difficult to see that autocracy and Islam are far more natural bedfellows than Islam and democracy.
Democracy depends on freedom of thought and free discussion, whereas Islamic Law explicitly forbids the discussions of decisions arrived at by the infallible consensus of the ulama.
The whole notion of infallibility whether of a " Book " or a group of people is profoundly undemocratic and unscientific.
Democracy functions by critical discussion, rational thought, by listening to another point of view, by compromise, by changing one's mind, by tentative proposals which are submitted to criticism, by testing of theories by trying to refute them.
Islamic law is not legislated but divinely revealed and infallible, and, as T.H. Huxley noted the notion of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, has done endless mischief, and has been responsible for bigotry, cruelty and superstition
It is hard to understand why so many follow the faith of Islam, can they all be so profoundly stupid and ignorant of what it stands for !
Peter