| My take? I understand the security-based urge to exclude the Koran, Islam, and Muslims, but these efforts are too broad, sweeping up inspirational passages with objectionable ones, reformers with extremists, friends with foes. Also, they ignore the possibility of positive change. |
========
What that DP "take" leaves out is more interesting that what it includes, perhaps. The laddie seems not a bit worried that a blanket approbation of "security-based urges" might leave him (and all our other jihad careerists) looking rather like Chicken Little at the end of the day. Ordinarily I'm all for high-and-dry Harvard Ph.D. objectivity, but here we encounter an exception, maybe. Rather than advising his ignorant Boy-'n'-Party neocomrades about Islam in detail, might not little Danny P. more profitably preach 'em a more Universal Gospel still, namely that it is very sad and shameful indeed to be a coward and always give in to one's security-based urges?
If DP's Big Management Party neocomrades and "conservative" ideobuddies could only once be induced to be a little BRAVER than they are, wouldn't the rest follow more or less automatically? Once they stopped bein' so mechanically autoterrorized (and predictably autoterrorizable) of some cheapjack scarecrow "9/11 Islam" wouldn't they see their little Danny's "inspirational passages" and "reformers" and "friends" and maybe even "the possibility of positive change" for themselves?
A little courage, please, for a change, O gentlethugs and gentlethugesses! Until you gentry give up your faction's ludicrous Chicken Little shtik, no amount of Pipesidesian Islamwissenschaft will profit you at all. I myself can assure you that if you ever do grow up and get brave enough to look into Islam without always worrying about whether it's going to bite you, you'll die of boredom, not dhimmitudo.
No comments:
Post a Comment