Sunday, February 10, 2008

A Muslim Snarkaholic

Now I like this. Ali Eteraz writes a piece of brilliant snark (click on Ali Eteraz in the sidebar) in response to the furor over the Archbishop of Canterbury's ill-fated statement about Sharia law in Britain.

Snark is a well developed genre in the blogosphere. Jeffrey, my old blogger friend from New York, once wrote a piece about joining snarkaholics anonymous. As you can see, neither the SA group nor the confessional worked in Jeffrey's case, even though he had admitted to having a problem. Like me, I suppose, admitting is only part of the first step. I'm rather fond of my snarkaholism, as was Jeffrey, and I'm not ready to give it up. I suspect Ali Eteraz isn't, either.

Flirting with Ibn Warraq's title, "Why I am Not a Muslim", Eteraz calls his piece "Why I am no Longer a Muslim". Here's some of Eteraz's best shots:
"Its [sic] not fair to other citizens to have their taxes be used to fund the religious practice of a few select people."
"The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that."
"Coercion won’t be by people putting a gun to the heads of women. Instead, women will be gently “reminded” (with a nice hard grasp on their arm) that if they don’t go to Sharia judge they will be seen as impious and not-devout."
"Muslims in the US are polled to be more socially conservative than Evangelical Christians (and Muslims in the UK are more conservative than American ones)."
"Then, there is the beating issue. Let’s say that a woman consents to going to the arbitration court, but once there, she wants to bring up domestic violence. What’s the Sharia judge going to say? “Was it with a stick the width of my thumb?”"
"Muslims talk a lot about parts of the world where there is one law for Muslims and one law for Jews — ahem, Israel-Palestine — but when they themselves initiate distinctions between themselves and other people, its all gravy."
"Christian fathers long considered law — specifically Jewish law — to be shifty and conniving. Then the Christians slaughtered six million Jews. {being a bit facetious}."
"Getting halal meat standardization is not the same thing as Sharia arbitration because the issue here is of equality before the law and duties of citizenship, not digestion."
"If you’d like to live in a state where you can resolve your marital, custodial, and divorce disputes under the aegis of classical Islamic law, might I recommend the Gulf? It looks like America and tastes like the 7th century, perfect for a retrogressive Muslim. Cheaper gas for your very Islamic gas guzzler, too."

Now, I have to ask. How is it a Muslim can get away with saying these things, but a non-Muslim white guy (or gal) can't?

Anyway, well said, Mr. Eteraz.

PS: Someone should call John Murney's attention to that comparative bit about Muslims and Evangelical Christians.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, I have to ask. How is it a Muslim can get away with saying these things, but a non-Muslim white guy (or gal) can't?

It's like how you can call yourself a banjo plucking redneck,cross-eyed from inbreeding, and no else can.

February 10, 2008 6:36 am  
Blogger Louise said...

That's bullshit, annoying mouse. None of Ali Eteraz's statements come remotely close to that, but just spend a few minutes listening to or viewing the MSM. They love to put whining non-white bigots on display and these folks always manage to get away with making statements no white person would even dare to utter. Look at what happened to Don Imus. His remarks were no worse than the typical spewing from huge numbers of so-called Black leaders like Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan.

Take a few minutes to read or listen to Tariq Ramadan. The old CBC program CounterSpin used to feature a guest of Indian or Pakistani ancestry, whose name I forget, who was so far to the left there was no room left, who was constantly whining about the evil white folks.

February 10, 2008 10:19 am  
Blogger Louise said...

There is also a big difference between a personal attack, such as you have used to illustrate your point, and generalized statement made about a group.

And by the way, long time ago I made a statement on this blog that I do not like anonymous comments. Next time an anonymous fool attempts to hide his cowardice in that manner, I will not let the comment through. It's easy to pick a name and you don't need to register to use it. See?

Put name here.

February 10, 2008 10:38 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home