[Dean's World] Dean: Al-Sistani, Again, And Another Go 'Round On the Muslims

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
Al-Sistani, Again, And Another Go 'Round On the Muslims
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1148108425.shtml


   Interesting news: The Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has apparently
   [1]rescinded his opinion that gay people should be killed. And so we
   see, once again, that Al-Sistani is a great man, and probably the most
   important man alive in Iraq.

   It was interesting to me how that got turned into a major issue in the
   first place, by the way. It made big headlines a few months ago that
   Sistani had rendered an opinion that gays should be killed, when it
   turned out it wasn't any new statement by him at all. It had been in
   his writings for years, not some new movement he started. Now
   something horrible happened to a kid who was thought to be gay,
   Sistani met with Iraqi gay rights activists... and he had a change of
   heart. That is a sign of greatness.

   Allahpundit [2]both celebrates and is sarcastic about the news,
   betraying the common misunderstandings we see about Muslims in the
   West. So let me try to respectfully answer them.

   1) Sistani never said that murdering gay people was the "immutable
   word of God." He had rendered his view as an opinion. Years ago, he
   was asked to give a published response--a fatwa--to the question of
   gay people. And he published it, and that was it. The whole reason
   guys like him are asked to give these opinions is that other people
   aren't sure. It is exactly the same as asking a lawyer, or a rabbi, or
   a priest, to give you an opinion. Seriously: just [3]look up fatwa in
   the dictionary.

   We should be pleased that one of the world's most influential Shia
   muslim scholars has rescinded his old fatwa--i.e. his old opinion that
   gays should be murdered. And we might remember, with a little
   humility, that it wasn't so long ago here in the United States that we
   were [4]imprisoning and even lobotomizing homosexuals and giving
   respect to [5]homosexual panic as a legal defense against murder. And
   we should remember that you don't have to approve of homosexuality,
   religiously or otherwise, to disapprove of persecuting them.

   2) Allahpundit also asks when kafir will be removed from Sistani's
   list of things najis. My guess would be "probably never, and who gives
   a damn?"

   A "kafir" is what a Christian would call an infidel or an unbeliever.
   "Najis" means "ritually unclean," with a meaning very close to what
   Jews mean by whether things are [6]kashrut or not. As it happens,
   Sistani has already declared that many non-muslims are ritually clean
   ("pak" or "tahir"). But even if he didn't, so what? This is like
   getting bent out of shape over the fact that according to Jewish law a
   woman is unclean during her period, or that Jews are forbidden from
   marrying non-Jews. Or getting upset over the fact that some Christians
   believe themselves to be "cleansed of sin" while the rest of us are
   still filthy and are going to burn, burn, burn in eternity! if we
   don't accept that Jesus was God. All it amounts to, for most Muslims I
   know, is that if you're right with God you're clean and if you're not,
   then you're not. In short: it's a religious disagreement, get over it.

   By the way, for those of you wondering, Charles Johnson's little
   unprovoked pooh-flinging in my direction got my goat and made me lose
   my temper. But I haven't forgotten to respond directly to Robert
   Spencer. I plan to soon. In the meantime, I think [7]Bill Ardolino's
   basically got it right. As he usually does. He's especially right when
   he says this disagreement isn't about touchy-feely cultural
   relativism, as much as some people try to paint it that way. I pretty
   much agree with [8]Flea's opinion too. Especially the bit about
   Eisenhower. Heh.

   And to disagree (slightly) with [9]my reason for living: I do not
   recall ever banning someone from Dean's World for arguing with me over
   this issue. Beyond that, it is probably true that I am a hypocrite and
   descend to ad hominem too quickly, and that I need to think harder
   before I write. I am a strange guy, and this I know: I am slow to
   offend on things that offend most people, and quick to offense on
   things that do not offend others. I have not quite sorted that all
   out, and I do struggle with it.

   But I have to ask, in all seriousness: if you think someone is being a
   bigot, that what they believe is offensive, how do you tell them so
   without offending them? Maybe I'm not so good at this. On the other
   hand, is being a bigot always bad? Here's [10]a definition, which I
   point to not to be condescending but to share something worth chewing
   over--click it and read it before responding.

   I admit that in some senses I am a bigot. I'm not even sure that's a
   bad thing, in a strict sense. I think it depends on where and how you
   apply your bigotries. I think Spencer's applying it very wrongly. I
   think Charles Johnson is too.

References

   1. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article485024.ece
   2. http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/05/15/sistani-rescinds-death-fatwa-against-gays/
   3. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fatwa
   4. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s468539.htm
   5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_panic
   6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut
   7. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002555.php
   8. http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/008138.html
   9. http://www.qoae.net/posts/1148061709.shtml
  10. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot