Hi. I just had an orgasm in my pants...Yes, it was good, thank you--never had a bad one--and I would like to tell you about it. No, really, hear me out. You know how I've said you have to read The Quasi-Official New York Times interpretatively? Well, yesterday David Kirkpatrick, their current star Egypt reporter, had an article under this headline:
"Islamist extremists behead Western journalists in Syria, massacre thousands of Iraqis, murder 132 Pakistani schoolchildren, kill a Canadian soldier and take hostage cafe patrons in Australia. Now, two gunmen have massacred a dozen people in the office of a Paris newspaper."
"A handful of non-Muslim researchers in the West — typically outside the academic mainstream — seek to build a case that Islam is inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity by highlighting certain Quranic verses. But they struggle to explain away [NO WE DON'T! NO WE DON'T!] approving passages about violence in other religious texts, such as the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, or the statement attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writer Matthew that “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
Raising Questions Within Islam After France Shooting
That is the actual size and italicized font. You did not SEE such a headline before. The party line was "Islam is not violent. Islam is not more violent than other religions. Anybody who says Islam is violent or is more violent than other religions is an Islamophobe AND CANNOT RAISE QUESTIONS."
The Times is not raising questions itself but that is where you have to interpret the Times. By allowing others to raise questions in their paper and by allowing others to raise questions through an article written by one of their star reporters, the Times itself is raising questions about raising questions. Which is progress. At this point the Times is only permitting questions under the rubric of "All the best people, our kind of people, still say Islam is not violent or more violent religion" but there are these others and they're not completely nuts, they may not be our kind of people but here'swhattheysay." So:
That drew wood from me--not an O but got me in the mood--Is that not a boffo lead paragraph?
"The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed."
And you're thinking maybe they're saying it's only okay if Muslims raise questions. Maybe the rest of us still are not permitted. And you'd be right!:
See, we're (1) "non-Muslim. (2) just "a handful" and (3) "outside the academic mainstream." We are DEFINITELY not the best people. Major frowny face Q-ONYT. You hurt my feelings.
"The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions."
"But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary understanding of their religion is infected with justifications for violence, requiring the government and its official clerics to correct the teaching of Islam."
See? The best people. We're not them. :(
Same paragraph, next sentence:
President Virginity Check is a TQ-ONYT A-lister.
“It is unbelievable that the thought we hold holy pushes the Muslim community to be a source of worry, fear, danger, murder and destruction to all the world,” President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt lamented last week in a speech to the clerics of the official religious establishment. “You need to stand sternly,” he told them, calling for no less than “a religious revolution.”
That's where I nutted. We're still not A-listers but we have an A-lister who can certify us just like he could certify virgins in blessed Tahrir Square! Anyway, that's where I nutted.
The first I noticed of a change in the Times' treatment of Islam was when Friedman rhetorically asked Imams after the Boston Marathon bombing "What are you teaching in your Mosques?" It's progress. It really is progress. In their own Times-speak they're now entertaining questions, they're not plugging their ears anymore. I never had a bad O.
