| | | Joachim, here's an example of that Notre Dame professor applying very Western-style postmodernism to her interpretation of Sharia law:
“A perfect visualization is women’s head coverings. The Taliban encourages women to cover top to bottom, not even showing the eyes. In Saudi Arabia, sometimes eyes are visible but not much else,” she said. “I was recently in Bahrain where I witnessed a new trend: Women are unzipping their abayas and you can see Western-influenced clothing underneath like jeans, ruffles and lace. Many women don’t wear the hijab scarf there and some only wear it halfway on. But who’s to say which is correct? Bahrain is no less Islamic than Saudi Arabia, for example, just different. People in all Muslim-majority countries interpret and, thus, practice the Muslim faith differently.” This is where her naivety borders on blatant deception. Of course she thinks one interpretation is just as valid as another. Of course she draws a moral equivalency between liberalized Bahrain and the ultra-fundamentalist Taliban.
But what is she going to do? Go to the Taliban and tell them to accept Bahrain's interpretation as equally valid as theirs? Fat chance. The Taliban will take her and either rape her or murder her (or both), all the while quoting a ton of verses from the Koran.
The truth is that many parts of the Koran leave little room for multiple interpretations. Anyone who believes otherwise would have a better chance arguing that two plus two equals whatever you want it to be. The fundamentalists will just look at this professor and laugh, just like you and I would laugh at the moron who says that two plus two equals five.
This is just another example of my belief that postmodernism is the most dangerous, most insidious belief system that is afflicting the world today.
Tenchusatsu |
|
