I know that Friedman’s views aren’t universally popular in this forum, but I particularly enjoyed this op-ed from today’s NYTimes.
Related Posts
Rising up
Sorry for my prolonged absence from substantial posting. Been a busy few weeks. I tried to keep up with the basic interesting links post, and then lost that well. I hope to catch-up on the backlog and comment on the new stuff soon. Until then, here’s something to keep you amused.
The true Islam…..
Reza has some interesting things to say about Islam: The foundation of Islamic pluralism can be summed up in one indisputable verse: "There can be no compulsion in religion." That means that the antiquated partitioning of the world into spheres of belief (dar al-Islam) and unbelief (dar al-Harb), which was first developed during the Crusades but which still maintains its grasp on the imaginations of traditionalist theologians, is utterly unjustifiable. It also means that the ideology of those Wahhabists who wish to return Islam to some imaginary ideal of original purity must be once and for all abandoned. Islam is…
Stand steadfast before God as witnesses for justice . . .
Even though categorization is a useful tool for analysis, and OBL is definitely a bad guy, I am curious to hear if people have any objections to the use of the term binladendism as described in this article in the Boston Globe by Abdul Cader Asmal. I’ve heard some convicing arguments against the blanket use of the term Wahhabism and my sense is that binladenism is probably more accurate but flawed in its own ways.
2 thoughts on “Friedman v. Spain”
Comments are closed.
I actually like some of what Friedman has to say. He has been as hard on the Arab world as he has on Israel (in some cases). He is also one of the few journalists out there who does not lump all Muslims in the same category. He makes everyone who reads him mad at some point. That is indeed the mark of a good journalist.
i have to say i agree with the ‘dog. friedman was one of the first of the major press people to laugh at the connection between al-qaeda and iran. he correctly pointed out that aq don’t see the shi’ah as human, let alone muslim; and it wasn’t only rhetoric, but that they carried out a genocidal attack against the shi’ah at mazar-i sharif. he also laughed at the idea that two sworn enemies, bin laden and hussein, would work together. bin laden is an record as wanting to kill hussein. however, i actually think this piece is one of his not so good ones as he makes to many generalizations.