My Quiet Life

I'd describe it as cheap and weak, not amusing and brilliant. Only points one and four make even feeble gestures in the direction of actual criticism; the rest is just snotty mockery, and not particularly good snotty mockery. The premise itself is misguided: Sultan's a critic, not a reformer.

I thought it was pretty brilliant snotty mockery.

Having said that, the rest of the site is better, and I'll probably go back to read more in the future.

Crooning "Oh, oh, I'm under a death sentence, oh, oh, they're coming to chop off my head, oooooh I'm so scaaaared" is lame snotty mockery when the target of your mockery actually is under a death sentence and people actually are getting killed.

I'd agree with that..

In fact she is not under any death sentence. No whackjob Islamic scholar has issued a fatwa calling for her death. Or Irshad Manji's death, for that matter. Of course, as we have seen with Rushdie, apostasy fatwas issued by loony takfirists make for great publicity in the Western media. Quite useful if you're publishing a book.

Note this line from the NYT (already hyping the death sentence angle):

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation.

In fact, a fatwa is simply a formal legal ruling that can be about anything from plucking eyebrows to divorce. It's also interesting that she paints dismissive comments from a TV debate as a "fatwa". Pretty smart, since Westerners automatically assume fatwa = death.

Celebrities always get death threats, nothing new. Wafa's just getting 15 mins of fame by bluntly insulting a billion people and making Western Islamphobes feel comfortable about their prejudices. Whether she portrays herself as a critic or a reformer is essentially irrelevant because her rhetoric will not result in any serious reflection on the part of average Muslims.

We've written "seriously" about the topic, but oddly nobody notices these entries.

In fact she is not under any death sentence. No whackjob Islamic scholar has issued a fatwa calling for her death. Or Irshad Manji’s death, for that matter.

You're right. I was reacting to the statement "If you're lucky, some wacko will release a fatwa that demands you be stoned, beheaded or strung up in some elaborate medieval way." and overextended the point. My mistake.

Of course, as we have seen with Rushdie, apostasy fatwas issued by loony takfirists make for great publicity in the Western media. Quite useful if you’re publishing a book.

...and on the other hand, it's still an obnoxious statement. Tell the translators who've been murdered what a boost it was for their careers.

We’ve written “seriously” about the topic, but oddly nobody notices these entries.

So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? I guess it's working for you.

No. If nobody pays attention to the thoughtful entries, I write something flippant to encourage debate and hopefully clear up some popular misconceptions. Why do you think I'm here?

That's what I'm saying. Say something flippant (or inflammatory, or both) to get people's attention, in hopes of pulling them in for the more thoughtful work. It's a valid strategy...but it seems uncomfortably similar to what you're criticizing Sultan and Manji for. It worked for them, now it's working for you. Funny old world, innit?

Except they're not bothering to clear up the misconceptions they create. My entry merely exposed the misconceptions held by the vast majority of Westerners. We've been commenting like this on a ton of blogs, because it's important that people understand that things are a bit more complex than Wafa's or Irshad's simplistic criticism.

I've reread your original entry several times, and I just don't see much misconception-exposure there. Deconstructing a technique is not the same thing as refuting it.

I'm sympathetic to what I perceive your goals to be, and I respect the effort you're putting into this. I still think the post is weak.

I’ve reread your original entry several times, and I just don’t see much misconception-exposure there

Not there. Here. And on every other blog where the entry was cited and commented on positively or negatively. What the entry did was get people talking, and by talking they exposed their misconceptions, prejudices, etc. Go see my co-author Lounsbury's debate at Reason.com. He's far less polite.

And the entry was obnoxious, not weak. Try not to take it so seriously.

Perhaps we can compromise on weak and obnoxious?

Lounsbury seems polite enough, considering. Kind of Christopher Hitchensish.