Stupidity and the Shari'a, Part II: Muqtada al Sadr and Soccer
Arabic speakers are free to judge if I have been fair. I think if anything I've been too generous, because I didn't know how to write his frequent slips from proper Arabic to Iraqi slang so I mostly ignored them. A couple of points before the diatribe appears.
1. There are some who have written in the past the Muqtada is being groomed by Iran to be Sistani's successor. I challenge anyone who thinks that to read this and tell me precisely how he is going to convince the seminaries in Najaf that he is, indeed, "the most learned of the Shi'a."
2. There is a point other than amusement to the copying of this absolutely incoherent nonsense. Those who follow the blog know well there is a bit of a running debate on it between me and a few others concerning the extent to which religious doctrine actually decides issues related to the shari'a in modern times. I take the view that in many (not all) cases, the doctrine is really more of a mask, a shell, scholars say the rule is X based on some supposed thing they have taken from a text, but really the decision could have gone either way, other rules could be used to reach an opposite result, and it isn't legal doctrine that has much to do with it. In many cases, not all, law does count obviously. In many others, it's irrelevant or secondary at best. Others think it counts more than I do.
I think the stupid cases help clarify the debate because they are ones where the doctrine is stripped away and one can see the biases and then judge them in other cases where they are less obvious. In this case, for example, Sadr hasn't actually cited anything sensible, he hasn't engaged the mask of doctrine, and it is easier to see where his biases lie. In other words, you can't make much sense of this diatribe, but it is clear from it that this guy hates the West and hates Israel. To me, this bias, this notion of the shari'a acting as the resistance to Western domination, providing authenticity as an alternative to Western norms, is fundamental to understanding how Islam works in our times. It's less obvious when someone with a brain ,like his father, talks, they hide the biases and cite the old manuals. (and they might not be quite this angry and vitriolic either, bu they reach the same result.) It's more obvious when someone who doesn't know the old manuals talks. Then the biases come through clearly, as they do here. Anyway, enjoy
-----------------------------------
. . . in general the shari’a objects to these types of things that distract the worshippers from their worship and distracts the people from what they should be thinking about. Dude, look, the West has brought us things that amuse us and distract us from the completion of ourselves. It told us to go off running after a ball, dude. Which is like eating parseley or something.
What is the point of a man, think about how tall he is, how
big he is, how wide he is, and a Muslim, running after a ball. Dude, this “goal” which they call it, go run
after a different goal dude, after the higher goals that are going to complete
you and not those that are going to lower you down. Put that goal ahead of you, everyone sets up a
path for them in order to reach the connection to God, Glory Be to Him.
That’s one thing, but more important than it is this. We can see that the West, and especially
This is possible. What is more. A separate point. There are games that are encouraged by religion. Their actions. Instead of running after a ball, go swimming which is religiously encouraged. Horseback riding. Jousting. Etc. etc. You can enter these. If you want to get amused by something get amused by these. Or running! Go run. Athletics. Move your legs, move your head, move etc. etc. other limbs will move along with you, why are you running after a ball dude? These are sensinable things that one can do, those are not sensinable matters that one cannot do.
Does Sadr have a populist streak in him?
I could make the case that Scalia, as a high, learned judge of this nation is a bit of a buffoon.
Reply to this
The position that Sadr is charismatic I think comes from people who don't know Arabic. He speaks like a complete moron. "Israel, upon it et cetera, upon it curses", "sensinable things" (my translation for his made up word aqla'i), the "so forthish goals," it's really borderline retarded. If he spoke street, it's one thing, Sharpton is charismatic and isn't professorial in his language, but he's mighty clever in his common man use of it. This guy is not. He just makes up words that are supposed to sound smart but aren't words, and uses "etc." or "so forth" in the weirdest ways. And then in this case I highlighted making his point it's ended with "this is possible." Possible? Excuse me? I'm not a fan of Scalia, but I do think he's more articulate than this guy is. Low bar, I will admit.
What Sadr is, is authentic, the real son of a real high scholar. And domestic, never left the country. And really pissed off. That's the appeal, in a country with all sorts of corrupt and venal politicians, one time London dry cleaning operators cum Ministers of Defense who bilk the country of billions and flee off to Europe (Hazem Sha'lan) and half present Parliament members earning nearly $20,000 a month whose families remain in safety abroad. Looking at Iraq, there's a lot to be upset about, and maybe the particularly dispossessed parts of the street are (unfortunately to my mind) more forgiving of Sadr's idiocy in their desperate search for an angry and authentic figure to give voice to their frustrations.
Reply to this
I totally agree with you that Muqtada is the living symbol of stupidity in this neck of the woods.
I think Mr. Mookie is high or something, 24-7, so to speakish
Reply to this