Linda Sarsour’s tweet on those who disagree with her

Linda Sarsour, the controversial but highly acclaimed co-chair of the Women’s March, tweeted out her good will towards those who disagree with her.

I think this raises some important questions. First, what does it mean to bring in love in these matters? Normally the formula is “we can disagree and I can still listen to you, tolerate you, interact with you civilly.”

Second, what kind of conditional is that? Who decides when disagreement “is rooted in her oppression, in denial of her humanity? She does? What if her definition of what “oppresses,” “denies her humanity,” threatens her “right to exist” is extremely sensitive? What if she takes offense at the disagreement by claiming it threatens her very being?

And what happens then? Does she hate those she disagrees with?

Thinking about this bizarre testament to tolerance from a woman who presents herself as a passionate Muslim who thinks Sharia would be just great,

I remembered an essay by David Bukay, on the principle of Wala’ wa Bara’, one of the fundamentals, indeed the “two requisites” of the Muslim faith: “love and hate.” In its broadest sense it can mean “love good and hate evil,” a sentiment any moral person can understand. But the Muslim usage tends towards a much more particularistic interpretation.

al-Wala’ is a manifestation of sincere love for Allah, his prophet and the believers [i.e., Muslims]; al-Bara’ is an expression of enmity and hatred towards falsehood and its adherents [i.e., infidels].

From the introduction by Sheikh Abdar Razaq Afīfī, Deputy President of the Department of Guidance and Member of Board of Great `Ulama’  of Saudi Arabia to the book of Sheikh Muhammad al-Qahtani, al-Wala’ wal-Bara’

Now of course, if your cosmic task is Da’wa or summoning the infidel to either convert to the true faith or accept their submission as dhimmi, it’s not really feasible to “hate” infidels. Your mission is to interact with them. You’re not a Jihadi wielding a sword over the head of terrified mushrik, you’re smiling, inviting people to join the true religion. You need to assume that they are ready to see the light, if only you’re kind enough to them. Are we not all born Muslims from Adam to now, and only the kufar, the infidel, covers the truth? And as long as infidels show signs of promise – say adopting your causes and avoiding criticizing your fellow Muslims no matter how badly they behave – then you can love them. They’ll figure it out someday. Meantime, you can spread the word.

And if they don’t, well then they literally do deny “my” [triumphalist Muslim] identity, threaten my very existence  as a true believer in the one and only true faith.

In other words, what registers on the screens of well-intentioned Western progressives as a lovely sentiment

… may actually mean something entirely different. It could mean, I will love you as long as you adopt my causes, and don’t criticize my fellow Muslims. When you cross me, you’ll see a different face.

If there’s an #AltLeft Jewish leader who works with Linda, you can bet it will be one who does not press the cause of Jewish (or infidel) freedom from dhimmitude or women’s freedom from Islamist and Jihadi violence. She wouldn’t have much tolerance for someone who so oppresses her, denies her humanity and threatens her very existence.
Until then, don’t expect too many women to fill in these streets:
Anyone who really treasures progressive values like women’s rights, who opposes patriarchy and oppression, needs to think seriously about who they rally around and cheer on and what their priorities are for demonstrating.
UPDATE: ht/@(((kweansmom))): those who bet with me won: In response to Bill de Blasio saying he supported Israel, she responded:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *