Julian Porter cross-examines Andrew Rippin

Julian Porter refers to Rippin's article, "What has Osama bin Laden done to Islam?" He refers to Rippin's study of Wahhabi, Saudi Islam, and its dangers and deviations from moderate Islam. I paraphrase, because it's 30 degrees Celsius in here, and I wasn't quite ready for a slow-motion Koranic exegesis -- nor did the B.C. Human Rights Code contemplate it.

JP: "I'm trying to establish through your writings that there is a sect of very strong belief that disagrees with your interpretation of the flexibility and interpretation of the Koran."

Andrew Rippin: Yes.

JP goes to hand that article to Rippin himself.

Faisal Joseph stand up, in what can only be called a Khurrumian whine, raising his voice quite beautifully, objecting to JP doing so.

JP: "It's his work. Do you want to be out of here today?"

FJ: Stands down once he gets his copy. Somebody's getting a little testy.

JP: "You deal with a theme called 'ten things which nullify one's Islam'. What's this about?"

AR: It's a 17th century wahhabi document. "A [20th century] Saudi jurist wrote a kind of revision to this "ten things which make you not a Muslim"... and that was the point of this particular study. And my point is to say that Osama bin Laden are a part of legitimate Islam...

JP: "As I understand it, the wahhabi... and their strict thought carries great weight amongst parts of Saudi Arabia."

AR: "I'm tempted to say that's beyond my expertise..."

Ezra Levant, to himself: "But you are a master expert about all things Steynian and Macleansy?"

JP: Reading more from AR's article, about the extraordinary strictness of Islam.

AR: "It is."

JP: "And that is a powerful trend in this entire community"

AR: "Yes."

JP: "Is [wahhabism] a view that there should not be any separation of church and state or mosque and state?"

AR: "...it certainly wants to get at those people who argue that Islam is purely apart... so that Islam must have some bearing on how people act. That to me doesn't say that therefore needs a cetain type of government... so to take that into the simple church and state relationship doesn't quite catch."

JP: You write that it requires "... a deep involvement of state powers in controlling the behaviour of community members. Yes?"

AR: "Yes."

I'm going to stop transcribing this verbatim, because I'm not doing very well at keeping up.

But the take-away is this: Andrew Rippin has written a scholarly article in which he acknowledges that all Islam is not happy-go-lucky Islam; that some strict sects of Islam are out there -- and moreso, that such strict sects require Muslims to have "radical" Islam colour their entire lives.

Rippin won't deny it. First, he's too honest. Second, Porter is holding a copy of his essay in his hands, so there'd be no point.