This probably isn’t worth a post, so I apologize preemptively. It’s just that I rarely look at print newspapers in the flesh (pulp?), as it were, anymore. It’s not a policy, it’s just habit.
Today I did have occasion to read The Globe And Mail. This story is horrendous. It’s not that. I’m complaining about the “reporting”:
“The refugees are the remnants of the small Yazidi religious minority that fled attacks by the Islamic State, which considers the Yazidis to be apostates. The extremists had enslaved many Yazidi women, forcing them to convert and marry* Islamic State fighters.”
This piece is sourced from the New York Times, one of the most prestigious papers in the world, and not at all a semi-bankrupt source of extremely biased and unreadably tedious dreck.
Look at that one paragraph. Does the “journalist” who wrote this (Rod Nordland) even know what the word “apostate” means? If not, couldn’t he have looked it up in under 30 seconds, or had an intern do it? Does he have editors?
Any damn fool – and I mean me – knows that ISIS never considered the Yazidis “apostates”. They consider them Mushrikun, polytheists, at best. In fact they consider them Devil-worshipers. (They also consider them hawt. Yazidis are frequently blond. Blonde sex-slaves are very desirable.)
Needless to say Mushrikun are not accorded anywhere in Islam, in text or in history, even the humiliating and unreliable dhimmi rights sometimes granted Jews and Christians.
Why does a reporter (in fact the Kabul Bureau Chief) for the New York Times, assigned to this particular beat, not know that “apostate” is an actual word with a specific meaning, and a very particular significance in Islam, and is not a sloppy synonym for “infidel”? The Yazidi pre-date Islam. This is not pedantry: aggressive Islam is impossible to understand without a basic grasp of these concepts.