Still marching to a little drummer that only he can hear, Juan Cole sets up a series of straw men, none too gentle with the truth, disingenuously scaremongering Sarah Palin’s (for lack of a better term) Bible Thumpishness factor - by comparing it, through the lens of moral relativism, with Islamofacism. Let’s take a look.

[…] Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Right out of the chute, Juan violates the spirit, if not the specific phraseology, of Godwin’s Law. But at least he’s upfront, and we know where he stands. To Juan Cole, Sarah Palin = Jihadi. If you really try to wrap your brain around what he’s saying, you are again reminded why Juan’s ‘analysis’ of the Middle East in general seems to be so unique, and quite often wildly inaccurate.

Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her.

Not exactly the way it went down, Juan. Yes (#40), she did make the enquiry, in the course of a general and open discussion, soliciting the librarian’s position on the matter (and note, per the contemporaneous reporting, without expressing her own preference). Considering she asked in the context of a hypothetical where protestors were circling the library, one might reasonably almost get the idea she may have either been gauging the librarian’s moxy, a useful piece of info for a boss to be aware of, or she may have been, as an honest representative of some in the community, just asking the question - despite knowing in advance what the answer should be (no censorship), to get someone else to supply additional ammunition and support for her telling those pushing potential censorship to knock it off, cause the idea isn’t going anywhere. Fully exploring the strengths of personal freedoms within the community, to ensure they’re solid - yeah, Juan, Hamas and the Wahhabists are aaaaaallllll about that. Quite a stretch to equate asking the question with some mid-level Palestinian flunky that unilaterally yanked a publication on no greater authority than his own. But then, moral equivalency usually allows for or demands such inanity.

Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers’ expense, alongside real science.

From fact to fiction with the turn of a single word - should instead of could. Her public statement on the subject doesn’t quite live up to Juan’s billing -

PALIN: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

Sounds more like an endorsement of open academic debate, providing as much information as possible while encouraging critical thinking skills from the students. Yeah Juan, those Islamic fundies are famous for tolerance, with a high regard for the open, calm, and rational discussion of ideas.

Saudi Arabia’s restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin’s position.

This is a really lame variant of the ‘voted with Bush 90% of the time’ line of attack. Only thing is, Palin’s agreement with Saudi social conventions is probably somewhere waaaay south of 90% - and, oh, by the way, the opinion on abortion is tied, as Juan so helpfully points out in his article, using an Islamic example of the controversy, to the question of when a fetus becomes a life, thus is to be protected. Which, while a question of almost completely theologic dynamic, really has only two positions - at conception or sometime later. This is tantamount to inferring Ronald Reagan was a communist simply because he agreed with Karl Marx that the sky is blue. Palin is very obviously of the ‘at conception’ school - and she walks the walk. Trying to wrap her in a burqa because of it is fairly contemptable.

Theocrats confuse God’s will with their own mortal policies. Just as Muslim fundamentalists believe that God has given them the vast oil and gas resources in their regions, so Palin asks church workers in Alaska to pray for a $30 billion pipeline in the state because “God’s will has to get done.”

Fruitilicious, even, Classic cherry picking to compare apples with armadillos. Examining the context here, Palin, while addressing a church congregation, appears more to be asking for the upcoming negotiations and interaction be according to ‘god’s will’ - and it’s a reasonable bet that she’s referring to things like ‘the golden rule’ or people coming together to accomplish great things, instead of launching a jihad on heretical recalcitrant bureaucrats and satanic oil company infidels, replete with beheadings, suicide bombings, and a stoning or two.

Not only does Palin not believe global warming is “man-made,” she favors massive new drilling to spew more carbon into the atmosphere. Both as a fatalist who has surrendered to God’s inscrutable will and as a politician from an oil-rich region, she thereby echoes Saudi Arabia.

So, since I haven’t fallen for the whole Global Warming scam either, when do I get my 72 virgins? Does this mean Tim Blair will soon launch jihad down under (in a really fast VBIED)? Is realizing Al Gore is a con man necessary, or is a simple belief in preordination good enough to tag Calvinists as under-cover jihadis too?

Heck, Juan’s brush is so damned wide here, even I could be a jihadi. Good enough!

So, do we all sing kumbaya cause we’re all jihadis now, or do we issue a fatwah on his obtuse ass?