Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh
Awhile ago I was in the doctor's office and found myself reading the letters to the editor in the May 31, 2010 issue of Time magazine. Several were from Muslims commenting on the bombing attempt by the Islamic terrorist Faisal Shahzad. I jotted a few of them down verbatim and have read them several times over the last several months.
I was going to blog on them earlier, but I decided at the time to merely continue to think about what they wrote for a bit longer. The reason I have done this is because I want to better understand the thought patterns of Muslims and not just jump on everything they say as anyone slightly critical of Islam is currently being accused of. The people who sent these in seem like decent enough folks, and I'll assume they are. My main point here is not to argue against what they wrote. It takes some effort to write letters to the editor, so I can safely suggest that these succinct messages are thoughtful responses to Time's reporting of the attempted terrorist bombing in NYC 2 weeks earlier.
Here is the first letter:
"The worst thing that came from Shazad's botched bombing is that it further damaged the reputation of Muslims in the U.S." - Reem Bakkar, New York City, responding to "Broadway Bomber" May 17.
Here is the second letter:
"Although the events in Times Square were certainly frightening, the political backlash against the Pakistanis and Muslims was even more so. As a Pakistani American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the terrorism and violence that have plagued their native region. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others." - Zoya Mehmoud, Alexandria, VA
Even now reading these again I don't want to pass any judgment on the words or the speakers of the words. I just want to try a thought experiment. Imagine a Catholic talking about the clergy abuse scandal with the same language, and then substitute the word "Catholics" for "Muslims". To be clear about what I mean, I'll write them out for you:
The worst thing that came from the Catholic clergy sex scandal is that it further damaged the reputation of Catholics in the U.S.
Although the Catholic clergy abuse scandal was certainly atrocious, the backlash against the Catholics was even more so. As a Catholic American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the abuse that have plagued their parishes. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others.
If a Catholic said those things, would he be accused of not assuming the correct attitude about the atrocities? Would he be accused of downplaying the gravity of the perpetrators' actions? or of ignoring a systemic problem within his "faith community"? Would he be scolded for not prefacing these remarks with a long acknowledgment of the problem and for being glib and insensitive to the plight of the victims?
These are merely questions that I ask, and I leave others to answer them. Please leave your thoughts and answers in the comment boxes below, if you have any.
My assumption is that Time no longer has any readers, just "readers". in other words these are letters written by staff. They certainly sound that way.
ReplyDeleteI did some work with a devout Muslim during the year after 9/11. I learned much from that. At one time he said that it had been a bit hard on him during that past year. (He didn't elaborate.) I said "I'm sorry that it was."
ReplyDeleteIn response, he said something like "That's OK. I understand why it has to be that way."
IOW, he was not playing the victim, nor was he at all bitter about whatever he was dealing with. He understood who perpetrated the atrocity, and that because of his own identity, it would be tense for him in the meanwhile.
It is these victims' whores that keep tension at a high level. Whenever something happens, they scold us in advance for acts that seldom if ever occur. Eventually our innate goodness will wear down. Those letters from Time are just a couple of more pieces of sandpaper.
In other words these are letters written by staff. They certainly sound that way.
ReplyDeleteI think the letters are real, however they are selected based on how much they agree with the editorial staff *and* how much the letter's lingo matches the kind of condescending language of the articles.
That's the thing, the lingo matches so well i have to believe they were either written by staff, or put up to writing it by staff. or at least put up to signing their very muslimy names.
ReplyDeleteIOW, he was not playing the victim, nor was he at all bitter about whatever he was dealing with. He understood who perpetrated the atrocity, and that because of his own identity, it would be tense for him in the meanwhile.
ReplyDeleteI know this people exist, Pik. But isn't it funny how we never hear from them publicly. We agree with their viewpoint, but their viewpoint is not accepted in their community.