Those bigots. They're all the same.

The irony meter was broken. It's a piece about how unfair and bigoted it is for folks to blame "Islam" for terrorism done in the name of Islam. Most Muslims are nice guys and don't blow people up. It's just a tiny minority, and those who blame the authority they claim are just bigots. And bad things happen!

Such divisive rhetoric can lead to violence with real victims. Waqar Hasan of Texas, was murdered on Sept. 15, 2001. The Pakistani immigrant was killed by Mark Stroman, who was convicted of also murdering Vasudev Patel days later. Stroman admitted to authorities to attacking a third victim, a Bangladeshi, bragging, "I did what every American wanted to after Sept. 11 but didn't have the nerve."

Yeah, see, it's totally unfair to blame Islam for rare stuff done in the name of Islam, but blaming "divisive rhetoric" for rare events such as this one is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps Suhail Khan should reflect a bit about why it is that folks are so quick to blame Islam when he can't help but do exactly the same thing.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 7/09/2007 03:21:00 PM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

i do not quite understand your point.

# posted by  Anonymous : 1:21 AM, July 10, 2007

 

Well, I made my attempt. If someone else thinks they can make the point better, by all means. Or, if no one gets my point, let me know.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:43 AM, July 10, 2007

 

i'm not sure that 'divisive rhetoric' and 'islam' are exactly comparable, but i agree that his designation is somewhat arbitrary. violent attacks against muslim americans have been quite rare and isolated.

i've sent in a response to this column. i dont know if it will be printed or not, but i've posted the uncut version on my blog.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:59 PM, July 10, 2007

 

In this context, I think they are comparable. The issue is that, in seeing something he disapproves of, he proceeds to blame some larger entity which has, at best, a tenuous relationship to the object of his disapproval. You could perhaps replace "Islam" with a different kind of rhetoric (e.g. "death to those who insult Islam") to make the parallel more obvious, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that, when faced with a challenge, his immediate baseless response in trying to find the "cause" (Aha! It's those darn Christian dividers!) is exactly the same sort of behavior he's criticizing (Aha! It's those darn Muslims!).

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 8:19 PM, July 10, 2007

 

A tenuous relationship to the object of his disapproval? Perhaps it was your sense of irony that skipped over the bit about what ever American wanted to do after Sept. 11.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:28 AM, July 13, 2007

 

... There's something wrong with today's anonymous commenters. Yes, he claimed everyone wanted to do it (which hardly means "because I heard it on the 700 Club", but whatever) just like the terrorists claimed it was in the name of Islam. Neither, on its own, establishes any meaningful causality.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 9:55 AM, July 13, 2007

 

Post a Comment