Buddy, you got it all wrong. Literally, like every phrase you put to paper in that last Wespeak of yours was flat-out incorrect. Your thickheaded, self-centered conclusion – “Those of us who are dedicated to seeking truth and defending morality must ask, then, what’s wrong with the Muslim World?” – smacks especially of ill pride and prejudice that should make you feel embarrassed. Your continual reference to the so-called “Muslim World” assumes first and foremost that the term actually means something concrete. You talk about us (Muslims) as if we’re on some world-wide listserv, apparently planning our next act of violence against more “quiet, blond-haired, mild-mannered” civilians. I’ve been a Muslim all my life, and I never once got any memos about these events. But the way you write about us makes me think maybe you’ve got the connections to get you in on the religion-wide e-mail list.
In the Wespeak you asked “Have we not seen outrageous and inhumane violence from this part of the world before?” Which part of the world might you be referring to? Google-Map the longitude and latitude and let us all know.
You boldly ask “Are these not the people who sent nineteen of their fellow religious zealots and cultural counterparts into the two WTC buildings?” Again, I have to emphasize that, on the whole, we 1.6 billion Muslims don’t collude on much at all. There is no such thing as a universal Muslim mandate that we all interpret identically (including the Quran.) It wouldn’t make sense that all, most, or even many Muslims had some part in the 9-11 attacks. That’s a preposterous idea to even allude to, let alone state outright. Muslims are a population, not a community. The convictions held by Muslims the world-over are as diverse and dependent on each individual as they are in any other population.
So where did you get your ideas that Muslims somehow agree on everything that is done in the name of their faith? I’m referring specifically to your litany of questions making up the short prejudice-poem in your third paragraph asking “Aren’t these the people who…?” My favorite line is “Are these not the people who kidnap Westerners in the Middle East on a daily basis, videotape them, torture and behead them?” Do you really believe this is something happening on a daily basis, and that it has all Muslims’ stamp-of-approval?
Despite your earnest attempts to get away with your ridiculous, generalizing racist claims, you in fact re-implicate yourself in the same breath: “Certainly we cannot suggest that it is ALL Muslims who are hateful and violent, that is absurd and not worth arguing about. But many, many, MANY are.” Is that really true? How much exactly does a “many” constitute?
Although you do acknowledge the lunacy of saying that all Muslims are animals, you still try for the majority of your article to indict as many Muslims as you can, especially those who have done nothing to deserve your scorn. Rather than coming across as an informed opinion piece written by a college student, your article is just plain hateful.
The deductions you make are based, I am sure, on TV reports and newspaper articles you’ve looked at depicting the “thousands upon thousands of Muslims bloodily riot[ing]” in response to the offensive Danish cartoons published in the fall of last year. You should know that these reports suggest more than they actually state. Within the confines of their inquiries, these reports speak only of the proportional minority of rioting Muslims. They make little to no reference to the many more peaceful protestors around the world. The power of images is strong and can give the illusion of telling the whole truth, but that is very rarely the case. You’re a film major: you should know that.
I too was at the Teach-In you attended, and I don’t think I once heard anyone “justify” the riots. The presentations looked at the historical context within which response to the cartoons exists. They offered that this is not the first time Muslims have felt decidedly attacked and ridiculed by writers and artists from Europe and the United States, citing examples as far back as Dante and as recent and relevant as the Danish cartoons in question. It was explained, in part, why many Muslims feel insulted by the cartoons. No one even tried to place any judgment on any of the parties involved.
You should consider that the reaction reflects more about the political situation of those protesting than it does the faith that they adhere to. This might answer your pressing question: “Why don’t people of other religions respond to insults the way these Muslims have?”
So is merely understanding the point of view of some Muslims in the world equivalent to justifying the acts of these few thousand violent people? Of course not. In your article, you do as much as possible to make the reaction to the cartoons seem like the actions of immature oafs. Following your logic, we Muslims, whom you call “primitive savages,” are not emotionally developed or human enough to really know what we’re feeling.
I am insulted. Trust that I know what I mean.
The Danish cartoons don’t merely poke fun or tease, urging the affected “Muslim World” to toughen up. I can at least speak for myself in saying that they come across as a very calculated attack on Muslims, consistent with a history of these malicious sentiments. This feeling is deepened by the fact that the purpose of these cartoons’ was to elicit a response from Danish Muslims, (who Professor Masters noted during the Teach-In are treated as second-class citizens.)
What was the motivation behind your Wespeak, Evan? It similarly comes across as a calculated assault on Muslims. I can’t say that you merely wanted to get a reaction out of Muslims. More disturbingly, your appeal to all those “dedicated to truth and morality” sounds like a call to arms against Muslims. Surely you wouldn’t put your weight behind an idea like that, right?
Your attempt to contrast Muslims (“hateful,” “violent”) with Jews (“not primitive savages”) follows the same disturbingly polarizing logic that your previous self-proclamation as the upholder of truth and morality did, as though you want to establish a hierarchy of the world’s religions. I struggle to understand what sentiments you are trying to reconcile that prompts you to “question the hell out of” Muslims.
The few violent Muslims you speak of are not the only people to ever commit acts of violence and brutality, and they certainly do not represent a population that constitutes 1/6 of humankind. Consider how this nation was founded on mass genocide and centuries of legalized slavery. To suggest, as you did in your article, that violence is inherent and restricted to Muslims is both preposterous and despicable.
Throughout the past three years that you and I have been here at Wesleyan, it seems you had no idea I am a Muslim. That’s probably because the actions of an individual generally do not indicate that person’s spiritual creed. There are a great deal of Muslims at Wesleyan who feel as outraged as I do who similarly don’t fit your uniform cookie-cutter view of Muslims. To judge an entire population, or at least “many, many, MANY” of those who comprise it, makes your writing intellectually worthless.
I hope I can convince you that not all, nor even that many Muslims are the animals you believe us to be. I would hope that somehow, you might reconsider the statements you made in your Wespeak.
Despite the sometimes blinding rage I have felt as a result of your article, I never once took to you or anyone else with physical force. Instead I proudly wrote this response, hoping to change your mind about Muslims.
But perhaps you are resolved to your smug state of ridiculous self-righteousness and are too-far gone to be reached, in which case, I feel plain sorry for you.
Leave a Reply