Saturday, July 30, 2016

The Grieving Father of a Muslim War Hero

I didn’t see it myself, but apparently one of the most moving moments at the Democratic Convention was the speech given by a Muslim man regarding his son’s heroism.  Khazir Khan’s son served in the military and died performing an extraordinary act of courage.

To this grieving father, the moral of the story is that Donald Trump was wrong to say that he wanted to limit Muslim immigration to the United States. Khan wanted to shame Trump in public for not having served in the military and nor not having made any sacrifice for his country. He declared that if Trump’s policy had been implemented in prior years this man’s heroic son, Humayun Khan, would not have been allowed to enter the country.

And, where would we be then?

Obviously, it’s bad to make policy on a single case. And we already know what is happening in Europe because certain countries have been overly open to Muslim immigration.

But, that would spoil the narrative and would compromise the warm fuzzy feelings of tolerance that everyone felt upon hearing the man speak.

One suspects that neither he nor the assembled Democrats would have had the same warm feelings if they had been reminded of the terrorist acts committed by Muslim immigrants.

The unfortunate truth is that this man son’s heroism and his good name have been tarnished by the actions of his fellow Muslims. About that no one had anything to say.

The reputation of Islam has been destroyed by the actions of Muslims themselves. Not by all Muslims, of course, but reputation does not depend on the behavior of all members of a group. And reputation is not a function of individual behavior.

Human beings belong to groups. They are seen first and primarily as members of groups. If people from within your group act badly and tarnish the name of your group, you ought to save your anger for them, not to go on national television to accuse Americans of being intolerant.

By the way, what have Bill or Hillary Clinton ever sacrificed for their country?

4 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

I didn't see or hear it either. Here's a transcript, pretty short, but one statement about Trump.
http://www.phillyvoice.com/transcript-khizr-m-khans-speech-democratic-national-convention/
---
Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
---

Stuart: Human beings belong to groups. They are seen first and primarily as members of groups. If people from within your group act badly and tarnish the name of your group, you ought to save your anger for them, not to go on national television to accuse Americans of being intolerant.

You mean like police officers?

Let's try imagining a father of a police officer killed:
-----
The unfortunate truth is that this man son’s heroism and his good name have been tarnished by the actions of his fellow police officers. About that no one had anything to say.

The reputation of Law enforcement has been destroyed by the actions of police themselves. Not by all officers, of course, but reputation does not depend on the behavior of all members of a group. And reputation is not a function of individual behavior.
-----

Some BLM members might offer the same argument as they dismiss the pain of a father who's son was killed, like the Dallas mass-murders.

And the argument of group reputation against police officers would be equally unfair and disrespectful there too. Black people can say they should NEVER trust ANY police officers until EVERY police officer acts respectfully towards EVERY black.

You can say "But it's only 0.00001% of the police who are bad." and equally another might say "But it's only 0.00001% of Muslims who are terrorists."

If you want to sow hatred, say I can't trust you, because others who look like you act badly. Have two sides of any conflict say the same things about the other side, over and over.

Everyone prefers their reputations be based on their best behavior, their 99.9999%, while reserving the right to condemn opponents by their worse behavior, their 0.0001%.

You can build great walls with such thinking, whether or not those walls actually build new understanding, or reduce overall violence, is another matter.

You gotta think in our 100 year future, as centralized order break down, we're going to be a lot more walls, to keep the wrong sort of people on the other side, and the lawful people will respect the walls, whle the lawless ones will cross anyway, just like they say about banning guns just empower the criminals.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 30, 2016 at 5:53 AM:

"You mean like police officers?"

Reductio ad absurdum.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

There's something fishy about this buzz around Mr. Khan. The media is all too delighted to get a camera and mic in front of him, and he's now front-and-center in the news.

Charlie Hurt covers this well in The Hill:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289932-khizer-khan-was-tricked-into-smearing-donald-trump

What I am impressed by is that no reporter thus far has asked him his opinion of shariah law in America. This is a valid question, and I think Khan's answer would be elucidating. And it certainly would help clarify his own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which he seems keen to lecture Mr. Trump on, as he waves his pocket edition before cameras.

Mr. Khan and his wife are clearly grieving for their son, Capt. Humayun Khan, who gave his life for the United States, earning him a bronze star posthumously. No parent wants to bury a child. That said, when you enter the political arena, you may not be channeling your grief for a higher cause... you may just be being used. The Clintons are great at this.

When Khan entered the arena, and continued to offer himself as a public figure beyond the convention, he opened himself up for scrutiny. At the convention, he was a prop. When he goes on shows like "Meet the Press" with his wife, he's putting himself out there. Trump has questioned his wife's silence in these appearances. We are told in reply that Mrs. Khan cannot speak about her son without weeping. While her son died 12 years ago, everyone's grief process is personal, so I will take her at her word. If that his her state of mourning, why is she appearing on stage and in these interviews?

As Mr. Hurt posits, this plays most assertively into the Democrat strategy of divide and conquer by focusing on identities, most all tied to immutable characteristics -- a pustulating sinfulness that supposedly we are trying to save America from: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Instead, these characteristics become the bona fides of Democrat stagecraft. Racial profiling, indeed.

Mr. Hurt's column brings this all back to square in terms of politics. Yet the most important consideration is the shariah question, given Mr. Khan's legal background and education. Here's what a journalist must ask him: Mr. Khan, do you believe that Islamic Law is superior in temporal practice to U.S. constitutional and civil law?, This is an extremely important question that our newly-minted partisan public figure and activist should be made to answer. I suspect he will find the question quite challenging and, being a good Muslim, will choose shariah's wisdom and supremacy. Therefore, our Constitution will be shown to be subservient to the Islamic Law, imposition of which is a necessary consequence of his belief system. This will show why totalitarian Islamism is incompatible with our Constitution and way of life. I offer you Robert Jackson's prescient thoughts on Islamic law below:

“In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts... In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.” -- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was also head prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, and FDR's Attorney General

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

For those interested in this topic, I also recommend Stephen Coughlin's book "Catastrophic Failure". Mr. Coughlin is the creator of the compelling "Red Pill" briefings to national security personnel. He was forced out when Obama took power. Coughlin provides a clear explanation of the consistency of jihad with Islamic teaching, and why this makes it difficult for other Muslims to counter the jihadi/Islamist message. Coughlin's work explains what we are facing, with particular emphasis on Islamic rules on abrogation, and why exegesis within Islamic texts does not help the cause of moderating these militant jihadi strains within Islam. It's as though Islamism and jihad are part of the package when living with the Muslim faith, despite a minority of persons actually pursuing Islamist militancy. A small, committed minority is enough.

The sad part is that few people will understand or take interest in any of this, because it is rather technical. The media chorus around Mr. Khan will continue, begging for him to share more opinions about Mr. Trump and more details of the Khan's suffering in the wake of their loss. It's shameful political theater, all while the usual cast of media characters (all of them, it would seem) continue to shame Mr. Trump while polling shows him to be a formidable candidate. I guess they'll just say that Trump voters are fervent bigots... that's how it all usually goes, anyway.