Dear Editor:
Can someone please tell Shawn Redden to shut up? I’m allowed to ask that, right? Really, you have your freedom of speech, but there’s no need to abuse it. We heard you the first time. Here’s a question: how many common clich‚s and characterizations can you jam into one opinion piece? Ask Shawn Redden. How much partisan demagoguery and unwarranted hyperbole can we take?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m simply tired of hearing generalizations about the “war on terror,” period, regardless of who happens to be talking about it. I think many of us agree that yes, the mighty “war on terror” seems to have been used as a pretense for some ridiculous governmental abuses~but Redden’s latest piece is nails scraping on a blackboard to my sensibilities. These loaded phrases and broad statements hot with connotation aren’t informative, nor do I believe they’re truly persuasive to anyone but those who already agree with him.
“We can encapsulate what the Republicans stand for in one word: war,” claims Redden, who seems to think using loaded language makes him clever, or that all-encompassing denunciations and out-of-hand dismissals are a sign of superior reasoning.
All right already, Redden. We get it. The Republicans are evil. So are the friggin’ Democrats. [Note: “frigging” is a word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Look it up. It’s been a word since 1598.] You were headed in the right direction when you said, “That the Democrats don’t stand for anything~morally or politically~offers some explanation for Republican success.” Yet you forgot to mention that the entire two-party system we’re working under right now is rife with decadence-what are you going to do about it? Whining and complaining about how the Democrats aren’t getting their due isn’t helping. Depending on who happens to be reading, you’re either preaching to the choir or simply confirming liberal stereotypes. Congratulations, you’re mediocre.
What’s really bothersome is that Redden does have a point about the manipulation of language, especially in the case of, say, the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, he fails to realize that both liberals and conservatives manipulate language to their own ends. It’s not just a Republican thing. Furthermore, he couches his claim in a form that renders it completely unpalatable, his message lost amidst all the angry demagoguery. Who exactly composes the “the fundamentalist right wing”? Who are these “corrupt, hypocritical, religious fundamentalist, crypto-fascist war profiteers”? Is Redden attacking organized religion? Has conservatism suddenly become a religion unto itself? Good Lord, people, the world is ending and only Shawn Redden seems to know it!
In fact, the world could well be ending at the hands of Democrats, too, but if all our commentators were so well-versed in obfuscation as Redden is, we probably wouldn’t know it.
Margaret J. Bauer
Student Life Copy Chief
Class of 2006
Banks lacks knowledge of Islam
Dear Editor:
In Mr. Banks column, “Islam: faith-based misogyny,” his assertion that Islam condones honor killings illustrates his complete lack of understanding of Islam the religion and its law, the Shari’a. By claiming that the murdering of women who have been raped or have supposedly disgraced the family is somehow sanctioned in Islam, Mr. Banks is promoting the idea that all Muslim men are misogynist and anti-women. As both a Muslim and a woman, I beg to differ.
Before Islam was revealed in Arabia, it was a common practice of the Arabs to bury their daughters alive because they were viewed as a burden to the family since they did not work and they had to be provided for. Women were like property; they could not inherit money, nor could they choose their spouse. Women had no rights, no power, and no influence on anything concerning themselves, their families, or their communities. When the message of Islam was revealed, women were given a new life. Islam outlawed the murdering of daughters, the Quran specified women’s rights to inherit and own land, and they were taught that they were equal to men in the eyes of God.
The examples of prominent women in Islam are countless. Muhammad, the prophet himself, was married to a successful businesswoman who was not only 15 years his senior, but also his employer. During the Caliph Omar’s time there was a woman in charge of the marketplace. This job required her to spend a lot of time outside of the home enforcing the law over the predominately male merchants. Not only do Muslim scholars agree that we learned one third of the religion from Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives, but during her time, people came from far and wide to learn from her and to hear her speak.
Islamic law, or Shari’a, was revealed to protect every individual’s God-given right to life. For the sake of this article, I will limit my discussion of the Shari’a to only rape and adultery. In cases of adultery, the Shari’a dictates that there needs to be 4 credible witnesses (male or female) who saw the people in question in the act. Realistically speaking, the probability of one honest person actually witnessing the act was, and still remains, extremely rare. In cases of rape, the woman is not at fault at all. She is not held responsible because she is an innocent. The rapist, on the other hand, if convicted can face capital punishment.
So let’s fast forward to present day. As a Muslim, I have a responsibility to condemn injustice when I see it, regardless of the perpetrator. I agree with Mr. Banks that the status of Muslim women in some Muslim countries is horrendous and that an effort needs to be taken to rectify this deplorable situation. A Muslim who can kill a person for the sake of “honor” obviously does not understand the basic principles of their religion. To kill an innocent person, whomever they may be, is to go against the teachings of Islam and of Muhammad. To claim that honor killings are sanctioned in Islam or that they are part of the “religious tradition” is absolutely absurd and the fact that this argument is being made by a member of this elite institution just shows that education can only take one so far. Because I would never assume that a person who bombs an abortion clinic and kills doctors is representative of all Christians, I would like to think that people who do things in the name of Islam or try to justify their actions by Islam don’t represent the rest of the 1.2 billion of us.
Asha Haji
Class of 2005
Article victimizes Muslims
Dear Editor:
Last Friday’s article, “Islamophobia: Signs of despair” (Student Life, 10/31/2003) followed an alarming trend in the Muslim world by refusing to condemn the acts of cruelty and violence perpetrated by an alarming number of the so called Muslim faithful. It seems the point of the article was to slander Mr. Banks, first by labeling him an Islamophobe and then by claiming that Mr. Banks is showing signs of despair that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to dehumanize Muslims, a goal that seems dubious at best to attribute to him. The only despair that I sense is a sense of despair that there is no outcry of indignation from the Muslim community concerning this government and religion sanctioned oppression of women.
There is no word of kindness or remorse for the victims of the honor killings in last Friday’s article. The author claims that because these crimes occur in the United States as well that we have no place to talk. The main difference, however, is that in the United States the perpetrators of this violence are seen as criminals and are punished severely. Not so in the Muslim world. The author even goes so far as to defend the father, essentially telling us that the Qur’an contains verses that motivated the father to do this. In America, when religion crosses into politics, such as with the abortion issue, there is no shortage of protests. However, when the Jordanian government refuses to enforce laws punishing religiously motivated honor killings, the so-called “moderate” Muslims who don’t subscribe to the violence encouraged by the Qur’an are no where to be seen. When was the last time you saw Palestinians protesting against the suicide bombing of buses or the murder of entire Israeli families? The lack of strong condemnation of this type of violence leads one to question the true beliefs of the Muslim community as a whole.
Brian Schroeder
BU Class of 2005
Banks column is ill thought out
Dear Editor:
Monday’s article “Islam: faith-based misogyny” by Paul Banks left me surprised as both a student and as a practicing Muslim. I never thought a WU Law School student would put together an argument based on incomplete research, would fail to present relevant supporting evidence, and then would make conclusions that misrepresent a serious problem.
Paul says his column “is a plea” to feminists and African Americans to “look beyond the sanitized version of Islam and better appreciate the scourge of Shari’a …” Shari’a (Islamic law) is based on the Qur’an (the holy book of Islam) and the Hadith (narrations of Prophet Muhammad’s practices), and not on any country mentioned in the article. He says that Muslim men “feel it’s incumbent upon them” to kill female family members to regain family honor, yet he mentions nothing from the Qur’an and the Hadith in support. That is because there is nothing in these cardinal Islamic texts that sanctions punishing victims of sex crimes for any purpose, especially family honor. I invite all readers to look for themselves. They will find that there is a punishment for adultery, but it varies and requires four witnesses to the act of intercourse itself. Since sex crimes are not consensual acts, they do not qualify under this. Also, there are harsh consequences for those who falsely accuse someone of adultery but do not have evidence. These Shari’a stipulations are contrary to Paul’s assumptions that Islam allows honor killings, and that suspicion alone is sufficient in carrying out punishments under Islamic law.
The problem is that Paul fails to realize that honor killings are rooted in tribalism, and not in Islamic law. In doing so, he mixes the cultural with the religious and so paints a false and inhumane picture of Islam. If we think that honor killings are sanctioned by Islam, we will come to dislike Islam and to think of such crimes as normal among Muslims. We need to realize that honor killings and other so-called crimes of passion are part of a much larger problem of violence against women, and not a part of Islam. If Paul had realized this, he would never have written such an article, especially not one with the closing remark: “The next time you hear a rant about a Palestinian state or a liberated Iraq, understand such blanket calls ignore the direct impact state-sponsored Islam has on the lives of innocent girls and defenseless wives.” In short, the article “Islam: faith-based misogyny” is at best an-ill prepared argument. At worst, it is a devious attempt by the author to get feminists, women’s rights advocates, and African Americans on the anti-Islam bandwagon.
Owais Ahmed
History major, Text & Tradition minor
Class of 2004
Ad conflicts with anti-alcohol stance
Dear Editor:
The Oct. 31 edition of Student Life had a lead article which discussed the concern of Washington University’s administration with the rise in serious alcohol related incidents on campus. ÿI find it ironic that just to the left of the article, in the advertising sidebar, the first link is to local bars. ÿDoes this link need to be reconsidered?
Jeffrey E. Fireman, M.D.
A.B. LAS ’76
Health services move inconvenient
Dear Editor:
In response to the article notifying students that Student Health Services may be moved to the South Forty, I found this article appalling. One of the reasons given for moving Student Health Services to the South Forty was to make services more accessible to students. My question is: to which students? There are many more students on this campus besides undergrads, and more specifically, South Forty residents.
All students, undergraduate and graduate students, are forced to pay for university health insurance. Thus, I think it is unfair for the administration to only consider the welfare of South Forty residents when considering moving the facilities. Student Health Services is currently located in a central position for all students. Often, the only time that graduate students have to go to health services is between classes; moving Health Services to the South Forty would be an extreme inconvenience. Instead of moving Health Services to the South Forty, maybe the administration should consider having two locations. As a former Wash U undergrad that lived on the South Forty for four years, I am not knocking Student Health Services for trying to make services more available to undergrads. But as a current graduate student, I use Student Health Services just as much as any other student and believe that all students should be given equal access to what we are forced to pay for.
Jennifer Anne Tyus
Washington University School of Law
Class of 2004
Rationale of exclusion
Dear Editor:
“Gay exclusion from blood drives has no medical rationale.” If Mr. Stollworthy can make the case that there truly is no scientific basis for the exclusion of gay men, than I am more than ready to support blood donation from gay men. However, if there is a scientific case to be made, Mr. Stollworthy fails entirely to make it. He cites a statistic showing that black women are the fastest growing segment of new HIV infections. However, which demographic group has the fastest changing rate of HIV infection is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , 42% of the new cases of HIV are found in gay men, while gay men comprise perhaps 2-3% of the population. This is an enormous proportion of infected individuals when compared to the general poulation.
Mr. Stollworthy then suggests that even if HIV infected blood donated, the battery of sophisticated testing now available will screen out the infected blood before it reaches the recipient. This may be true, but even if testing is 100% accurate, there is still the possibility of human error. According to an article distributed by the Associated Press on the topic of gay blood donation in 2000, approximately 10 HIV infected units out of 12 million are missed in the testing, and statistically several of the recipients of these infected units will become infected. The same article suggested that 1 to 2 more units of HIV infected blood might slip through per year if the ban on gay blood donation was lifted.
Is this a significant amount? I don’t know. This seems to be partly a philosophic question and partly a scientific question. I do know, however, that this is the question that should be central in Mr. Stollworth’ys argument. What I found disturbing about Mr. Stollworthy’s piece is his transient attention to the recipients of donated blood, while focusing mainly on the political right of gay men to donate. While I can easily imagine that gay men might feel that they are too often the target of special rules and restricitions that stigmatize and limit them unfairly, it is not appropriate to wage a political war on the blood donation front. Donating blood is not about the political rights of the donor, it is about the medical needs of the sick or injured recipient. It is a war that should be waged on the scientific front with the focus firmly centered on the well-being of the recipients.
Rebecca Herrin
Class of 2005