The Nov. 1 issue of "The Primary Source" in its "From the Elephant's Mouth" section finally begs the important question, "Are we finally free to think of the average Muslim as an illiberal putz?"
The preceding question comes from a section criticizing Rezwan Khan's Oct. 16 Tufts Daily Viewpoint concerning the controversial depictions of the prophet Muhammad in Dutch newspapers. Normally, this kind of prejudice and rhetorical slander would be unworthy of a dignified response. Yet, when it is so flagrantly narrow-minded and wrong, a reaction is necessary.
First and foremost, I am disappointed with how far the Source has fallen. I had previously thought there was a certain level of professionalism surrounding the publication. Even though I did not agree with the views expressed in the Source, it was a place where intelligent and well-spoken students could express clear and poignant conservative thought. And there is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in a place where very few people agree with you.
However, there is nothing admirable about the defamation of an entire religious group. Now, the Source has become a hotbed of prejudice that promotes mud-slinging with a glaring lack of real intellectual concern for the issues.
Khan's point was not that free speech should be limited or that some kind of Shari'a, Islamic holy law, should be imposed, but rather that the depiction of Muhammad, or lack thereof, is something Muslims hold extremely sacred and a denigration of that is extremely disrespectful. Instead of attempting to understand Khan's true point, the authors of the response in the Source decided to harp on single words and twist the meaning of what Khan wrote.
If the Source wants to be taken seriously as a journal of conservative thought, they should stop resorting to bush-league methods and name-calling. And even though the authors disagreed with Rezwan Khan's Viewpoint, that disagreement by no means justifies a sweeping generalization of all Muslims as illiberal putzes.
Moreover, the sheer magnitude of how awful the aforementioned statement is has gone unrealized. To begin with, the question asks if we are finally free to think of Muslims in this way. Finally free? As if they have been placed in this ideological bondage where they are forced to believe that the average Muslim is a decent human being, God forbid. Finally, these chains have been lifted and they are "free" to believe the worst about the average Muslim.
Why is it so hard to believe that the average Muslim is a decent, good-natured and hardworking person? Why is it hard to believe that the average Muslim is just like any American? Perhaps its not that they find it hard to believe; rather, they do not want to believe it. Maybe by associating Muslims with hate and bigotry - and disassociating them with good will and hard work - it makes it easier to refer to them as idiots, exercise prejudice against them or justify the killing of innocent Muslim civilians in Iraq.
It is almost ironic that in attempting to call Muslims bigoted and narrow-minded they have effectively tagged themselves as just that. Just because a handful of twisted individuals claim acts of terrorism in the name of Islam is no reason to show a total lack of respect to the Muslim community.
What makes this more disheartening is that if that statement had been written about any other group, there would have been a massive uproar. Can you imagine if that statement had been written about Jews or African-Americans? It would not have been published in the first place. Similarly, had the cartoons that depicted Muhammad so negatively instead depicted Moses or Jesus, they, too, would not be published.
I am not attempting to say that Muslims are the poor victimized minority, but that, in this case, the Source and many other publications have taken certain liberties in writing about Muslims in a way that they would not with other groups. If this kind of slanderous and bigoted approach to journalism is what the Tufts community can expect from the future of the The Primary Source, are we finally free to disregard it is a credible publication?
