Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I disagree with the implication. The proper interpretation of Islamic doctrine is not the subject of the speech. What he thinks about it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in this context. Suggesting "maybe he's an Islamist, we don't know, maybe he oppresses his wife" is just speculation without any point to it and isn't productive. It's just mind-reading, which is one of the problems typically associated with the regressive left. "He's saying this, but maybe he thinks this other thing based on who he is." Stick to the words actually coming out of the guy's mouth.
It's also statistically kind of silly; American Muslims are largely moderates, and there is nothing but moderate, secular rhetoric in what he actually talked about.
He does want to prohibit Muslims from entering the USA on the basis of their religion, though, which I think is clearly what he's referring to.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't suggesting they were, just sort of rhetorically and insubstantially bashing Trump for being ignorant and un-american in light of the concepts of "liberty" and "equal protection".
I again disagree. He mentioned that Trump had smeared the character of Muslims, but this was in no way the thrust of the speech. Rather, the point, I think, was summarized best in the following passage:
Again, a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric, but hardly divisive, identity-politics stuff. Quite the opposite, really.
|
Some of your comments I agree with, some I don't.
I'm just satisfied that we can have a normal discussion on the merits of Mr. Khan's speech.
Now in response: "We are Muslims" are the words that came out of his mouth. That wasn't speculation. And if you think it is completely irrelevant, then I disagree. His comment wasn't tangential to his point. It WAS his chief point in the speech. So to suggest that unpacking his meaning is not important is not exactly credible. This is the unfortunate rabbit hole of victim politics.
When he says "ban us", he is just simply incorrect. He would never be banned, so there is no "us". I don't think it's a minor point. It was one of the more inflammatory statements in a speech designed to manufacture outrage. They could have chosen to be accurate here, and they did not.
As for the constitutionality issue: that is a technique somewhat unique to Americans. Often implemented by the NRA with the 2nd amendment. I dont think any American would ever suggest that their constitution applies to non-americans elsewhere in the world. It's another inflammatory technique.