The Wrath (and Duality) of Khan
Last week at the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a U.S. serviceman killed in Iraq, gave a speech in prime time and pulled out a pocket copy of the Constitution, asking if Donald Trump ever read it. He went on to assert that Trump’s rhetoric and proposed policies on Muslims is bad for this country.
Mr. Trump, in characteristic uncouth and unleashed fashion, fired back about Mr. Khan’s wife being silent and not allowed to speak (a swipe at Islam). Mr. Trump should not have initially responded to Mr. Khan with anything other than “my deepest sympathy goes to them as grieving parents.” The worst thing a human being can endure is the death of a child.
If Khizr Khan chooses to join the political discussion, he cannot shield himself from criticism as a grieving parent
************************************************************************************************
But what is not said in polite company is that a point exists where Mr. Khan can move from grieving parent to political voice. It probably hasn’t happened yet despite being on CNN’s “State of the Union” over the weekend and its morning talk show today. But when Khan starts his book tour, all bets are off.
Mr. Khan can’t have it both ways: accusing Mr. Trump of not knowing the constitution and being a “dark soul” but expecting Trump not to respond because Khan is a grieving parent. Grieving parents grieve, not insult nor politically orate.
If Mr. Khan wants to educate us about tolerance for Muslims, great; it’s a lesson some need to be reminded of. But to snipe at Trump with attacks and then shield himself with his dead son is as morally questionable as he claims The Donald is.
-I.M. Windee
the attachments to this post:
Khizr Khan
