Looking Gift Horses in the Mouths

For those unfortunate ones among you who aren't from Boston, the title refers to our often-trashy tabloid newspaper, the Boston Herald, which is good for Red Sox coverage, intolerance, and little else. Unfortunately, we appear to be dealing with the second category here - specifically, an article by the Herald's Michael Graham about Harvard's apparently reprehensible practice of clearing one of its gyms of men for some period of time six days per week to allow orthodox Muslim women to use the facility in accordance with a shari'a. The article goes on to detail other scandalous practices that Harvard engages in, such as accepting a $20m gift from a Saudi sheikh designated to fund the study of Islam - scandalous because the same sheikh also gave money to a fund to support the families of suicide bombers.

With all due respect to Mr. Graham, I am appalled. His views on the gym-use regulations are actually the least offensive of the positions he takes in the article: I don't have a problem with accommodating the Muslim women, but I think that one might perhaps be able to make a case that Harvard could have found a less intrusive way to do so.

But that's not what has me incensed. Graham's disgusting rants about Sheikh bin Talal are. Let's be clear about this. As far as we know (or at least as far as Graham knows), bin Talal did not finance suicide bombers. He did not train them, arm them, or aid them. What he did do is to aid the families of said bombers AFTER THE BOMBERS HAD KILLED THEMSELVES. Graham's argument is that the bombers, armed with the knowledge that "their kin will benefit financially" thanks to bin Talal's funding, are more likely to go ahead and blow themselves up, and therefore supporting bin Talal is akin to supporting suicide bombings.

Umm, WHAT?!?! Maybe it's just me, but I have a hunch that an Iranian feels grief just like an American does - while I have never experienced it personally (thank God), losing a child/brother/sister must be one of the most devastating things a person can be forced to endure. Simple human compassion and empathy would seem to dictate that we try to help people in such terrible positions. Furthermore, if we are trying to figure out ways to reduce the prevalence of suicide bombings, mightn't the parents and relatives of deceased bombers be persuasive and provocative spokespeople for our cause? The bombers themselves can't come back to talk about how much (or little) their act actually changed things, but their families can.

On a more basic level, though, Mr. Graham glosses over the actual purpose of Sheikh bin Talal's gift: ISLAMIC STUDIES. Whatever his previous associations may have been, bin Talal is quite clearly not intending to spread terrorist ideologies (or whatever other nefarious plots Mr. Graham may want to ascribe to him). On the contrary, he is actively trying to increase understanding of his religion, his homeland and his people, and he is doing so at one of the most respected institutions of the country to which radical Islam is supposed to be opposed! This is an olive branch if I ever saw one, a clear attempt to open a dialogue with rational Americans and increase awareness of a chronically misunderstood culture.

Sheikh bin Talal's gift is a welcome change from the usual anti-American rhetoric, and has the potential to redound to the benefit of all parties involved, American and otherwise. But it will apparently only do so if people like Mr. Graham are not on the receiving end.