Listen / Read
Again, this is another reading that would have been quite reasonable, and indeed thought provoking, were it not for the infuriating and utterly unnecessary inclusion of a religious component.
This is the only religious content in the whole reading:
In the Islamic tradition, Muslim scholars have tried to reconcile a merciful God with human affliction. While God doesn’t burden anyone with more than that person can bear, it would appear that the Qur’an is morally neutral on physical disability, that in fact we all suffer God’s trials in different ways.
And the reason it’s so infuriating is because Siddiqui was arguing that many of us who are free from debilitating afflictions “can’t really understand the viewpoints of the disabled”. In so doing she was attempting to face up to her own failings in understanding and accepting her father’s disability. And yet in the same breath she finds it acceptable to suggest that people are never afflicted with more than they can bear.
Oh Mona. Really? You really think that amongst the many afflictions which can assail the human body and mind, that none of them are more than a person can bear? You would know, would you? Despite the fact you self-admittedly found it difficult to understand your own father’s struggle with disability, you would know what a person can and cannot bear?
How does her mind contain these contradictory sentiments? Because she has to rationalise her belief in a loving creator god. As is so often the case with religiously motivated thinking, that’s the moment when true understanding goes out the window.