Kudos to the NYT for publishing this article.
118
These two women have exposed the hypocrisy of the left. No real argument can be made against their op-ed. Of course, those on the receiving end of their criticism will try to deflect, obfuscate, and change the conversation. Shame on those who do.
127
I am VERY sympathetic to these women, but they blew it. Women's issues stand on their own. To conflate them with Islamist extremism is downright shameful. THEY connected extremism (ISIS) with the Muslim faith (regarding women). No purpose is served, on any issue, by issue gerrymandering.
In other words, they had NOTHING for that particular committee. So spare us the faux victimhood and focus on real victimhood.
In other words, they had NOTHING for that particular committee. So spare us the faux victimhood and focus on real victimhood.
73
"There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism."
The Left has made the collective decision to line up against the West on all issues. This means they automatically support Islam, no matter what the cost to others. And the cost will always be borne by others - the Left elites always make sure to protect themselves.
The Left has made the collective decision to line up against the West on all issues. This means they automatically support Islam, no matter what the cost to others. And the cost will always be borne by others - the Left elites always make sure to protect themselves.
73
Kamala Harris and the other women Senators are very smart and savvy. The Republicans on that Committee and the Chair could care less about oppressed women. They pass laws oppressing women in the USA every chance they get. You were being used by the White Male Republican Senators to try to score points against the women Senators. The Hearing was bogus. Republicans could care less about you and/or womens' rights...If you have seen any of the other Republican Majority Hearings, then you can see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears how backward and oppressive the men running these hearings are against women...Don't be a campaign prop for the right wing trying to discredit women Senators..
166
I think progressives abhor Muslim extremism, Wahabism, genutal mutilation, and the evil treatment of women in many Muslim countries. I do not know why the authors think otherwise. This article mentions one event, and we don't know what the four women senators were thinking. I did notice both women worked for conservative organizations.
Hardly a "fair and balanced" article.
Hardly a "fair and balanced" article.
88
I can understand the disappointment of the two ladies, and I am disappointed by the senators, too. I don't think that you can actively and prominently engage in issues that relates to US women and then remain silent when it comes to these critics of Islam as practised in far too many instances. It is not easy to distinguish between what happens to be non-Islamic tradition in Islamic countries and traditions inherent in Islam. Ayaan Hirsi hasn't always been so generous as to deem Islam reformable ─ who could blame her? As a symbol, these two witnesses are important enough for at least one of the Senators to sit down in a private meeting beforehand and to hear out if a reasonable discussion beyond sound bites would be possible without the Senators being in constant danger of leaving the fine line between sound critique of religious practice and Islam bashing. If it is true that Ayaan Hirsi is now genuinely interested in reforming Islam ─ I know too little about Asra Nomani ─ the Senators missed an opportunity to bring that to the fore.
25
Did DT bring up women's rights once on his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia where he inked an arms deal for $110 B? And what do the authors of this column think of that support to you a regime that systematically tramples women?
64
"There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism"
That's one of the stranger things I've ever read on these pages. Nobody in American politics left or right would ever defend Islamic extremism, even by an absence of condemning it at the moment you'd hoped to hear it personally. You don't understand: these women knew what those Republican men would do to twist your answers for their bigoted base--and they were protecting those who practice your religion peacefully from the sound bites they would make from them.
That's one of the stranger things I've ever read on these pages. Nobody in American politics left or right would ever defend Islamic extremism, even by an absence of condemning it at the moment you'd hoped to hear it personally. You don't understand: these women knew what those Republican men would do to twist your answers for their bigoted base--and they were protecting those who practice your religion peacefully from the sound bites they would make from them.
87
I object to the charge that it is hypocrisy for someone on the American left to fail to take up arms against the patriarchal abuses of any religion. I want my representatives in Congress to ensure equal rights for women in this country, regardless of their religion, or the religion of their attackers. It isn't Congress' job to take the indirect route of trying to change the mindsets of any group -- just make our laws respect human rights, and then ensure that those laws are fairly enforced.
Anyone who considers this hypocritical should imagine what kind of reception a think tank would have if it entreated Congress to take on the job of correcting the misogyny of "Christianists."
These women have no complaint: they had a chance to be heard, and they WERE heard. They just didn't persuade. And one reason is because we, on the left, know this is a right-wing game of "gotcha." This "gotcha" game is well-known to anyone on the left who has tried to have a conversation with people who, like Trump, are not ashamed to admit publicly that they just want all Muslims out of the country, even if they otherwise think of themselves as supporters of the American ideal that all people are created equal. One of their main talking points is "how can you as someone on the left support Muslims, since they often oppress women?" It is pure sophistry: I don't have to give up my commitment to equality under the law in order to advocate for women's rights.
Anyone who considers this hypocritical should imagine what kind of reception a think tank would have if it entreated Congress to take on the job of correcting the misogyny of "Christianists."
These women have no complaint: they had a chance to be heard, and they WERE heard. They just didn't persuade. And one reason is because we, on the left, know this is a right-wing game of "gotcha." This "gotcha" game is well-known to anyone on the left who has tried to have a conversation with people who, like Trump, are not ashamed to admit publicly that they just want all Muslims out of the country, even if they otherwise think of themselves as supporters of the American ideal that all people are created equal. One of their main talking points is "how can you as someone on the left support Muslims, since they often oppress women?" It is pure sophistry: I don't have to give up my commitment to equality under the law in order to advocate for women's rights.
54
These two are the whiniest people ever! They got a platform for their views unavailable to almost everyone, including those who are actually experts on “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics, and Techniques of Violent Extremism," the actual topic of the Senate hearing, but they still complain they weren't asked questions! Maybe they didn't provide any testimony that the panel found worth pursuing?
28
I know I'm the minority here, but when I heard the Jeff Sessions hearings, I perceived Harris as not letting him finish his sentences. [And yes, he was taking the Forest Gump approach and using up all her time; sorry, it's his strategy.] I perceived her as asking questions that were off-point, assumptive, righteous and straying from reality.
I dislike Sessions intensely, and wish he and most of the GOP would crawl back under the rocks from whence they came. But I do view this whole outrage about Harris "being silenced" as wrong-mindedly partisan. I, too, am a woman, and yet heard the moderator's actions as a simple point of order.
I dislike Sessions intensely, and wish he and most of the GOP would crawl back under the rocks from whence they came. But I do view this whole outrage about Harris "being silenced" as wrong-mindedly partisan. I, too, am a woman, and yet heard the moderator's actions as a simple point of order.
64
Do honor killings happen in America?
I'm not trolling; that's a legitimate question.
What is the status of Muslim women in America today? Another genuine question. I have interacted with Muslim families, but don't fully know the answer to this. But at the very least if Muslim women in the U.S. have equal rights -- those who were citizens certainly went out of their way to register to vote against Trump (I was GOTV in suburban Denver) -- groups like Indivisible have every right to protect Muslim families in the U.S. If not, well....
The plight of Muslim women in the rest of the world is a separate issue, though equally as important. It's important to separate these things out.
I'm not trolling; that's a legitimate question.
What is the status of Muslim women in America today? Another genuine question. I have interacted with Muslim families, but don't fully know the answer to this. But at the very least if Muslim women in the U.S. have equal rights -- those who were citizens certainly went out of their way to register to vote against Trump (I was GOTV in suburban Denver) -- groups like Indivisible have every right to protect Muslim families in the U.S. If not, well....
The plight of Muslim women in the rest of the world is a separate issue, though equally as important. It's important to separate these things out.
15
As per usual, the people who style themselves as the sensitive, tolerant guardians of all things feminine can't see their own nauseatingly sexist behavior to save their lives.
So if a woman aligns with a non-approved political worldview, the only explanation is that she's the unwitting pawn of a male Republican senator. She could not possibly be making her own fully informed decisions about what she believes.
Yes, how wonderfully "progressive" this attitude is.
So if a woman aligns with a non-approved political worldview, the only explanation is that she's the unwitting pawn of a male Republican senator. She could not possibly be making her own fully informed decisions about what she believes.
Yes, how wonderfully "progressive" this attitude is.
50
This is an issue upon which both left and right have been extremely hypocritical. As I see it, the problem is not Islam, but fundamentalist theocratic extremism. The Islamists that Ayaan Hirsi and Asra Nomani are talking about here have parallels in the fundamentalist Christian extremists -- like our V.P. Mike Pence and many Republican legislators at both the state and national level -- who are working doggedly to take away women's rights (and the rights of gay and lesbian and non-gender conforming people) because they think their religious views should be enshrined in civil law. Progressives need to fight both Christian and Islamic theocrats with the same clarity and determination -- and those who object to the concept of "Sharia law" should apply the same kind of criticism and opposition to Christian theocratic arguments as well. There is a difference between being a practicing Muslim or a practicing Christian with an understanding of true religious freedom and pursuing theocratic policies in the name of either religion. Both "Islamism" as Ayaan and Asra are describing here, and "Islamophobia" and anti-Muslim prejudice in the U.S. are real problems. And it's true that the current GOP is not a friend of women's rights of any kind. Clarity and honesty are needed among both "progressives" and the people involved in this kind of campaign against "Islamist extremism," so that those of us who truly believe in equality among the sexes and religious freedom can win.
36
What an outstanding article. God bless Ali and Nomani for having the courage to write it, and the New York Times for having the courage to print it!
54
I'm not sure what the answer is for these women. If they think that these issues are embedded in the religion than they need to leave the faith. If they think as I do that extremists are using the faith to exploit and manipulate than they need to appeal to persons in high positions in the faith to condemn these attitudes and behavior. In either case all people secular and religious who are outraged should speak out and make it clear that in our liberal democracy these behaviors are unacceptable, will not be tolerated and if illegal will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
21
I won't let my sympathy for Ayaan keep me from saying what's right.
She and Asra were invited to speak, not because of any special insight into the issues of women in India or Africa, but because their personal experiences can be relied upon to blind them to the fact that the village down the road is Christian, and Hindu, and does the same damnable thing to its women. They can be depended upon to blame this on Islam, a premise false to facts observed on the ground an hour's walk away.
They want to make the people who did these things to them pay, and who can blame them. But we can't excuse them for casting a problem that extends across all of the religious faiths that share the geography as stemming from the tenets of their former religion. That faith doesn't prevent these wrongs, and while that's an indictment in itself, neither do any of these others.
If FGM happens when you're muslim or when you're not muslim, it's not happening because you're muslim.
Come on, Ayaan and Asra, we all know this an issue of tribal customs. Push those customs in a different directions, and the religions will follow.
She and Asra were invited to speak, not because of any special insight into the issues of women in India or Africa, but because their personal experiences can be relied upon to blind them to the fact that the village down the road is Christian, and Hindu, and does the same damnable thing to its women. They can be depended upon to blame this on Islam, a premise false to facts observed on the ground an hour's walk away.
They want to make the people who did these things to them pay, and who can blame them. But we can't excuse them for casting a problem that extends across all of the religious faiths that share the geography as stemming from the tenets of their former religion. That faith doesn't prevent these wrongs, and while that's an indictment in itself, neither do any of these others.
If FGM happens when you're muslim or when you're not muslim, it's not happening because you're muslim.
Come on, Ayaan and Asra, we all know this an issue of tribal customs. Push those customs in a different directions, and the religions will follow.
38
I have long wondered why the American women's movement was silent on the abuse of women around the world in other cultures. There seems to be a mindset now that to have any criticism of another culture is to take a superior attitude that must not be allowed. We are supposed to accept whatever happen to be common practices around the world and be pleased, understanding, about it. In a documentary once I heard a western woman speak of female sexual mutilation with considerable approval. She indicated that women in the African nation where she was accepts it as necessary to belonging. Her words indicated she viewed it favorably as part of social identity.
One aspect of keeping silent or saying little about grossly abusive actions elsewhere is to reserve space for outrage against what western women face. Would it make the case of western women far less compelling in comparison?
So called liberals and progressives in politics might be afraid of speaking out because they could be lumped in with the far right and its scare tactics about sharia law and whether it represents a danger to western cultures. Nonetheless, this is a debate worth having. To try to understand the depth and breath of conflict between Islamic and other cultures should bring more understanding to the potential problems and conflicts we could face in the future. Both Christianity and Islam look on non-believers as infidels, but Islam seems to take that designation to a high and sometimes dangerous level.
One aspect of keeping silent or saying little about grossly abusive actions elsewhere is to reserve space for outrage against what western women face. Would it make the case of western women far less compelling in comparison?
So called liberals and progressives in politics might be afraid of speaking out because they could be lumped in with the far right and its scare tactics about sharia law and whether it represents a danger to western cultures. Nonetheless, this is a debate worth having. To try to understand the depth and breath of conflict between Islamic and other cultures should bring more understanding to the potential problems and conflicts we could face in the future. Both Christianity and Islam look on non-believers as infidels, but Islam seems to take that designation to a high and sometimes dangerous level.
40
Wonder no more, Doug Terry!
Ask yourself: when and where did the 'American women's movement' make a commitment to be fighting on behalf of women everywhere around the globe?
It may be a sentiment among some who call themselves feminists, but nowhere is it mandated to do so.
Conversely, why do you hold American women (and men) to an impossible double-standard? On the one hand, they're accused, domestically, of ignoring issues and problems in America as 'global elites', too enthralled with a mistaken solidarity with other cultures that may be either naive, or even compromising of national security . But when they don't give sufficient voice to the problems of girls and women in other societies and cultures, the same people turn around and label them as hypocrites!
You can't have it both ways, Doug. Just because YOU felt an opinion regarding repellent practices in other societies was an endorsement of such practices, in the documentary, doesn't mean it was actually so. Without naming the documentary, we only have your word to go on.
Ask yourself: when and where did the 'American women's movement' make a commitment to be fighting on behalf of women everywhere around the globe?
It may be a sentiment among some who call themselves feminists, but nowhere is it mandated to do so.
Conversely, why do you hold American women (and men) to an impossible double-standard? On the one hand, they're accused, domestically, of ignoring issues and problems in America as 'global elites', too enthralled with a mistaken solidarity with other cultures that may be either naive, or even compromising of national security . But when they don't give sufficient voice to the problems of girls and women in other societies and cultures, the same people turn around and label them as hypocrites!
You can't have it both ways, Doug. Just because YOU felt an opinion regarding repellent practices in other societies was an endorsement of such practices, in the documentary, doesn't mean it was actually so. Without naming the documentary, we only have your word to go on.
12
This article would have made much more sense if the New York Times had itself included an explanation of the senate hearing that the article alludes to. The authors seem to have gone to the hearing with a personal agenda that may or may not (how could I know?)have been congruent with the goal of the hearing and, in particular, the Democratic women who are castigated for not asking interesting questions.
I appreciate the NY Times giving them an audience, but I find myself less sympathetic to the authors because they seem to expect the senators, merely because they are women, to act according to traditional gender roles i.e. to be empathic, encouraging, supportive of whatever it is another woman wants to say. To abandon, in other words, their role as Senators at this hearing, and act in a way fitting their female roles. This is an insult. Does the oppression of Muslim women and the complexities of Muslim culture and religion deserve a hearing? Was this Senate hearing the proper place? I can't be sure, because the purpose of the hearing is not made clear. It seems naive to hope that the current administration or the current Congress that is slashing health care funds as I write, is truly interested in prioritizing the welfare of Muslim women. I bet Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill all understand these dynamics far better than Ali and Nomani.
I appreciate the NY Times giving them an audience, but I find myself less sympathetic to the authors because they seem to expect the senators, merely because they are women, to act according to traditional gender roles i.e. to be empathic, encouraging, supportive of whatever it is another woman wants to say. To abandon, in other words, their role as Senators at this hearing, and act in a way fitting their female roles. This is an insult. Does the oppression of Muslim women and the complexities of Muslim culture and religion deserve a hearing? Was this Senate hearing the proper place? I can't be sure, because the purpose of the hearing is not made clear. It seems naive to hope that the current administration or the current Congress that is slashing health care funds as I write, is truly interested in prioritizing the welfare of Muslim women. I bet Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill all understand these dynamics far better than Ali and Nomani.
57
Thank you for your comments. I did not understand the context of this hearing. What did these ladies expect the senators to do or say? Were they talking about situations here or overseas? The Times should have been clearer about this hearing and why it was held in the first place.
26
The New York Times has given you a voice. It's a shame you used it to attack Senator Harris. Or to say what you had hoped to tell her at the hearing. I bet she'd even have been willing to meet with you privately - if that's what you were after. But it's not even clear what you're after here.
So I am very puzzled as to the underlying reason for this Op-Ed. It seems to be a "hit-piece" of sorts. And it's unfortunate you spent more time venting than presenting whatever it was you hoped to air at the hearing.
I have never met Senator Harris, but I've been very, very impressed by her. She is articulate and a dynamite questioner. She obviously prepares for hearings. And I look forward to the type of leadership she already exemplifies.
Sadly, however, I'm not that impressed by an Op-Ed, which appears to be more whiny and a personal attack than informative.
You missed the great opportunity given you by the Times! You, in my view, unfairly maligned a good woman. And you sadly gave a poor impression of yourselves.
Sadly, I
So I am very puzzled as to the underlying reason for this Op-Ed. It seems to be a "hit-piece" of sorts. And it's unfortunate you spent more time venting than presenting whatever it was you hoped to air at the hearing.
I have never met Senator Harris, but I've been very, very impressed by her. She is articulate and a dynamite questioner. She obviously prepares for hearings. And I look forward to the type of leadership she already exemplifies.
Sadly, however, I'm not that impressed by an Op-Ed, which appears to be more whiny and a personal attack than informative.
You missed the great opportunity given you by the Times! You, in my view, unfairly maligned a good woman. And you sadly gave a poor impression of yourselves.
Sadly, I
54
Right-wingers like Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin want to indict an entire religion – Islam – and to use that indictment to spread hatred of all Muslims. It’s Johnson’s way of currying favor with other conservatives and advancing his career.
The two women who wrote or allowed their names to be put on this Op-Ed piece share an agenda of discrediting Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, who has asked or tried to ask tough questions about the Trump-Russia connection.
It is surprising that The New York Times would publish something like this piece, which is the equivalent of a scurrilous attack ad.
The two women who wrote or allowed their names to be put on this Op-Ed piece share an agenda of discrediting Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, who has asked or tried to ask tough questions about the Trump-Russia connection.
It is surprising that The New York Times would publish something like this piece, which is the equivalent of a scurrilous attack ad.
40
I am sorry to tell you heroic women that the answer to your question is the political reality of Ms. Harris et al is her fidelity to the political correctness of the current Democratic party precludes any mention of Islamic Extremism because it would indicate that the united front of denial of this awful reality is finally crumbling. Any chance of sympathy and commiseration, or female solidarity is destroyed on the altar of petty partisan politics. To give you an example, yesterday in Georgia a carpetbagging Democrat who outspent his female opponent 4-1 was defeated. Ms. Harris, instead of applauding the achievement of her sister and ignoring the sanctimonious drivel of her party about the corrosive effects of outside money in politics will turn a blind eye to hypocritically tell us what a great candidate Mr. Ossoff was.That same blind eye was turned on you because unfortunately the party line, not what's right, is the only end she recognizes. By the way Ms. Harris was silenced by the chair of the committee because she was hectoring AG Sessions and not allowing him to fully answer what were Democratic party talking point questions. They were designed in advance to further the premise of imaginary political crimes and a political theater fishing expedition for media disbursement. You would probably get more reaction to your reasoned principles from the terrorists who still have Islamic consciences than heartless secular political robots with blinders on.
43
Both women have gripes against Islam because it
restricts sexual freedom. Nomani had baby out of wedlock
and Hirsi lived with a dutch man for five years without
marriage as she wrote in her book "Infidel". Gender
equality is a problem everywhere. In USA too the pay
for women is 79% of men for the similar jobs and
there were 150,000 child marriages. Inequality is
more pronounced in Muslim societies because of
illiteracy and conservatism. It should be noted that
women in educated families in muslim countries have
lots of freedom to pursue education, professional
career and choose their own husbands but no sexual
freedom.
restricts sexual freedom. Nomani had baby out of wedlock
and Hirsi lived with a dutch man for five years without
marriage as she wrote in her book "Infidel". Gender
equality is a problem everywhere. In USA too the pay
for women is 79% of men for the similar jobs and
there were 150,000 child marriages. Inequality is
more pronounced in Muslim societies because of
illiteracy and conservatism. It should be noted that
women in educated families in muslim countries have
lots of freedom to pursue education, professional
career and choose their own husbands but no sexual
freedom.
9
I don't understand why these two women have aligned themselves with the Right Wing in the US. If they think Democratic Senators are not responsive, what do they think of the blatant misogyny of the right?
11
The bottom line here for these authors is money and visibility. Hirsaan and Nomani have embraced their roles as favorite window dressing for the American islamophobic industry, and have thus emerged as useful weapons to deploy by those who profit and benefit from exploiting white American xenophobia and bigotry. We've seen that islamophobia pays off with rewards...in the case of Trump it helped earn him the white house, and it will likely get far worse before it gets better.
As a Muslim myself, I am well aware that yes, there are clearly complex and troubling social problems, blatant sexism and other pathologies within some Muslim societies. Unfortunately but predictably, most average Americans have no understanding, no real exposure (beyond soundbites), and frankly, no interest in exploring these issues in a meaningful way.
The authors clearly have a right to say and do what they want, but if they want to be taken seriously (by intelligent people) they shouldn't be surprised that some have rightfully concluded that they are less interested in genuine, productive dialogue and more with consolidating their CVs and marketability as tools of American xenophobia.
P.S. I might also add that I am a patriot, a firm believer of American democracy, and do not and never have or ever will abuse my wife - much to the chagrin of those who would like to slap that label on me.
As a Muslim myself, I am well aware that yes, there are clearly complex and troubling social problems, blatant sexism and other pathologies within some Muslim societies. Unfortunately but predictably, most average Americans have no understanding, no real exposure (beyond soundbites), and frankly, no interest in exploring these issues in a meaningful way.
The authors clearly have a right to say and do what they want, but if they want to be taken seriously (by intelligent people) they shouldn't be surprised that some have rightfully concluded that they are less interested in genuine, productive dialogue and more with consolidating their CVs and marketability as tools of American xenophobia.
P.S. I might also add that I am a patriot, a firm believer of American democracy, and do not and never have or ever will abuse my wife - much to the chagrin of those who would like to slap that label on me.
39
Thank you to letter writer, Muslim guy" for calling this travesty of a performance what it is. In addition to your fine points, your writing was joyful to read.
11
I reiterate what "Justice Matters" stated.
5
Kamala Harris is about taking away rights, such as those granted by our Constitution and Bill of Rights (unless they are specific and special rights for those who share her skin tone) so don't expect her to expand any.
18
There is a strong, largely self-enforced belief among "progressives" in America and Europe that criticizing non-white cultures or civilizations is "racist" because such criticism will supposedly give aid and comfort to both real and imagined racists. If you assume that non-whites are moral actors who are, just as much as whites, responsible for their actions, then you are deemed either "racists" or "race traitors." This "progressive" belief is itself racist in the extreme because it reduces non-white cultures to the status of mentally disabled children who stand helpless before godlike, all-powerful "whites."
35
Harris came off as an arrogant misinformed democrat which these days is redundant. Sessions put her in her place. Her 15 minutes lasted 15 seconds.
26
Sessions didn't put anybody in their place. Sessions didn't even know what his own place was. He seemed completely out of his depth, unprepared, without notes, couldn't remember anything, and then got whiny and defensive when put under tough questioning by people like Ms. Harris, who wasn't the only one who was tough on him. She was far from misinformed - on what, may I ask you was she misinformed? And what exactly is "her place." Oh, Canada! I'll be there soon.
15
I'm with you ladies. All major world religions do not consider women equal. Your religion seems especially cruel toward women. I understand everybody has a right to their culture, or religion, but if women are not treated equally, and especially if they are brutalized and treated as property with very few rights, then I say the religion, or those beliefs are wrong. They are evil.
34
Let's be extremely clear. The goals of Ayaan Hirsi Ali are not "deeply liberal" and never have been based her writings which are widely available. How interesting that she and Ms. Nomani choose to take to the Times to criticize Senator Harris and other women Senators at this particular hearing, called by a Republican senator on the question of "political Islam." What exactly was the senator's agenda/purpose for calling this hearing? What did he hope to accomplish? And what exactly did Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani expect to add to the discussion other than to fan the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment with additional vitriol against the atrocious and appalling treatment of women by the Taliban and other religious extremists which is already universally condemned? And which, it must be pointed out, the vast majority of American Muslims vehemently disown, reject, and condemn along with the rest of us? I find this op-ed piece to be highly disingenuous at best. It is a clear attack on Senator Harris and all of these Senators who have consistently been strong advocates for ALL women; Senator McCaskill was not fooled by what Sen. Johnson was trying to stir up with this hearing, in spite of the authors' attempt to demean her comments. Could it be they do not want to accept that women of principle were not willing to collude in Johnson's tawdry effort to support his president's ongoing vicious anti-Muslim racist campaign? "Deeply liberal" indeed!
36
Gotta admit, I find your vitriol in attacking the authors deeply troubling. And I wonder if you didn't just help to prove their point for them. Why exactly is it that you have so much trouble with people pointing out the obvious?
24
In the back and forth I watched what i saw was a woman unwilling to listen to what was said and who came with her own agenda, which was to prove him wrong no matter what he said. Tell me you haven't seen this kind of person before. In your face and angry. There is nothing you can say that is "correct" in such situations.
8
If you feel that "a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation' will bring attention to these issues, then don't keep 'waiting:' get on the stick and organize one.
15
Sure, and which American women would go? The yoga-clad upper middle class American women? No,!they could care less about women suffering abroad.
9
I'm still trying to determine who this "Left" and "Liberals" are. Why is it that I have the sneaking feeling that they're anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with the radical rightwing black hole that has sucked up what used to be the republican party and turned it into the Repugnantklan party.
11
What is most revealing about this article is that the NYT apparently got conned into giving its voice to admittedly well-camouflaged support of religious intolerance. Its analogous to accusing the Pope of deliberate genocide, because his support of the Catholic Church's opposition to women using birth control, given that in Catholic countries like the Philippines, Brazil, and most Central American countries, the resulting over-population has so exceeded the sustainable human population, that deaths are regularly occurring indirectly, and primarily, because of the Cathollic Church's position.
The number is growing so rapidly that it will likely approach several million within 10 years. So is Pope Francis guilty of genocide? No, people are responsible for their own decisions. Republicans are smooth-talking con artistis, and the NYT got conned.
The number is growing so rapidly that it will likely approach several million within 10 years. So is Pope Francis guilty of genocide? No, people are responsible for their own decisions. Republicans are smooth-talking con artistis, and the NYT got conned.
13
I am troubled by this testimony because it is being used as a wedge issue. I cannot deny Hirsi Ali and Nomani's concerns, but I wonder what would happen if the issues under discussion were the various religious wars currently being waged and the intolerant nature of religion (including Christianity and Hinduism to name just two). The United States Senate and House themselves are home to religious extremists and bigots who routinely promote laws aimed at curtailing others' actions or public policies based on religious belief. A few that immediately come to mind are abortion, the "right" to discriminate against certain classes of people (LGBT), and promotion of pseudo-science.
12
I'd like to make two points. The first is that here in New York we are attempting to raise the age of marriage to 17 (a bill has apparently been passed and awaits the Governor's signature). While 18 would be preferable, 17 is still a big improvement over 14 and will go a long way to prevent the inexcusable practice of child marriage (usually forced marriage) so prevalent among a number of fundamentalist sects (including Christians, Jews, and Muslims). So there is a little good news on this front. But it remains shocking that child marriage is, at this point in time, legal throughout most of this country.
Secondly, I agree with the authors. It always shocks me when people on the left go on about "apartheid" in Israel, while ignoring the violent and obvious gender apartheid practiced in one of our favorite "allies," which also happens to be funding the spread of fundamentalism and thereby terrorism around the world - namely the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is usually excused as a "cultural" or "religious" difference. As Hillary Clinton famously said, "women's rights are human rights." It follows that gender apartheid is apartheid. And, if we truly care about human rights, we should be addressing this not excusing it.
Secondly, I agree with the authors. It always shocks me when people on the left go on about "apartheid" in Israel, while ignoring the violent and obvious gender apartheid practiced in one of our favorite "allies," which also happens to be funding the spread of fundamentalism and thereby terrorism around the world - namely the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is usually excused as a "cultural" or "religious" difference. As Hillary Clinton famously said, "women's rights are human rights." It follows that gender apartheid is apartheid. And, if we truly care about human rights, we should be addressing this not excusing it.
28
Some clarification that might help to sort out the confusion surrounding this issue. in the developing and non western countries, the liberals and progressives ( sometimes called the left ) are championing the causes of free speech, social equality and women rights, however they have been in constant battle with the large and vastly dominant religious establishment, the battle widened in the last fifty years or so with the emergence of the movement of political islam ( islamism) , in addition to the more extreme religious groups such as salafists and wahabists. So the conflict there is between the liberals and religious extremists, not between liberals and conservatives or liberals and republicans. on the other hand liberals and progressives in the western countries are in a whole different place politically, culturally and historically. they defend religious freedom and the rights of minorities , among the other traditional causes , so they defend the muslim minorities in their countries as a results. the conflict in the west is between progressives and conservatives , not between liberals and religious extremists ( that has been resolved historically long time ago in the west) . progressives in the developing countries are disillusioned and confused,regarding the position of the western liberals on that important issue, since it is considered by the liberals of the developing countries as a crucial and a historic battle.
19
The searing experience of living in "illiberal" lands does not mean that coaxing their adopted country to invest in yet another round of "liberal interventionism" shows much sense about their adopted country. As we have seen long before Iraq 2.0 and certainly during and after Iraq 2.0, American soldiers interceding in religious and civil conflicts, create mega casualties while take that do nothing for our own security. Ultimately that task of nation-building, that is, protecting people in both profoundly non-Western and inexperienced in democracy has proven a losing proposition.
Ironically, the authors present their argument almost entirely in the form of the "identity politics" slight they feel because our female Senators look at the idea of sending our troops abroad as, more or less, DOA. Yes, probably because the worry that the authors slight is that our troops are DOR (dead on return).
Ironically, the authors present their argument almost entirely in the form of the "identity politics" slight they feel because our female Senators look at the idea of sending our troops abroad as, more or less, DOA. Yes, probably because the worry that the authors slight is that our troops are DOR (dead on return).
10
I've always considered myself a progressive but on this issue, Islamic extremism, I find myself increasingly aligned with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I can't help but argue in some part at least with Douglas Murray's opinion that the left's obsession's with Western guilt for colonialism and a host of other historical events has led them to a position of being apologists for all identified "minorities". Being in a minority per se does not give you increased moral authority and many of the mainstream ideas of Islam are antithetical to liberal democracies. Free speech is not an idea embedded in the Muslim world. Adherence to man made law is not inherent to many of the teaching of Islam. We have fundamental cultural, political and social differences and they must be faced head on. Oh yeah, almost forgot, the separation of church and state? We do not have that in common and it is at the core of what we are.
62
This article made me remember an experience I had back in the early 2000's as a college student in a speech class. This was before 9/11 and the current Islamaphobic environment. I had just heard about this thing called FGM (female genital mutilation) and was horrified and appalled. So much so, that I decided to do an informational speech on the topic for my class. I foresaw no controversy in explaining the horrors and inherint sexism in the practice that effected many women around the world. Imagine my surprise when later in the term another girl gave a speech on why it was wrong as a westerner to denounce another's culture's practice. I was gobsmacked. It's 17 years later and I still feel myself boil in anger that someone was defending the practice. To me it wasn't an issue of feeling culturally superior as a westerner, it was an issue of human rights and female rights. The far left can go too far in it's desire to be culturally sensitive to the point where the rights of non-western women are no longer being considered out of fear of not respecting a culture. Women's rights are human rights. Sometimes it's as simple as that.
65
I really admire these two women and agree with this article 100%. Cultural relativism may be useful in anthropology, but It is hindering us when it comes to Islamic extremism. I would like to see more moderate Muslims working to change their own religion, but I recognize the fact that it may be dangerous for them to do this. Salman Rushdie's fatwa over the Satanic Verses is a good example of what happens to someone who seems to criticize Islam. Major books stores even succumbed to the fears related to the fatwa and removed the book from stores.
There are already sharia courts in the UK. Not sure if they exist in the US or not. A friend of mine living in Switzerland came across the following Islamic graffiti: "We will take over your society via the womb." The laws of the US must prevail over sharia. It will make many "liberals" uncomfortable - we may wind up jailing people for practicing sharia law according to their religion in family contexts. But, we must send the message that human rights and US law will prevail over things like genital mutilation and abuse of women. At the very least, we must send this message to Islamic fundamentalists living in the US.
There are already sharia courts in the UK. Not sure if they exist in the US or not. A friend of mine living in Switzerland came across the following Islamic graffiti: "We will take over your society via the womb." The laws of the US must prevail over sharia. It will make many "liberals" uncomfortable - we may wind up jailing people for practicing sharia law according to their religion in family contexts. But, we must send the message that human rights and US law will prevail over things like genital mutilation and abuse of women. At the very least, we must send this message to Islamic fundamentalists living in the US.
3
so kamala harris is solely responsible for the treatment of muslim women. republican women are not.
republicans rule the country. how about appealing to them for standing up to ill treatment of all women.
republicans rule the country. how about appealing to them for standing up to ill treatment of all women.
22
The authors were invited to speak at a hearing and allowed to have their say; it was Harris' job to ask questions at a hearing and she was shut down. It's a false comparison. Nobody shut these two women down.
15
No one shut Hrris down either. I watched the Sessions hearing. Harris would ask a question and when Sessions started to try and answer she'd ask another then another and on it went. She gave Session no chance to answer. All the Chair did was tell her to let the witness answer the questions. If that is being "shut down" then so be it. If you ever are in court and testifying, and the attorney does what Harris was doing to Session, the Judge would tell the attorney to let the witness answer.
22
Here's Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, denouncing female genital mutilation. https://www.voanews.com/a/clinton-cultural-tradition-is-no-excuse-for-fe...
Furthermore, Clinton made womens' rights in other countries a cornerstone of her agenda as Secretary and undoubtedly would have as President. I've seen no indication Secretary Tillerson will make it a similar priority.
Who did these ladies support for President?
Furthermore, Clinton made womens' rights in other countries a cornerstone of her agenda as Secretary and undoubtedly would have as President. I've seen no indication Secretary Tillerson will make it a similar priority.
Who did these ladies support for President?
27
Many of the problems with this article and with the purpose and setting of the hearing have been well addressed in many of the comments here. But I have to say that the left is ill-equipped to address or respond to what these women had to say specifically, and to the issues that a faith-religion-culture matrix poses for us in our foreign relations, our relationships with many immigrants, and with those Americans whose beliefs and practices can and do conflict with contemporary Democratic orthodoxy (and I use that word advisedly).
I proudly side with the left on most issues and am willing to work alongside others for the things we all believe concerning justice, fairness, and equity. But I'm not a true believer when it comes to issues like abortion, and I don't understand why many on the left are so confident in their own understanding of truth and morality in the messiness of this world. I know, many religious people seem very confident in their own beliefs, but why should the left respond to the "more-righteous-than-thou" crowd with a "smuggier-than-thou" attitude. The "big tent" party needs people like me and a not insignificant number of others who support most of what the Democratic Party works for, but who feel not just unwanted, but worse, condescended to.
I proudly side with the left on most issues and am willing to work alongside others for the things we all believe concerning justice, fairness, and equity. But I'm not a true believer when it comes to issues like abortion, and I don't understand why many on the left are so confident in their own understanding of truth and morality in the messiness of this world. I know, many religious people seem very confident in their own beliefs, but why should the left respond to the "more-righteous-than-thou" crowd with a "smuggier-than-thou" attitude. The "big tent" party needs people like me and a not insignificant number of others who support most of what the Democratic Party works for, but who feel not just unwanted, but worse, condescended to.
11
Senator Harris is a busy person with many obligations. As one of her constituents, I can entirely see how she might be forced to choose between yet another hearing about radical religious violence that a) occurs overseas within an infinitesimal subset of Muslims or b) takes place within an infinitesimal subset of American Muslims. Every person would love to bend a Senator's ear for several hours; the finite number of hours in the day and of ears attached to Senators make this impossible. Painting Harris as a pro-misogyny and pro-radical Islam overlord immune to the cries of the people -- this piece's clear intention -- is a disingenuous suggestion designed to paint a responsible liberal voice and elected representative as a traitor to human rights -- which is not the case at all. Shame on the Times for giving ink and real estate usually reserved for intelligent commentary to this piece of self-serving misrepresentation.
16
"occurs overseas within an infintiesimal subset of Muslims" Surely you jest. Over a billion Muslims. If only 1% belonged to this subset that is 10,000,000 people. that is hardly infintesimal.
15
Last I heard of Ayaan she had renounced Islam and had become a Christian and based on her experiences I can understand renouncing Islam. Islam encompasses a traditional, hyper-patriarchal culture more typical of hundreds of years ago in non-Muslim, technically advanced cultures - like Europe and North America. So her testimony in opposition is understandable. It's just what she had to say does not bear on Homeland Security and was a waste of the Committee's time.
6
How many times do we tell children "two wrongs don't make a right?". Wrong is wrong is wrong. Democrats should have supported these women and the cause of suffering against which they speak even when the sponsors have other agendas. Stonewalling the message just because it is brought forth by the other side is not the way forward.
23
What were the questions that they SHOULD have asked that would have made you have a more successful testimony? What are the reasons that you seem to claim to know why they asked no questions? Was it perhaps that they were knowledgeable about where you are coming from and your ideological biases so they determined accurately that there was no point in asking you anything further? Get real. This seems more like a highly partisan Anti-Dem hit piece than a serious reflection on the 'Muslim question' and the harm it may do in American politics and life.
20
This kind of Political correctness from the left regarding Islam's treatment of women, and their uninformed support of Palestinian propaganda against Israel, while wearing blinders to the provocations and radical violent values of Hamas in Gaza, is very disturbing to me and I'm a lifelong Democrat and liberal/progressive.
30
Assume nothing. Has anyone asked Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill why they did not question Ayaan and Asra?
11
Ms. Harris is only looking to promote her political career. She is another politician in the Nancy Pelosi image.
10
Please give me an example of a male politician who is not "looking to promote his career". Why are only women politicians supposed to be "above it all"?
13
I applaud the sagacity and courage of the authors to pen this Op-Ed for the NY Times.
I applaud the sagacity and courage of the authors to appear before a Senate hearing to tell of their histories and to advocate for the basic common decencies to be afforded those who find themselves being harassed by those with 8th-Century views on social order, particular the roles of women in society.
LAWS need to be ENACTED to make the the specific types of behavior towards them that of criminal proportions AND those statutes need to be ENFORCED.
As for Senator Harris, specifically, she needs to understand that she is no longer an attorney general with the authority of the State in her hand, and her pleadings are no longer being judged by hand-pickled devotees of the politics du jour of California that have been set on the bench to do the biddings of the liberal voices that she is alleged to be representing.
The actions of the women on the senate committee are as strange as they are inappropriate.
The authors are right to have called them out.
I applaud the sagacity and courage of the authors to appear before a Senate hearing to tell of their histories and to advocate for the basic common decencies to be afforded those who find themselves being harassed by those with 8th-Century views on social order, particular the roles of women in society.
LAWS need to be ENACTED to make the the specific types of behavior towards them that of criminal proportions AND those statutes need to be ENFORCED.
As for Senator Harris, specifically, she needs to understand that she is no longer an attorney general with the authority of the State in her hand, and her pleadings are no longer being judged by hand-pickled devotees of the politics du jour of California that have been set on the bench to do the biddings of the liberal voices that she is alleged to be representing.
The actions of the women on the senate committee are as strange as they are inappropriate.
The authors are right to have called them out.
17
Muslim women will lead their own movement. If they need Kamala Harris, they will approach her and ask for help. Once again, a woman is blamed for not taking on a cause which no one expects a man to do, even when they have been in office for decades. Not to mention, there is a Republican overtone to this article hiding behind liberal key-words. Feels deceptive.
16
Getting mix messages from Democrats?? Shocking!
6
So what did the Republicans ask the women? The article doesn't say, does it?
This is another thinly disguised hit piece on Democrats.
This is another thinly disguised hit piece on Democrats.
11
Anyone remotely aware of women's status, in many countries, is deplorable. One if not the largest transgressor is Saudia Arabia. Yea the democrats get that. That's why we support plan parent hood. It's why we believe women and children refugees deserve refugee status. Sharia law? Yea that's what the conservative Christian want in their own form. Accusing These women of not fighting for women's rights is the most ludicrous argument. Go attack Jeff sessions.
12
There are liberals aplenty who warmly support the cause Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Arsa Nomani advocate. One of the most consequent voices with a longer record on the issue than Hirsi Ali´s is from leading German feminist Alice Schwarzer.
I second the comment by MC from NJ, currently the fourth most recommended one, that is strongly critical of the authors.
Having said that, I also second the criticism the authors put forward. Liberals and progressives could and should speak out louder and more determined, pleading and pressuring for improving women´s rights and human rights of women (and non-Muslims and ethnic minorities) in Muslim countries.
I would like to see the problems identified as specific to religion in general and not as specific to Islam though. Among others Dutch-Iranian author Kader Abdolah has promoted the observation that the Koran was conceived in response to Jews and Christians aggressively oppressing other people, while impressing them with vocal vows to and thumping on apparently pretty successfully unifying books they were upholding and simultaneously abusing to beat people perceived as heathens down with. Mohammed set out to conceive a counter narrative that ended up reflecting most of the behavioral justification of vengeful violence that was "used" by the bible and tanakh thumpers against him and his people.
In short: we are basically fighting the ghosts we called ourselves and still strongly call and dog whistle with(in) our own Christian culture.
I second the comment by MC from NJ, currently the fourth most recommended one, that is strongly critical of the authors.
Having said that, I also second the criticism the authors put forward. Liberals and progressives could and should speak out louder and more determined, pleading and pressuring for improving women´s rights and human rights of women (and non-Muslims and ethnic minorities) in Muslim countries.
I would like to see the problems identified as specific to religion in general and not as specific to Islam though. Among others Dutch-Iranian author Kader Abdolah has promoted the observation that the Koran was conceived in response to Jews and Christians aggressively oppressing other people, while impressing them with vocal vows to and thumping on apparently pretty successfully unifying books they were upholding and simultaneously abusing to beat people perceived as heathens down with. Mohammed set out to conceive a counter narrative that ended up reflecting most of the behavioral justification of vengeful violence that was "used" by the bible and tanakh thumpers against him and his people.
In short: we are basically fighting the ghosts we called ourselves and still strongly call and dog whistle with(in) our own Christian culture.
1
How are western politicians, even those with the best of intentions, supposed to fix the human rights problems that Islam presents without inciting more acts of terrorism?
Our interventions have inevitably exacerbated sectarian violence in the middle east. The Obama administration tried to get the Saudis to address their human rights issues to no avail. Do we isolate problematic regimes, cut off foreign aid, quit buying oil from all the Islamic dictatorships and quit selling them weapons? It seems the more the West objects to human rights violations by Islamic fundamentalists, the more fundamentalists rally to their cause.
We still have work to do in securing civil and human rights for all in the US. But the progress that we have made has taken years of non-violent protest here in America, in a democracy (of sorts), that continues to struggle with these issues. Just how do we oppose Islamist extremism without inciting it?
Our interventions have inevitably exacerbated sectarian violence in the middle east. The Obama administration tried to get the Saudis to address their human rights issues to no avail. Do we isolate problematic regimes, cut off foreign aid, quit buying oil from all the Islamic dictatorships and quit selling them weapons? It seems the more the West objects to human rights violations by Islamic fundamentalists, the more fundamentalists rally to their cause.
We still have work to do in securing civil and human rights for all in the US. But the progress that we have made has taken years of non-violent protest here in America, in a democracy (of sorts), that continues to struggle with these issues. Just how do we oppose Islamist extremism without inciting it?
10
It is difficult for us to change the cultures and religions of our allies and enemies even in the best of times.
It is not, however, that difficult for the United States governments, at all levels, to take strong stands, to make appropriate and enforce appropriate law, and otherwise work to stamp out the practices of medieval "culture" when it arises in our cities, towns, and states.
And, it is debasing to all in which we believe to sit by and do nothing the way that Senator Harris and her four femaile colleagues treated the statements made by these two courageous women who have been subjected to the demeaning and insulting postures of those in the community in which they live.
If liberalism has any meaning, these women should have the open and active support of all liberal members of congress...all members actually no matter what they call themselves politically...and The People of our great nation.
We establish ourselves on the moral high ground by acting as the moral high ground requires.
I, as a citizen and a member of "The People" as defined in our most basic legal documents, am embarrassed that the four females on that committee in attendance at that hearing acted as they did/
They are a disgrace to all that we have stood for over the 260 years of our existence as a republic.
It is not, however, that difficult for the United States governments, at all levels, to take strong stands, to make appropriate and enforce appropriate law, and otherwise work to stamp out the practices of medieval "culture" when it arises in our cities, towns, and states.
And, it is debasing to all in which we believe to sit by and do nothing the way that Senator Harris and her four femaile colleagues treated the statements made by these two courageous women who have been subjected to the demeaning and insulting postures of those in the community in which they live.
If liberalism has any meaning, these women should have the open and active support of all liberal members of congress...all members actually no matter what they call themselves politically...and The People of our great nation.
We establish ourselves on the moral high ground by acting as the moral high ground requires.
I, as a citizen and a member of "The People" as defined in our most basic legal documents, am embarrassed that the four females on that committee in attendance at that hearing acted as they did/
They are a disgrace to all that we have stood for over the 260 years of our existence as a republic.
10
There is a mix-up of the issues here by SLB. The more important cause of Islamic violence everywhere and in the Middle East is the Bush Administration’s bombing and destruction of Iraq, the way Saddam Hussein and Gadafi were hunted down and finished, how Iraq economy was ruined, and otherwise how historically Islamic countries have been dealt with. There is Muslim fundamentalism, but it is not is triggered or aggravated by telling them about human rights violations. Their violent acts are just random and generally there is no rationale underlying that violence. The educated and progressive Muslims against Sharia law or against female circumcision face the fate of Ayaan or Asra. Vast majorities of women accept their fate under some group think or social compliance or under threats, or intimidation, or false promises. Most are too scared. But our Senators need to condemn violence of any kind in any form even if politically incorrect. Freedom to think and speak out is fundamental to all humans including Muslim women.
1
This is an important OP-ED written by two brave women. My concern is that the liberalism noted in the closing paragraph is the traditional liberalism (as practiced in the 19th Century by luminaries such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill).
When female federally elected Democrats are forced to decide on which side of the fence they sit, those at this hearing chose the progressive/socialist side, not the traditional liberal side. As our authors have opined, this may not be the universally appropriate position to stake out.
When female federally elected Democrats are forced to decide on which side of the fence they sit, those at this hearing chose the progressive/socialist side, not the traditional liberal side. As our authors have opined, this may not be the universally appropriate position to stake out.
11
The Senators are representing the United States government and its policies regarding Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs - it was not a hearing on human rights abroad or an opportunity to pass judgment on Islam as a whole. The first amendment of the US Constitution makes it quite clear that it is not Congress' place to do so - as quoted below:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Of course systematic misogyny and sexism practiced by Islamist (or any other) groups outside the US are serious crimes against humanity. But the US Congress doesn't police the world, it is there to pass laws to protect and serve the Constitution and the law-abiding citizens of the United States.
Senator Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill simply appear to understand what the limits of their power and responsibilities are given the situation - unlike those who think that limiting travel to and from the US is a valid venue for religious and cultural discrimination and condemnation regardless of innocence or guilt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Of course systematic misogyny and sexism practiced by Islamist (or any other) groups outside the US are serious crimes against humanity. But the US Congress doesn't police the world, it is there to pass laws to protect and serve the Constitution and the law-abiding citizens of the United States.
Senator Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill simply appear to understand what the limits of their power and responsibilities are given the situation - unlike those who think that limiting travel to and from the US is a valid venue for religious and cultural discrimination and condemnation regardless of innocence or guilt.
12
"...Senator Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill simply appear to understand what the limits of their power and responsibilities are given the situation....'
No. I see it more as a conscious political choice on the part of these senators not to be seen on this grandstand.
There's was a political choice, not a moral or practical one. They did not want to offend in front of the cameras those to whom they have been pandering for the votes to get or to keep them in office in which they have or would like to have become comfortable.
No. I see it more as a conscious political choice on the part of these senators not to be seen on this grandstand.
There's was a political choice, not a moral or practical one. They did not want to offend in front of the cameras those to whom they have been pandering for the votes to get or to keep them in office in which they have or would like to have become comfortable.
10
Comparing sushing of Senator Kamala Harris by a male colleague in a middle of a public hearing with "her not asking these two commentators questions" are not one and the same. This article makes it "a behavioral equivalency" argument...which is not right.
I understand the women commentators' disappointment that Ms Harris did not speak openly against Shariah's laws that attack women. But is that her job?
Ms Harris might speak on specific laws, its applications and its consequences for women...but it is not her job to speak on Shariah laws generally.
Why don't the women in this article hold a hearing specifically on Shariah laws and its impact on women...and invite men and women Senators and the public to that? Why single out Kamala Harris. who, in many ways, is a minority within a minority?
I understand the women commentators' disappointment that Ms Harris did not speak openly against Shariah's laws that attack women. But is that her job?
Ms Harris might speak on specific laws, its applications and its consequences for women...but it is not her job to speak on Shariah laws generally.
Why don't the women in this article hold a hearing specifically on Shariah laws and its impact on women...and invite men and women Senators and the public to that? Why single out Kamala Harris. who, in many ways, is a minority within a minority?
22
Yes. It is her job. For justice. For women. You either buy into the concept of equality or you don't. Not fair to pick and choose.
3
I agree, Shanaline.
I would suggest that if the Democrats were serious about peeling off the conservative independent, those necessary to win elections in this nation, they should propose and champion a return of the Equal Rights Amendment.
I would suggest that if the Democrats were serious about peeling off the conservative independent, those necessary to win elections in this nation, they should propose and champion a return of the Equal Rights Amendment.
4
"...[M]inority within a minority?
This takes victimization to a whole new level !.
This takes victimization to a whole new level !.
2
Who are these people in the comments? We, the people of California, sent our aggressive attorney general -- she was a prosecutor before that -- to occupy the seat vacated by Barbara Boxer, no wall flower herself.
Sen. Harris is doing what we sent her there to do. Making Jeff Sessions nervous is part of it.
Sen. Harris is doing what we sent her there to do. Making Jeff Sessions nervous is part of it.
34
A very strange comment indeed. You sent Kamala Harris to Washington to ignore women who were there to speak about their experiences of abuse inflicted on them by persons who justified it as a proper form of religious practice in a session in which that subject was being addressed?
11
Her problem, Occupy, is that she is no long playing to judges appointed by an extremely liberal governor to do the bidding of the liberal "electorate" that perpetuates the hackery that has marred the California political scene for decades.
She is now in a place where political skills are paramount.
And unless y'all in California elected her to a "Negative Nancy", she is doing you cause little good and a great deal of harm.
She runs the risk of being a soul-sister of Nancy Pelosi and in a two-way race for being the most politically destructive personality the Democrats have ever seen.
You perhaps need to note that under Pelosi's leadership, she has not only lost control of the House of Representatives by a staggering margin, and in the last election cycle has managed to recover only ONE seat in an election that was the Democrats' to lose.
You've done yourselves no favors, sir.
She is now in a place where political skills are paramount.
And unless y'all in California elected her to a "Negative Nancy", she is doing you cause little good and a great deal of harm.
She runs the risk of being a soul-sister of Nancy Pelosi and in a two-way race for being the most politically destructive personality the Democrats have ever seen.
You perhaps need to note that under Pelosi's leadership, she has not only lost control of the House of Representatives by a staggering margin, and in the last election cycle has managed to recover only ONE seat in an election that was the Democrats' to lose.
You've done yourselves no favors, sir.
7
Whatever valid point this editorial is trying to drive home is completely eclipsed by the flawed opening salvo (weirdly backed up by the title and photo running with the piece). Male Republican senators aggressively attempted to shut up Senator Harris during her questioning of the Attorney General. To try to draw some parallel to the way Senator Harris "did not ask…a single question" of the authors of this editorial? It smacks of a rank hit piece.
52
One has nothing to do with the other.
2
Ms. Harris forgot that she was no longer an attorney general protected by generations of political appointees to the California bench who have endorsed her political ideology.
A senate hearing is not a cross-examination. And even in court when questioning is cross-examination, the court is required by the Rules of Procedure to answer the question that is asked.
A senate hearing is not a cross-examination. And even in court when questioning is cross-examination, the court is required by the Rules of Procedure to answer the question that is asked.
5
Poor reporter! Kamala Harris didn't have time to talk to you and hurt your feelings. So, you do a hit piece on her!? Sowing seeds of discord on left. That's appalling.
27
NO ONE on the left will ever cut ANYONE on the left any slack. Jesus, and we ask why we can't win elections? It's because of opinion pieces like this. Slice and dice Harris now and then bemoan the lack of leaders later. What about consulting with the four female senators via email or phone call BEFORE writing such a piece.
6
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called for the complete destruction of Islam in the past. She has seemed to moderate her stance in public. She is closely identified with extremist Republicans who sponsored her move to the US from the Netherlands. She has worked for rightwing think tanks since she moved here.
Ali is accusing those Democratic women senators of not caring about the restrictions and horrors visited upon girls and women in majority Muslim countries because they failed to ask her questions about topics that they certainly know about. A common tactic of Republicans who oppose true equality of women is to deflect attention from our efforts by stating that American women are better off than women in Muslim countries. Of course, we are. That does not mean stat we should stop fighting for our right to equality here.
Johnson is a rightwing senator who opposes any advance in women's rights in the US. So, why does he care about Muslim women? If he does care, why did he invite a woman who lied to gain political asylum in The Netherlands and called for the total destruction of Islam, a religion whose most liberal members are likely US citizens? She is a problematic witness, at best.
Is Johnson looking for support for another invasion of a Muslim country to rescue its women? I'm sure that he doesn't care a bit about women anywhere except when they may further his nefarious agenda. I applaud the Dem women senators who refused to be used by him.
Ali is accusing those Democratic women senators of not caring about the restrictions and horrors visited upon girls and women in majority Muslim countries because they failed to ask her questions about topics that they certainly know about. A common tactic of Republicans who oppose true equality of women is to deflect attention from our efforts by stating that American women are better off than women in Muslim countries. Of course, we are. That does not mean stat we should stop fighting for our right to equality here.
Johnson is a rightwing senator who opposes any advance in women's rights in the US. So, why does he care about Muslim women? If he does care, why did he invite a woman who lied to gain political asylum in The Netherlands and called for the total destruction of Islam, a religion whose most liberal members are likely US citizens? She is a problematic witness, at best.
Is Johnson looking for support for another invasion of a Muslim country to rescue its women? I'm sure that he doesn't care a bit about women anywhere except when they may further his nefarious agenda. I applaud the Dem women senators who refused to be used by him.
43
Thanks for this, absolutely on point.
6
Right on and Nomani is a Trump supporter who has been trashing people (Mariane Pearl) for small slights forever. Attention seeking seems high on her agenda.
10
I am a left wing, liberal, progressive, senior citizen; I am for the environment, common sense gun control and support LGBTQ rights; I voted for Clinton and abhor Trump but when it comes to religious fundamentalism of any denomination, I am a woman first. In my experience most fundamentalist thought enshrines the view that women are just so much second class chattel. This is where the left in their blind support of Islam doesn't speak to me. This is where the right in their blind support of repressive reproductive measures (defunding Planned Parenthood in a "health care" bill!) doesn't speak to me. Get fundamentalism whether Christian, Jewish, Islamist or brand-X out of politics. While I applaud these women's efforts toward "reform" Islam, I doubt it will make any difference. Witness the protective measures they must take just to testify. Fundamentalism is insidious, regressive, narrow-minded and damaging to women. Most importantly it is damaging to our future.
257
I'm glad the NYT posted this article. I'm sad that the NYT and their ilk on the ideological left don't see the facts relevant to the issue at hand: progressives are aggressive in protecting women and minorities when it's politically expedient. There is no principle associated with that protection; when the victims are Muslim or immigrant or European (how many women were accosted/raped by immigrants in Germany, England, France?) the left looks the other way.
Shameful.
Shameful.
29
Excuse me, but as a leftist feminist I have never "looked the other way" regarding these issues. There is not a whole lot I can do as a private citizen, but these issues have been on feminist radar for a long time, long before most people had heard of the Taliban and their ilk. I have always done what I can with whatever platform I had (and I had some) to bring these issues to the fore, and am not the only person doing so, if you would look around a little. I don't believe the Republican senators who asked questions give two shakes about women's equality and no doubt support some fundamentalist Christian ideas about women, which share some traits of other fundamentalist religions. See, Pence, Mike. The alarmist news about increasing rapes in Europe has proven to be overblown, see, e.g., http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/. FWIW, I believe the issue has more to do with those who reject the whole idea of modernity (usually fundamentalists) and those who accept it who tend to believe in what we call western liberal values, which of course many Muslims do.
5
This is a lie. These issues have been addressed by the left for decades. I didn't even know anything about FGM until I read more than two decades ago that Alice Walker donated a portion of the royalties of one of her books to
fight this atrocity worldwide. It's the right that has swept these issues under the rug!
fight this atrocity worldwide. It's the right that has swept these issues under the rug!
3
Eloquent, pithy, and hard-hitting. Blows the lid off a difficult and sensitive issue that Progressives are handling very poorly.
23
Actually, it is a difficult and sensitive issue that the "Progressives" really want to go away.
The issue shines a spotlight on the two-faced approach that the "Progressives" frequently take on sensitive issues.
The issue shines a spotlight on the two-faced approach that the "Progressives" frequently take on sensitive issues.
4
"Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India."
Asra Nomani has supported and defended Trump's "Muslim Ban" from several countries which includes Somalia. Thanks to "extreme vetting," chances are that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would not have made it to Washington to testify were she traveling from Somalia.
The two of them need to work that out before getting all caught up about Kamala Harris and others not asking them any questions.
It is interesting that this opinion piece is more focused on Kamala Harris and other Democratic Senators than about "political Islam" and "Islamic extremism."
Asra Nomani has supported and defended Trump's "Muslim Ban" from several countries which includes Somalia. Thanks to "extreme vetting," chances are that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would not have made it to Washington to testify were she traveling from Somalia.
The two of them need to work that out before getting all caught up about Kamala Harris and others not asking them any questions.
It is interesting that this opinion piece is more focused on Kamala Harris and other Democratic Senators than about "political Islam" and "Islamic extremism."
51
Do you think there should be any vetting? Josh Ernest said that the vetting would be vigorous. One of Obama's head intelligence people said it was not possible, given that records in the middle east had been destroyed.
5
Only in the funhouse mirror maze of postmodern social theory are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her husband, the historian Niall Ferguson, “right wingers.” The ideological positions that have wormed their way out of the academic left to lodge in our day to day politics have utterly hollowed out the idea of liberalism as a force for freedom, justice, and progress.
26
I broke ways with a Muslim friend after many years of lunches, meetings, and discussions because he was adamant that it "wouldn't hurt anybody" to create prayer rooms in public schools for Muslim students. He had no concept of the separation of church and state. This is, of course, the way Christianity used to be -- in medieval, and even later Europe, each country was defined by its religion, and religious figures were important in the government. Much of Christian education in times past came through monasteries or other church institutions. America has moved past that and we are better for it.
28
If you are friends with Christians, almost certainly some of them - possibly a majority in , say, the bible belt or NW Iowa, wd agree that prayer rooms in public schools are fine
9
Under current law religious groups requesting room in a school to hold meetings for whatever purpose must be given equal access if there are other groups that are given space for meetings whatever the topic. Faculty involvement must be casual in nature meaning that the meetings must be student directed and initiated.
During the time of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush Muslim and Islamic students requested meeting space under the Equal Access law. This was granted. As a site administator at the time I had no problem with the request. For my own education I attended one or two of he groups meetings to better understand their belief and needs. In the bigger picture of school and community culture open dialogue, safety, and enhanced civil discourse was the anticipated outcome. Some community adults took offense. This was to be expected. I was hoping that those from the political forums would rise to the occasion in defense of frredom. As to be expected this level of interaction followed the local cultural temperment.
During the time of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush Muslim and Islamic students requested meeting space under the Equal Access law. This was granted. As a site administator at the time I had no problem with the request. For my own education I attended one or two of he groups meetings to better understand their belief and needs. In the bigger picture of school and community culture open dialogue, safety, and enhanced civil discourse was the anticipated outcome. Some community adults took offense. This was to be expected. I was hoping that those from the political forums would rise to the occasion in defense of frredom. As to be expected this level of interaction followed the local cultural temperment.
4
"moved past it" ??? Don't we close schools every Church Sunday?
Come on kids, this is how it works on the Hill these days. Each party only asks questions of their own witnesses. This is true for both Rs and Ds. How about some bipartisan indignation rather than a dishonest smear on the Ds?
30
And they only ask questions when they already know the answers to those questions. Ladies I am sorry that your your testimony fell on deaf ears but you learned a bitter lesson today about how politics works just don't let it jade you about your mission which is continuing to tell the truth to all who will listen.
1
The issue here is the left's fear of the right's reactionary politics; it is cowardly, patronizing, and reactionary in its own right. The mainstream left (those not lost to pure identity-based ideology) fear what the right would do if the left spoke against extreme religious textual adherence. They feel the need to protect the majority of religious believers from the scapegoating that woudl ensue from the right if they spoke harshly against the views of extremist believers.
It is an untenable position. This is an issue that must be fought on two fronts - protect universal human rights in the face of bad ideologies promulgated by archaic religious texts and protect mainstream people of faith from being labeled extremist by the bigoted right. We must be rational, sensible, and allow for a multiplicity of realities, otherwise we merely foment the hatred expressed by extremists on both sides of the debate.
It is an untenable position. This is an issue that must be fought on two fronts - protect universal human rights in the face of bad ideologies promulgated by archaic religious texts and protect mainstream people of faith from being labeled extremist by the bigoted right. We must be rational, sensible, and allow for a multiplicity of realities, otherwise we merely foment the hatred expressed by extremists on both sides of the debate.
15
Did any men ignore you also? Or are you just singling out the women to appeal to the conservatives you are clearly trying to impress.
It's disturbing to see you take a shot at "identity politics" while using your own identities as a basis for people taking you seriously. I believe the latter is accurate (not to say that I agree with all of your positions, I wasn't at the hearing, but your identities give you an important voice on these topics). The trouble is that people (conservatives most often) use "identity politics" as an epithet when people they disagree with try to have a voice - don't join them in that process!
It's disturbing to see you take a shot at "identity politics" while using your own identities as a basis for people taking you seriously. I believe the latter is accurate (not to say that I agree with all of your positions, I wasn't at the hearing, but your identities give you an important voice on these topics). The trouble is that people (conservatives most often) use "identity politics" as an epithet when people they disagree with try to have a voice - don't join them in that process!
21
The only American (or indeed Western) feminist I have heard speak out against Islam on the basis of its violently harmful anti-female ideology is Phyllis Chesler. All the others hide behind their privileged, safe lives to denounce 'Islamophobia'. News flash people: Islam is not a progressive religion if you are a woman. That is not a statement of prejudice, but a statement of fact. Read your Koran and you will discover that many of the so called extremists are just following the orders of their God (who is infallible and not subject to change). "Working together" with other faiths is not Islamic and is self defeating for those of us who are not Muslims.
24
Sorry, but the idea that Ms. Harris does not take "Islamism" seriously is absurd, as is the idea that the women of Congress do not take female issues like FGM seriously. THEY DO. If the women who wrote this article are going to preach to anyone let it be to the MEN of the Congress, like Mitch McConnell and his all male, old and white coterie who are now drafting this cruel "healthcare" bill that will effectively destroy Planned Parenthood. Spare me.
44
Why? Why should women who disagree politically be entitled to ignore other women because of their politics? You are making excuses for bad conduct. Abused women should only present their opinions and positions to while men? This is misogyny on your part.
2
Some here defend their stance against the two authors with statements like: 'It is a problem of the 'Islamic world and not ours'. These comments are factual wrong, they are right here in the secular world. An actual event: The German Islamic scholar, lawyer and feminist, Seyran Ates, founded a mosque for liberal Moslems where women can pray together with men and without the demand of wearing a head scarf. Now she is getting death threats from Moslems in Germany but also from the religious leaders in Egypt and Turkey and she needs protection by the German police. Women aren't accepted as equal and especially not as leaders in the existing Islamic teachings. Take down your partisan sunglasses, please.
22
It is ironic that the two ladies testifying in front of the committee, while accusing the Senators of "politicizing" the feminist and/or human rights issues, are there to politicize the left's "inaction" in the areas they are interested in, which coincidentally aligns with the right's anti-Islam hysteria. That is what Senator Claire McCaskill said, and refused the join in on the circus.
I'm sure those ladies don't like the genital mutilation or any other perversion of the religious extremism type, but you're not going to eradicate that by burning Islam at the stake. In the famous words of our President-elect: "Witch Hunt!"
I'm sure those ladies don't like the genital mutilation or any other perversion of the religious extremism type, but you're not going to eradicate that by burning Islam at the stake. In the famous words of our President-elect: "Witch Hunt!"
20
Thank you for supporting my point that McCaskill's and Harris' actions in ignoring the women was for the purpose of making it clear to all that their view of women's rights is that only some women should have them - those who are in political lockstep with the left. All others do not have a right not to be mutilated or otherwise abused by people who hate them. An unfortunate, glaring, and myopic hypocrisy.
2
If I recall Hirsi Alli was a supporter of Geert Wilders, was she not? Or am I mistaken?
15
You are correct
2
So what?
5
Brilliant article. I am so thankful for the voices of these women.
19
The Occam's Razor explanation of the "progressive" blind eye to Islamic misogyny is simply "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The libs enmity toward conservatives, Christians and American traditionalism trumps their feminism.
18
These articulate, intelligent women seem to have no problem insulting progressive women who are clearly on their side. Female mutilation:Is it really a good idea to add another item to the list that generates identity politics and consequently Republican demagogues?
The authors sound very angry and extremist.
The authors sound very angry and extremist.
14
Thank you for this article. The silence of the liberal women on this issue has been very troubling.
31
Sixty years ago, U.S. Christian conservatives were as afraid of, and as opposed to, Judaism and Catholicism as are now opposed to Islam. Once they "got to know" Jewish and Catholic peoples, they teamed up nicely with the right wing elements of those religions to help deny women many rights. In time, I fully expect these conservative Christian opponents of Islam will learn to get along with Islamic peoples, especially the anti-woman elements thereof. Liberals, otoh, will continue to fight for women's rights everywhere, not simply pretend to do so while practicing religious bigotry.
8
But they are not "fighting for women's rights" They are ignoring them. These women are Muslims, not Christians.
3
The have their rights. They got to speak in front of Senators, which is more than I or many other women have been able to do.
2
But this is just weird. These women were given a platform and said what they wanted to say. Some other people said what THEY wanted to say. The fact that they were not able to control the speech of others did not mean that they themselves were silenced. They say:
"We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism."
And so they did. Looking at what they say here, and their testimony that was entered into the record, it looks to me like part of the thrust of their testimony was that Islam is fundamental to various belligerent and misogynistic practices.
Other people expressed a different viewpoint, saying that Islam is not inherently oppressive to women.
The fact that somebody expresses a viewpoint contrary to your own doesn't mean that they are silencing you. Some of what they say here makes sense and is a matter of public concern, but what I want to know is, are they incorrectly universalizing the problems they describe. If their argument is sound, why are they adulterating it by dishonestly characterizing Harris's sitting quietly and listening to them as some kind of censorship?
"We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism."
And so they did. Looking at what they say here, and their testimony that was entered into the record, it looks to me like part of the thrust of their testimony was that Islam is fundamental to various belligerent and misogynistic practices.
Other people expressed a different viewpoint, saying that Islam is not inherently oppressive to women.
The fact that somebody expresses a viewpoint contrary to your own doesn't mean that they are silencing you. Some of what they say here makes sense and is a matter of public concern, but what I want to know is, are they incorrectly universalizing the problems they describe. If their argument is sound, why are they adulterating it by dishonestly characterizing Harris's sitting quietly and listening to them as some kind of censorship?
34
Liberty protects the rights of the oppressed as a main purpose. Progressiveness attack right-wing with all means as a main purpose. Countless liberty values being under attack from the Left, but every article like this one goes into right-wing discussion in the comments. People are not interested in liberty anymore. Progressive agenda with "hate speech" restrictions, "wrong" political views and socialism ...this is not liberty.
8
All the "hate speech" I have heard has come from the right.
1
The hearing ,in which Ms. Ali and Nomani are complicit, is just another Republican scam to discredit the left and take a shot at two strong liberal women in the senate. The Republicans just got done drooling over Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and he said nothing about women’s oppression in a country that allows and funds these exact behaviors. Ivanka even went as far as to praise the Saudis for their new support of women. The issues these women bring up are valid and deserve to be discussed, but when the real purpose of the hearing is a political “gotcha” combined with a self-serving article that plays into the agenda of a party trying to take away the reproductive rights of the women in the U.S. is just too partisan and hypocritical to believe. That Ali and Nomani choose to be Republican tools is proof that the true purpose of this article’s tirade is not to have a real discussion of the important issues they say they care about, but to again play politics with the lives of women while the Republicans advance their agenda of repression of women’s right here in the U.S. We need to stand up to the oppression of women everywhere, but that is not anything Republicans care about or want to advance. Ali and Nomani are obvious and willing tools of a repressive regime right here is the U.S and are therefore, without credibility in their attack of two women who are working and dealing with a white male dominated system every time they go out to represent their constituents.
20
As others have pointed out, the purpose of the hearing was to bolster a case for the travel ban. For Ayaan and Asra to volunteer themselves as pawns in this way is, to me, troubling.
However, the content of their speech and the ideas they present are spot on. As members of a republic born out of the Enlightenment, to criticise the belief structure of Islam is our obligation. To stand up for those that this belief system wishes to oppress is justified.
And for those that brush these accusations aside with the flippant utterance, "Islam is a religion of peace," I encourage you to read about the 'peaceful' life that Ayaan (and millions of women like her) has endured at the hands of the pious.
However, the content of their speech and the ideas they present are spot on. As members of a republic born out of the Enlightenment, to criticise the belief structure of Islam is our obligation. To stand up for those that this belief system wishes to oppress is justified.
And for those that brush these accusations aside with the flippant utterance, "Islam is a religion of peace," I encourage you to read about the 'peaceful' life that Ayaan (and millions of women like her) has endured at the hands of the pious.
15
I don't think anyone, certainly not Senator Harris, doubts that the lot of women in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. is not good. On the other hand, I have to put it back to the authors and ask so, exactly what do you think the US can and should do? We can't realistically go to war against all of these countries at once, and colonize/assimilate/occupy them, at gunpoint, until they agree to change their laws, societies and cultures to mimic some Western model of equality (i.e., I want to see the exact plan to turn Afghanistan and Somalia into Iceland).
So what happens is that women's rights, rights of religious minorities and civil liberties generally become something we use as a justification for international action -- military or otherwise -- selectively and as a proxy or smokescreen for some other agenda. Including, as Senator McCaskill is very aware, an anti-Islam agenda.
Somehow, we end up attacking or interfering with only the poorer and weaker regimes. If you have enough oil or enough nukes or enough factories we are dependent on for cheap stuff, you get to do pretty much whatever you want when it comes to women's rights and civil liberties.
Let's get our own house in order first. Let's stop saying women employed in secular occupations by for-profit businesses can be denied access to contraception coverage because of the religious beliefs of their bosses. Just to pick one example. This is the kind of "America First" I can get behind.
So what happens is that women's rights, rights of religious minorities and civil liberties generally become something we use as a justification for international action -- military or otherwise -- selectively and as a proxy or smokescreen for some other agenda. Including, as Senator McCaskill is very aware, an anti-Islam agenda.
Somehow, we end up attacking or interfering with only the poorer and weaker regimes. If you have enough oil or enough nukes or enough factories we are dependent on for cheap stuff, you get to do pretty much whatever you want when it comes to women's rights and civil liberties.
Let's get our own house in order first. Let's stop saying women employed in secular occupations by for-profit businesses can be denied access to contraception coverage because of the religious beliefs of their bosses. Just to pick one example. This is the kind of "America First" I can get behind.
11
Good points, which should have been made in discussions with the two authors during the hearings, when they could actually respond.
Why were they not? Because the Democrats were not interested in displaying the most basic respect for Ali and Nomani, just dismissal.
Senator Harris' expression on the picture says it all....
Why were they not? Because the Democrats were not interested in displaying the most basic respect for Ali and Nomani, just dismissal.
Senator Harris' expression on the picture says it all....
8
And that you believe you can determine what someone thinks, supports or does not simply by the expression on their face in a newspaper photo says more about you, perhaps, than you might actually care people to know.
1
I'm not sure if the picture was taken from the hearing in question, although it was obviously taken sometime "this month." Kamala Harris was doggedly persistent with AG Sessions because he was acting evasively, dishonestly, and uncooperatively, avoiding a simple, direct answer in response to a simple, direct question. Her being quiet shouldn't be taken as disrespect or a lack of interest. Besides, some issues maybe she doesn't believe should have come to this particular committee, because she knows something we don't, such that she doesn't believe these value-laden, cultural, and sexist practices are not the concerns of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Give the women senators a break!
2
Can we just stop demonizing each other and focus on solving problems? Of course people aren't going to agree. Wasting energy on hating each other is dangerous. Republicans may fight with each other, but when it comes time to defeat people who care about other people who aren't wealthy and powerful, they have no problem.
I know it's easier to be angry than to admit that we all have differences and try to solve problems, but it's only our habitable earth, our health, and our commons that are at risk. We'll have to stop the infighting.
Earlier I noticed a comment that complained about Republicans demonizing Nancy Pelosi without giving cause, and then turned right around and bashed her without cause. Why is it OK for Democrats to bash each other. You're just doing the Republicans homework for them.
There are as many different opinions (and, dare I say it, religion or spiritual values) as there are people on earth. We have to try to get along. There is no other choice.
I know it's easier to be angry than to admit that we all have differences and try to solve problems, but it's only our habitable earth, our health, and our commons that are at risk. We'll have to stop the infighting.
Earlier I noticed a comment that complained about Republicans demonizing Nancy Pelosi without giving cause, and then turned right around and bashed her without cause. Why is it OK for Democrats to bash each other. You're just doing the Republicans homework for them.
There are as many different opinions (and, dare I say it, religion or spiritual values) as there are people on earth. We have to try to get along. There is no other choice.
6
One problem is that the two authors have extreme right wing credentials. The so called Hoover institution is nothing but a right wing funding mechanism. While I agree with them in these particular issues I'll bet they are not progressive in any other way. They scared away all possible allies with the views they don't reveal here.
19
This is exactly the problem with liberal dogma on the subject of political Islam. Banning any kind of dissent about the barbaric practices of a medieval interpretation of a religion is exactly what liberals should be fighting against, yet their sympathy for Islam has reached such a point that the dissent itself s demonized. This leaves no other platform for reformers like Ali besides right-wing organizations.
The fact that Western liberals have come to glorify the hijab as some kind of feminist symbol is breathtakingly absurd. Feminism in the West is on the frontier of fighting for breastfeeding while giving speeches in public - feminism in Islam is fighting for the right to leave the house without a man present. Yet these women are criticized and threatened by the very people who should be standing up for them? Are we really so infatuated with Islam that we won't even hold them to medieval standards of conduct toward other people? The hypocrisy of so-called "liberals" on this subject never fails to amaze.
The fact that Western liberals have come to glorify the hijab as some kind of feminist symbol is breathtakingly absurd. Feminism in the West is on the frontier of fighting for breastfeeding while giving speeches in public - feminism in Islam is fighting for the right to leave the house without a man present. Yet these women are criticized and threatened by the very people who should be standing up for them? Are we really so infatuated with Islam that we won't even hold them to medieval standards of conduct toward other people? The hypocrisy of so-called "liberals" on this subject never fails to amaze.
12
And to you, the fact that are conservative means it is okay if their genitals are mutilated, their bodies treated as property, and they are abused. That is exactly what you are saying, and you are also saying that it excuses Kamala Harris and others from speaking out against their abusers and the extremism that supports it. Which also means that Kamala and her ilk are really just phonies - they stand for rights for the women who agree with them politically only. All others do not count. That, Mickey D is the definition of hypocrisy.
17
The Hoover Institute has their back, not because they are right wing, but because my Liberal tribe is unwilling to acknowledge that its quest for quality is distorted and immoral if it cannot identify evil and anti liberal ideologies and religions jut because such a conversation might offend a group. It is as if Liberals need to ignore the Enlightenment values that give us our rights and protections so not to offend those with dangerous and opposite values. Some cultures and religions just are better than others.
8
Alil and Nomani do as good a job as anyone of explaining why Democrats will not win the White House and Congress back for some time. When you blind yourself to genital mutilation to preserve an ill advised solicitation of an identity group, don't be surprised to see your votes eroding slowly but surely.
An arab political observer on a progressive radio station yesterday remarked that the welcome Donald Trump received in Saudi Arabia (custodian of things most sacred in Islam) was unlike anything he had ever received anywhere - and ever will.
Somebody please put neo-liberalism out of its misery before I have to read one more headline about Chelsea speaking out against fat shaming.
An arab political observer on a progressive radio station yesterday remarked that the welcome Donald Trump received in Saudi Arabia (custodian of things most sacred in Islam) was unlike anything he had ever received anywhere - and ever will.
Somebody please put neo-liberalism out of its misery before I have to read one more headline about Chelsea speaking out against fat shaming.
22
Rubbish - so where are the Republican women's outcry? This is just ridiculous
11
Even if you line up on the Democratic side of things, the facts remain that Harris had at best a mixed record as the DA in SF and was a very middling AG, if that, and one who herself often showed little regard for the law or established rights. Insofar as this article lauds her supposed skill as a cross-examiner, most effective trial lawyers will tell you that you don't have to control a witness through shouting down interruption or by limiting a witness to the wooden "yes" or "no" answer--juries, like the Court of public opinion, easily see through such such clumsy lawyer tactics. Harris has had a charmed political life to be sure, but she is no role model for lawyers or women who aspire to be good ones.
17
All very true. Not to mention she got her start in government and politics as Willie Brown's (former Speaker of the State Assembly) mistress.
1
"confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world."
" When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say."
It makes perfect sense for senators to focus on American issues like "pay gap, abortion access, job discrimination." I'm in complete sympathy with the authors' view that the treatment of women in the Islamic world is one of the most important "global issues" of our time. BUT, what do they expect the Senate to do about it?
Change in this area will come from (a) the Islamic world itself, (b) concerted action by the rest of the World (which is not the same as the US acting alone, (c) some combination. The most important change is (a). (b) without (a) won't accomplish anything.
" When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say."
It makes perfect sense for senators to focus on American issues like "pay gap, abortion access, job discrimination." I'm in complete sympathy with the authors' view that the treatment of women in the Islamic world is one of the most important "global issues" of our time. BUT, what do they expect the Senate to do about it?
Change in this area will come from (a) the Islamic world itself, (b) concerted action by the rest of the World (which is not the same as the US acting alone, (c) some combination. The most important change is (a). (b) without (a) won't accomplish anything.
16
MKR - It makes perfect sense for senators to focus on American issues...I'm in complete sympathy with the authors' view that the treatment of women in the Islamic world is one of the most important "global issues" of our time. BUT, what do they expect the Senate to do about it?
Yet when Trump thinks and acts America first he is hounded by the globalist Democrats for not thinking about the rest of the world.
Yet when Trump thinks and acts America first he is hounded by the globalist Democrats for not thinking about the rest of the world.
2
Trump's brand of America first isn't helping America, is it? If it was, more people would support it.
1
If these two women are such strong supporters of women's rights, why are they both associated with or formerly associated with right wing American institutions? And why are they Trump supporters?
37
Maybe because the left refuses to listen?
4
Really weak-- I don't see any strength in the authors or the article. Waiting for tough questions?
5
Because the democrats have turned their backs on them and their issues.
3
American progressives have enough trouble trying to protect the human rights of American women. We sympathize with Muslim women who are abused, but we cannot police the world. We need to apply our limited powers to aiding our own in the struggle against domestic violence, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and abuse of our children. Conservatives in Congress voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Noone benefits by our complaining about other nations that we cannot change. Here at home we try to protect all women, regardless of their religion, and we have a long way to go.
Noone benefits by our complaining about other nations that we cannot change. Here at home we try to protect all women, regardless of their religion, and we have a long way to go.
17
Organized "liberalism" and "progressives" in modern America are profoundly illiberal, reactionary and anti American-values. This is an example.
19
At one level, I applaud this piece and agree that we liberal/progressive feminists have a lot to learn, especially about culturally relativizing the oppression of women around the world. Thank you, Ayaan Hirsi Alie and Asra Q. Nomani, for your courage and the witness of your lives.
At another level, I imagine more was, and is, going on in the minds of the 4 Democratic women Senators -- McCaskill, Hassan, Heitkamp, and Harris -- than meets the eye. I suspect these senators knew more than we do about the motives for this hearing and how the witnesses were being manipulated by the GOP to stir American fears of Islam and hatred of Moslems.
At another level, I imagine more was, and is, going on in the minds of the 4 Democratic women Senators -- McCaskill, Hassan, Heitkamp, and Harris -- than meets the eye. I suspect these senators knew more than we do about the motives for this hearing and how the witnesses were being manipulated by the GOP to stir American fears of Islam and hatred of Moslems.
27
No one uses Ayaan. She's too smart and has her own opinions as a free thinker. She had an opportunity to say her piece and she took it, nothing more. The unwillingness of the panel to ask questions shows that they weren't listening, don't take the situation seriously enough or just don't understand it. Islamism is not just a problem in the Arab world, but a world wide one. We need sensible, open minded Muslims who are willing to fight extremism without being defensive and acting like this isn't their problem.
2
Ali is a mixed bag. Although she was an outspoken and often daring advocate for the rights of Muslim women, much of her own personal story has been debunked, including whether or not she was in a forced marriage. When she was kicked out of the Netherlands for lying on an asylum application (you know, the kind of thing we throw Mexicans out for here) she was welcomed here and became the darling of conservatives and anti-Muslims. That look on Kamala Harris' face in the online version of this piece about sums up the look any progressive should give Ali.
26
She was mutilated by zealots so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all she has to say.
10
I am certainly not a fan of Jeff Sessions and consider myself a liberal. But, Senator Harris continually interrupted him and didn't allow for a response. She had time limitations and wanted to avoid him using much of it up, but she did not serve the Democratic party or the country by her belligerent posture and mode of questioning. Be demanding of your testifiers, but maintain civility.
15
Well, Kamala's 2020 campaign has just taken a severe hit.
11
Lots more hits to come as people outside of California start learning more about her checkered history
1
I note that Ms Hirsan Ali doesn't mention that she is married to Niall Ferguson the right wing British historian and worked closely with Theo Van Gogh the Dutch film director who was criticised for anti Islamic views (and later murdered). Given her alignment with anti immigrant factions of the Republican Party Ms Harris' lack of enthusiasm may be explicable
27
Yeah her friend was assassinated for criticizing religion and has received constant threats herself so maybe Ms. Harris shouldn't be so dismissive.
13
Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a film exposing the treatment of women under Islam. MURDERED for a film. The editors of Charlie Hebdo were gunned down for the "crime" of blasphemy. Aayan Hirsi Ali has to have armed guards because she criticizes the treatment of women in Islam and the predominant reaction here is that these facts are irrelevant because she is a conservative?
1
She also left the Netherlands after having been found to have repeatedly lied on her application for asylum and her own family, which lives in Kenya stated that she lied about having been forced to marry somebody she had never met
2
Reading the most recommended comments makes me ashamed to be a NYT subscriber. Astounding ignorance. A women who was subjected to forced genital mutilation as a child, forced to marry a older man she didn't know, had a close friend assassinated by Islamic radicals, subjected to death threats. She is treated with such disrespect by readers of this paper. Liberals are obsessed with virtually every group that claims victimhood, just not these particular victims. Not surprising that the most ignorant comments come from blue states. These woman are heroic
35
Then I think you're misreading the comments. Every poster up here has expressed great sympathy for the plight of Muslim women under Sharia law. The question is what we in the U.S. can do about the laws in other countries, and what political purpose was served by this particular hearing. Also, why were these two women the only ones testifying?
Perhaps we could start to make the lives of Muslim women--and all women--in the U.S. better by passing the Violence Against Women Act that Senator Johnson helped defeat.
Perhaps we could start to make the lives of Muslim women--and all women--in the U.S. better by passing the Violence Against Women Act that Senator Johnson helped defeat.
12
The plight of women in many traditional cultures (Muslim, Christian, or other) is definitely not easy and many suffer. Ali and Nomani, however, have more complicated stories. We don't know what they said to the Senators or what was the political thrust of the hearings. These Muslim women have ended up maybe not just on the right but the alt-right side of politics. Ali's need for bodyguards is probably NOT just because she escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia, but because of her political actions and statements in Europe and the USA. The NYT shows their diversity of views in printing their op-ed. Ali and Nomani are complicated characters in this debate who align themselves with causes that - in their home countries - they might be fighting against.
60
Rightwing commenters here are only interested in trying to play up the narrative that the repugnantklan party engineered circumstances behind the hearings and this article were designed to promote, i.e., "oh look at those hypocritical liberal legislators, oh look at those hypocritical Democrats!"
If the right wing is all fired passionate about the plight of muslim women (which I have no doubt they don't give a rip about other than as a tool to try and set up Democrats for a "if you burn your a witch, if you don't burn you're a witch" catch 22 litmus test) then why is Trump cavorting with and sucking up to the Saudi monarchy, the most repressive wahhabi muslim regime on the face of the earth and why does the right view that as good?
Can't have it both ways.
If the right wing is all fired passionate about the plight of muslim women (which I have no doubt they don't give a rip about other than as a tool to try and set up Democrats for a "if you burn your a witch, if you don't burn you're a witch" catch 22 litmus test) then why is Trump cavorting with and sucking up to the Saudi monarchy, the most repressive wahhabi muslim regime on the face of the earth and why does the right view that as good?
Can't have it both ways.
7
Kudos to the NYT for running this. For a long time now, the NYT, Washington Post & many other MSM & left-leaning news organizations around the world (the BBC & Guardian, for example) have all been involved in what often looks like a concerted campaign to normalize Islamic practices & beliefs that are misogynistic as well as Islamist, such as gender apartheid, the forced veiling of women, & censuring & silencing expression & persons who are critical of Islam, the Quran & the prophet Mohammed.
A good example of this was demonstrated this week by the MSM coverage of the funeral for the first identified victim of the catastrophic fire at London's Grenfell tower, a young Muslim man from Syria. In the coverage I saw, there was often a mention of the fact that the female mourners watched the funeral from a separate facility; and some showed pictures of veiled women all pressed up against a glass window observing the all-male crowd leaving the mosque below. But not one journalist pointed out that the women were FORCED into a separate facility & not allowed to participate in the funeral ceremony because of the Islamic & Islamist practice of gender apartheid - a practice that is the norm in mosques, madrassas & even Muslim weddings in the Western world.
Sadiq Khan, the supposedly progressive Muslim mayor of London, attended the funeral without objecting to the fact that females were not allowed to participate because of gender apartheid - & in so doing seemed to endorse it.
A good example of this was demonstrated this week by the MSM coverage of the funeral for the first identified victim of the catastrophic fire at London's Grenfell tower, a young Muslim man from Syria. In the coverage I saw, there was often a mention of the fact that the female mourners watched the funeral from a separate facility; and some showed pictures of veiled women all pressed up against a glass window observing the all-male crowd leaving the mosque below. But not one journalist pointed out that the women were FORCED into a separate facility & not allowed to participate in the funeral ceremony because of the Islamic & Islamist practice of gender apartheid - a practice that is the norm in mosques, madrassas & even Muslim weddings in the Western world.
Sadiq Khan, the supposedly progressive Muslim mayor of London, attended the funeral without objecting to the fact that females were not allowed to participate because of gender apartheid - & in so doing seemed to endorse it.
31
THe problem with this article is that it singles out Democratic Women. Well excuse me are you saying that it is only Progressive Women who care about human rights? Somehow the article leaves me cold.
A better headline in my humble opinion should be - Why WOmen in a Free Society must stand up for Muslim Women....
Shrug - or America is Ignoring the Plight of Muslim Women in Their Free Society."
Airsi Ali simply has twisted a serious concern to bash Democrats again.
A better headline in my humble opinion should be - Why WOmen in a Free Society must stand up for Muslim Women....
Shrug - or America is Ignoring the Plight of Muslim Women in Their Free Society."
Airsi Ali simply has twisted a serious concern to bash Democrats again.
15
I agree with Sen. McCaskill: Don't use a Senate hearing to focus on religion.
18
The distinction between Islam and Islamism deserves discussion. If that discussion is not had, many are left with the impression that there is no difference.
7
Boy, you certainly spend a lot of energy explaining what those Senators must have meant by their silence, without as far as I can see making even a token effort to ask them to speak for themselves. If I found myself writing such a op-ed, I'd probably stop and ask if I was guilty of mansplaining.
22
Kamala Harris is rude and she was rude with Sessions. And I'm not a Republican.
18
Kamala Harris was assertive, not pushy. She was asserting her right to use her allotted time to ask questions.
9
How many male Senators would you call rude?
8
Perhaps it is rude of Sessions to babble on unintelligibly with the intent to "run out the clock" on Senator Harris's allotted time for questioning him.
Sessions is a smarmy skilled dissembler and a major league hot air balloon.
Sessions is a smarmy skilled dissembler and a major league hot air balloon.
4
This is a carefully crafted and planned hit piece on Senator Harris; the choice of Ms Ali and Nomani as witnesses was intended to create the distorted picture presented here.
Please read Ms. Ali's testimony. It is a call to arms against not just terrorism, but the advocacy of certain tenants of Islam with which she (and I) disagree. She says:
"Congress must give the president in this war the tools he needs to (dismantle) mosques that perpetuate political Islam in its most radical form, even if they themselves do not perpetrate the violence that they so often preach."
It is a fundamental violation of all that our constitution stands for to ask that Congress confer on the President the power to close a religious institution because of the ideas it preaches. To stand against such a proposal is not to endorse female genital mutilation, child marriage or violent terrorism. It is to reaffirm the belief that if fundamental liberties are denied to some they are denied to all.
Ms Ali and Nomani have compelling personal stories of persecution and violence which have led them to their deeply held hatred of "radical Islam." By conflating their horrific personal stories with their political conclusions they attempt to condemn Senator Harris, who disagrees with their political conclusions, as accepting the abuse of women. They clearly know better, so did Senator Harris who wisely chose not to engage them and open herself, and our country, to such sophistry.
Please read Ms. Ali's testimony. It is a call to arms against not just terrorism, but the advocacy of certain tenants of Islam with which she (and I) disagree. She says:
"Congress must give the president in this war the tools he needs to (dismantle) mosques that perpetuate political Islam in its most radical form, even if they themselves do not perpetrate the violence that they so often preach."
It is a fundamental violation of all that our constitution stands for to ask that Congress confer on the President the power to close a religious institution because of the ideas it preaches. To stand against such a proposal is not to endorse female genital mutilation, child marriage or violent terrorism. It is to reaffirm the belief that if fundamental liberties are denied to some they are denied to all.
Ms Ali and Nomani have compelling personal stories of persecution and violence which have led them to their deeply held hatred of "radical Islam." By conflating their horrific personal stories with their political conclusions they attempt to condemn Senator Harris, who disagrees with their political conclusions, as accepting the abuse of women. They clearly know better, so did Senator Harris who wisely chose not to engage them and open herself, and our country, to such sophistry.
30
Thank you for pointing this out. Ms. Ali's ties to xenophobes like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz shed a lot of light on what these hearings were really about: demonizing all Muslims, not just extremists.
7
You have explained far better than I could the repugnantklan modus operandi and intent behind this orchestrated hearing and the opinion piece regrettably published here in the NYT. Too bad your comment can't be promoted to the top of the list based on it's astute and concise summation of this circus of contrivance wrought by the usual suspects on the right.
3
Here is an area where I have a disagreement with the author:
"There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. "
There is fear of 3 things. A.) Fear of hurting allies in the multicultural struggle against industrial culture and society. B.) Fear of being cut off from political networks in which multiculturalism is the basis of all other analysis. C.) Physical fear of being targeted by a demonstrably worldwide movement of violent imperialists backing a revival of the Caliphate.
"There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. "
There is fear of 3 things. A.) Fear of hurting allies in the multicultural struggle against industrial culture and society. B.) Fear of being cut off from political networks in which multiculturalism is the basis of all other analysis. C.) Physical fear of being targeted by a demonstrably worldwide movement of violent imperialists backing a revival of the Caliphate.
10
Did anyone notice that, just before attacking progressives as being silent on Muslim oppression, the authors mention that Senators Heitkamp, Harris, aHassan, and McCaskill spoke out against the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria? Those girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, a radical Islamist group. That means that the senators aren't giving Muslim extremists a free pass; more likely, they didn't want to give the Republican congress and administration a chance to demonize Muslims more generally. Perhaps it would be better if they had given some comments at the hearing, but I think the authors are engaged in cherry picking...big league.
24
This entire "appearance" before the committee is a total set up by the Republicans who realize they're in trouble. Period.
It's designed to elicit emotional, fearful responses.
It's designed to elicit emotional, fearful responses.
15
Religion all over the world is a huge obstacle to women's access to reproductive health. It also denies the hugely important part sexuality and sex play in the human experience. No honesty. And there's no God either by the way.
This is a very important op-ed! And the US has denied funds under Trump to the United Nations Population Fund which is a leader against female genital mutilation, child marriage and other forms of gender based violence which are prominent among both Muslim and Christian communities. And Islam's plural marriage is also a form of gender based violence. Let's face the facts.
This is a very important op-ed! And the US has denied funds under Trump to the United Nations Population Fund which is a leader against female genital mutilation, child marriage and other forms of gender based violence which are prominent among both Muslim and Christian communities. And Islam's plural marriage is also a form of gender based violence. Let's face the facts.
9
Interesting and ironic. I am from Alemeda County, where Harris began her career as a Deputy District Attorney before becoming The DA of San Francisco. In 25 years, I have known that only has Harris been a strong supporter of women rights while here in California, but also of ethnic rights as she is both of African and Indian heritage.
What find unusual is the two women at the hearing were supported by the Far Right, with their extremely xenophobic and misogynistic history. Maybe the good Senators were seeing what the authors are refusing to admit.
What find unusual is the two women at the hearing were supported by the Far Right, with their extremely xenophobic and misogynistic history. Maybe the good Senators were seeing what the authors are refusing to admit.
25
Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani are supported by the far right only in so far as they are against Islamist extremists. That may be the only thing on which they agree. These women are progressives. Not conservatives.
8
No they are not. They are full fledged Trump supporters and anti immigration.
4
Ms. Ali is a research fellow at the far right Hoover Institution. Both are Trump supporters.
As a progressive, I share their abhorrence of these sexist practices. However, I don't see them speaking up about Trump's defunding the United Nations Population Fund, which works to end female genital mutilation. They also allow themselves to be used to end first amendment protections, and they misrepresent what was said at the hearing.
Their progressivism seems to be narrowly focused.
As a progressive, I share their abhorrence of these sexist practices. However, I don't see them speaking up about Trump's defunding the United Nations Population Fund, which works to end female genital mutilation. They also allow themselves to be used to end first amendment protections, and they misrepresent what was said at the hearing.
Their progressivism seems to be narrowly focused.
10
Religion or culture? The Bible would have us stone women in some instances. The practice of female genital mutilation isn't religious, it's cultural as illustrated by the fact that not all muslims practice it and it's not in the Koran. Islam, like Christianity has ever unfolding interpretations and practices. Isn't this more about using religion to justify certain cultural practices? And in the cases presented by these women, misogyny?
7
You're very right. Genital mutilation is practiced by Muslims, Christians and animists. Unfortunately, it's still widespread, especially in Africa.
8
FGM is practiced predominantly under Islam and has "spread" as Christianity has become more extremist to compete with Islam. FGM, along with stoning to death, child marriage, the cutting off limbs as punishment, etc predate Islam but I have had students who have been told by their elders that it is in the Quran-- it's in the part they aren't allowed as women to read. Sharia law is in direct opposition to the separation of church and state, but then Evangelicals violate that precept with impunity.
Thank you for this great perspective. As a brown woman who works on prevention & treating female genital mutilation, child marriage & sexual assault I think we need to be both respectful and fearless when tackling any harmful norms and practices, whether they are grounded in culture, religion or politics. But as a progressive, I have to check myself before criticizing any such practice lest people think I am a racist or imperialist. It's a careful, fine line, and I'm very concerned with saying anything that will give ammo to the Islamophobic fundamentalist Christian terrorists who have been wreaking violent havoc on brown Americans all across the country since Trump seized power. I don't want my nuanced critique become a black and white condemnation of Muslims as some sort of hegemonic group.
7
And hypocrisy surprises you?
All human beings are deserving of what are regarded as universal human rights.
But all cultures are not equal. The failures of some Western societies to live up to the ideals they enshrine in foundational and other official documents does not mean that those standards of how a society should be governed and the rights of the people governed are no better than those of other cultures.
All theocracies are bad ways of governing--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Israel, despite the differences in their cultures, are still run as theocracies in terms of the rights of dissenters to live under civil rather than religious rules.
Democracies that refuse to enforce secularism as the basis for civil society are going to see the human rights of their citizens inevitably whittled away under cover of "multiculturalism."
Democratic politicians are equally complicit in this stupidity.
All human beings are deserving of what are regarded as universal human rights.
But all cultures are not equal. The failures of some Western societies to live up to the ideals they enshrine in foundational and other official documents does not mean that those standards of how a society should be governed and the rights of the people governed are no better than those of other cultures.
All theocracies are bad ways of governing--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Israel, despite the differences in their cultures, are still run as theocracies in terms of the rights of dissenters to live under civil rather than religious rules.
Democracies that refuse to enforce secularism as the basis for civil society are going to see the human rights of their citizens inevitably whittled away under cover of "multiculturalism."
Democratic politicians are equally complicit in this stupidity.
4
Republicans trying to conflate "Christian" religious beliefs with the state are working hard to destroy governmental secularism.
2
Simply awful and infuriating piece. The honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation in some traditional Muslim communities are not solvable by the US senate, certainly not by its female Democratic members. We have serious problem affecting our population at large, the world at large that our senators are less powerless to address. This is a hit piece of the worst sort.
18
The complaint from Ali and Nomani is that that Kamala Harris did not interrupt them, ask them difficult questions and attempt, by querying, to demonstrate that what they were saying was misleading and untrue as she did in the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Instead they are upset that she allowed them to say all that they wanted to without interruption and interference in a public hearing before US congressmen?
Their complaint is that they were allowed to give their testimony without being held to a rigorous accounting while doing so? This is the complaint?
Instead they are upset that she allowed them to say all that they wanted to without interruption and interference in a public hearing before US congressmen?
Their complaint is that they were allowed to give their testimony without being held to a rigorous accounting while doing so? This is the complaint?
18
No, the complaint is that the silence indicates an allegiance to political correctness over and above moral corrrectness.
3
Your assumption is that it was political correctness. Why weren't these senators similarly politically correct about Boko Haram? I think the authors are trying to feed their own narrative. Had the senators grilled them on some of their views, the authors would have written the same piece with a different complaint.
6
There are 15 members on this subcommittee, 8 republican, 7 democrats. Why are we only reading about the silent responses by the Democrats on the committee? Only two senators at all asked questions of the authors. So, clearly the other six republican senators are also choosing political correctness over moral correctness? The focus on Democrats while ignoring the six silent Republicans clearly demonstrates their goal is partisan politics not supporting women.
7
You have made your commendable concern for misogyny a rationalization for your obsessive prejudice against the religion you rejected. The true liberals on the panel didn't take you seriously because you have marginalized yourselves with extremism. You were given an audience before the US Congress itself, but complain you were "silenced" because some of the Congressmembers weren't buying your bigotry. You don't seem to even know the meanings of the words you use.
11
Fellow progressives, hear me out...
These ladies have a point. The left in general has given a pass to Islamism. We need to be able to criticize Islam's worst without fear from political correctness. We need to demand from Muslim friends and colleagues the same, as well as verbal acceptance of basic western and Enlightenment values such as women equality.
Before you draw up your guns in protest, let me simply say that I have witnessed intolerance to western values from muslim colleagues - educated people who ought to know better.
We progressives are not fully embracing the fight against Islamist extremism, in all forms. This leaves the field completely open for capture by the extreme right.
Which ... they have done.
Let's recapture the discourse and this banner from the right.
These ladies have a point. The left in general has given a pass to Islamism. We need to be able to criticize Islam's worst without fear from political correctness. We need to demand from Muslim friends and colleagues the same, as well as verbal acceptance of basic western and Enlightenment values such as women equality.
Before you draw up your guns in protest, let me simply say that I have witnessed intolerance to western values from muslim colleagues - educated people who ought to know better.
We progressives are not fully embracing the fight against Islamist extremism, in all forms. This leaves the field completely open for capture by the extreme right.
Which ... they have done.
Let's recapture the discourse and this banner from the right.
225
I totally agree.
Progressives: ignore these women at your peril.
Progressives: ignore these women at your peril.
7
If we are to believe in a clear separation between church and state, as the founders hoped we would, I can understand that Senators would think that religious discussions have no place in the government. There are factions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam which are brutal to women. The role of government should be to enforce laws that prohibit oppressive conduct (forced marriage, mutilation, etc..) without targeting any one religion.
6
After reading this piece as well as some of the comments, it seems there are two separate issues here: 1. The abysmal treatment of women in some Islamic cultures (raised by the authors); and 2. How to keep Americans safe in the face of violence perpetrated by individuals who call themselves Muslim (the subject of the hearing). As a progressive and feminist, I can wholeheartedly agree with the authors that universal human rights must pre-empt the anachronisms of Sharia law (which, it must be pointed out, is NOT law in the U.S.) I can also say that tarring the entire Islamic faith with the broad brush of intolerance, backwardness, and violence does absolutely nothing to make us safer. American Muslims are not jihadis - they practice their faith like others in this country. This is not about being PC. When a white person commits a heinous act against a Muslim, a Jew, a Hispanic or African American, we don't say, "Look at these Whites with their guns and crazy 'don't tread on me' ideology." We say, "That perpetrator had severe psychological problems and was brain-washed by neo-nazi propaganda on the internet." The rest of us white folk get to go on with our lives. Maybe Kamala Harris didn't question the authors because she actually agreed with them. But the treatment of women in retrograde enclaves of Islam was not what this hearing was about. The authors would be wise not to let their valid arguments be woven into the poisonous anti-Islamism fanned by the Trump administration.
6
The descriptor Ms. Ali and Nomani are searching for is "cowardice."
7
Even personally obnoxious people with right-wing politics promoting agendas you loathe can sometimes point out true facts.
Yes--Islam is a religion within which are many interpretations and modes of practice.
Also true: The Saudis have been relentlessly promoting and spreading their own version of Islam to countries where it was never practiced before or only as a minority sect, and the rabid fundamentalism of that version has led to the demonization, delegitimization and attempts to exterminate every other version as wildfire spreads through a bone-dry forest.
It's worth your life, now, in Pakistan, to even visit Sufi shrines--those that still remain standing. It's worth your life to declare yourself an agnostic or atheist or a convert to any other faith if you come from a Muslim family or once professed yourself to be a Muslim. It's worth your life to be a Muslim girl or woman from a conservative Muslim family--even if your family lives in Europe or America and you were born there--and have sex before or outside marriage, or marry outside the wishes of your parents.
The issue is not whether pre-Islamic practices have crept into the observance of Islam despite having no validation in the Quran. The issue is that saying so doesn't protect you from those who disagree.
The hijab is a traditionally Arab form of veiling. Now women from cultures where Arabic is not spoken and where the Quran must be translated into vernacular languages to be understood are wearing it.
Yes--Islam is a religion within which are many interpretations and modes of practice.
Also true: The Saudis have been relentlessly promoting and spreading their own version of Islam to countries where it was never practiced before or only as a minority sect, and the rabid fundamentalism of that version has led to the demonization, delegitimization and attempts to exterminate every other version as wildfire spreads through a bone-dry forest.
It's worth your life, now, in Pakistan, to even visit Sufi shrines--those that still remain standing. It's worth your life to declare yourself an agnostic or atheist or a convert to any other faith if you come from a Muslim family or once professed yourself to be a Muslim. It's worth your life to be a Muslim girl or woman from a conservative Muslim family--even if your family lives in Europe or America and you were born there--and have sex before or outside marriage, or marry outside the wishes of your parents.
The issue is not whether pre-Islamic practices have crept into the observance of Islam despite having no validation in the Quran. The issue is that saying so doesn't protect you from those who disagree.
The hijab is a traditionally Arab form of veiling. Now women from cultures where Arabic is not spoken and where the Quran must be translated into vernacular languages to be understood are wearing it.
8
SCA These are precisely the sorts of distinctions that Ayaan Hirsi ALi does not make ( I know nothing about Nomani, so I won't comment on her.) She blames this violence on Islam itself, not Wahabism. That is the reason why many of us who are concerned about Islam dismiss her as a Far Right stooge.
3
One of the disturbing tendencies in our political life is to assign a privileged position to any and every religion. Anyone who criticizes any aspect of one or another religion, or, worse still, rejects all religious and other supernatural beliefs, is somehow considered to be violating some unspoken rule. This event is an unfortunate example of Congress members refusing to hear truths just because they disfavor some practices of believers in Islam. Shame on them.
4
I've heard two of these senators speak out against the proposed honor stoning of a Nigerian woman a few years ago. I think there's a tendency to generalize from this single hearing, whose only purpose was to generate these kinds of talking points.
2
When Islamic "extremists" are being referred to, they should really be called Islamic fundamentalists. If you read the Quran and take it at face value- as you should as it is presumably the word of God- you will find that it is a very scary and violent piece of literature, indeed.
11
As is the Old Testament, which is one of the primary sacred texts of both Christians and Jews.
Any religious leader who preaches that religious texts are the literal word of God should be labelled a fundamentalist, no matter what their religion. And their views should be considered quaint at best and dangerous at worst.
Any religious leader who preaches that religious texts are the literal word of God should be labelled a fundamentalist, no matter what their religion. And their views should be considered quaint at best and dangerous at worst.
4
There is no such thing as taking a text at face value. People start religious wars is because they disagee about the "face value" of their sacred texts.
Fantastic, even important article. So true. I posted it on my Senator's Facebook page. That is, Senator Claire McCaskill.
It should be noted, too, that this is, to me, precisely what Bill Maher has been saying publicly and on his TV program for some time, in his defense.
It should be noted, too, that this is, to me, precisely what Bill Maher has been saying publicly and on his TV program for some time, in his defense.
9
Bill Maher--whose program I love--has indeed been making this complaint for a long time. However, I've never heard him name a single liberal who apologizes for Islamist extremism. His usual example is that Obama refused to call Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists Islamic terrorists--and I think Obama's position makes a lot of sense when you're trying to engage the Muslim world against these Salafist cults.
Has anyone come across an American making apologies for honor killings or female genital mutilation? Any of these practices?
Has anyone come across an American making apologies for honor killings or female genital mutilation? Any of these practices?
2
“Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule." Unfortunately, not true. The various religions can't even agree on what evil is.
3
What you went through is horrible, you both are lauded for speaking up, that said, I believe you're doing a disservice to your cause and to those who have suffered the same when you use your personal experience to play into partisan politics.
7
I commend these courageous women for writing this article. The liberals and progressives always ready to bash the president, the conservatives, republicans, on women's rights. Yet, by a long shot the biggest offender in this regard is the Islamic world at large. But the left remains silent. Instead of celebrating these two women, the left honors Linda Sarsour .
That about sums it up.
That about sums it up.
8
These women support the policies of a president who bans entry of thousands of Syrian refugee women and children. They support a president who would deny women reproductive rights here in the United States, and a party that opposes women's rights. Their agenda doesn't sync with their purported concerns.
Liberals celebrate Muslim women like Malala Yousafzai, Shirin Ebadi, and Leila Ahmed. That about sums it up.
Liberals celebrate Muslim women like Malala Yousafzai, Shirin Ebadi, and Leila Ahmed. That about sums it up.
5
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a strong and very intelligent woman, whose best-selling memoirs bear witness to her experience as a Muslim woman. She is also an emigre from Somalia, a torn up and horribly devastated country.
The problem I and perhaps other American feminists have with her testimony to Congress is her choice to align herself with the strident anti-immigrant right in The Netherlands and the U.S.A. They have adopted her as a poster woman for their anti-Shariah propaganda. Shariah means "law," but non-Muslim anti-immigrant pamphleteers and the "alt-right" have equated law in Islam with all of the ills of Muslim countries, such as Somalia. In fact, as some Muslim scholars, including women commentators, have shown, law always depends upon interpretation. The fact that women are mistreated in backward political systems is not due to Shariah, because it also occurs among Hindus and even Christian subsets in the US (child marriage, polygyny, male dominance).
Women political leaders like Harris are not officially in a position to single out one religion and seek to reform its system of laws. They are in a position to oppose female mistreatment anywhere in the world and Hillary Clinton made that her cause. Look to the American electoral system for choosing a male chauvinist over a female feminist in 2016. Hirsi and Nomani would achieve more by joining the women's resistance movement in the USA.
The problem I and perhaps other American feminists have with her testimony to Congress is her choice to align herself with the strident anti-immigrant right in The Netherlands and the U.S.A. They have adopted her as a poster woman for their anti-Shariah propaganda. Shariah means "law," but non-Muslim anti-immigrant pamphleteers and the "alt-right" have equated law in Islam with all of the ills of Muslim countries, such as Somalia. In fact, as some Muslim scholars, including women commentators, have shown, law always depends upon interpretation. The fact that women are mistreated in backward political systems is not due to Shariah, because it also occurs among Hindus and even Christian subsets in the US (child marriage, polygyny, male dominance).
Women political leaders like Harris are not officially in a position to single out one religion and seek to reform its system of laws. They are in a position to oppose female mistreatment anywhere in the world and Hillary Clinton made that her cause. Look to the American electoral system for choosing a male chauvinist over a female feminist in 2016. Hirsi and Nomani would achieve more by joining the women's resistance movement in the USA.
10
Or, to put it another way: the right pretends to sanctimoniously care about women's issues only when it's an excuse to attack Islam or Islamic countries directly. Some Democrats are reticent about indulging speakers like Ali who directly attacks Islam, indeed, who has said publicly "we are at war with Islam." There's a difference between arguing that there's something wrong with Islamic extremism and arguing that there's something wrong with Islam, and Republicans who invited these speakers very much hope to conflate the two.
Republicans have spent the last few years trying to keep refugees fleeing religious persecution from Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Libya out of the US, and Democrats have by and large tried to stop them.
Republicans have spent the last few years trying to keep refugees fleeing religious persecution from Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Libya out of the US, and Democrats have by and large tried to stop them.
10
And, I'll add, in a free society, it should be permissible to criticize Islam, or any faith, directly. No one should think that Ali shouldn't be able to publish the books that she does. But the United States Senate should not directly criticize Islam. Political attacks on religion by politicians is inimical to the values of freedom of conscience. So Democratic senators were rightly concerned that the hearing not become a platform for Republican senators to invite speakers to attack Islam as a faith.
6
So much for feminists in the Senate. It's clear that those democrats wanted no part in criticizing Islam, even if it means sacraficing a few women along the way.
8
Love how you changed the title though
2
Great voice. Thank you.
2
While I have long admired Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she has done herself no favors here by essentially choosing a side in America's partisan divide. When she came to the U.S., she joined the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Now she's at the GOP-centric Hoover Institution. That's a bit of a hurdle when trying to engage any Democrats. On top of that, in last year's Canadian election she explicityly endorsed borderline Islamophobe Stephen Harper over Justin Trudeau.
And while the writers condemn child marriage, they may have missed Samantha Bee's recent piece on child marriage, not in Pakistan or Somalia, but right here in the United States - and legislation seeking to prevent it blocked by Republican legislators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0lwiInZG1E
And are the writers not aware that a major reason why we have the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is because of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton?
All this said, these female Democratic senators (and their GOP colleagues) absolutely should stand against any sort of mistreatment of women, wherever in the world it occurs. And to advance the cause, might I suggest Ms. Hirsi Ali align herself with an NGO dedicated to these issues rather than to the repository of ex-GOP hacks that is the Hoover Institution? The better for her motives not to be seen as partisan.
And while the writers condemn child marriage, they may have missed Samantha Bee's recent piece on child marriage, not in Pakistan or Somalia, but right here in the United States - and legislation seeking to prevent it blocked by Republican legislators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0lwiInZG1E
And are the writers not aware that a major reason why we have the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is because of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton?
All this said, these female Democratic senators (and their GOP colleagues) absolutely should stand against any sort of mistreatment of women, wherever in the world it occurs. And to advance the cause, might I suggest Ms. Hirsi Ali align herself with an NGO dedicated to these issues rather than to the repository of ex-GOP hacks that is the Hoover Institution? The better for her motives not to be seen as partisan.
19
Bravo for writing this article. Keep doing it. It is powerful and enlightening. Most of us do not know of these horrific oppressions and brutality against women. Keep speaking the truth. It will prevail.
4
They have literally lived "Handmaid's Tale"
1
Dear Ayaan and Asra,
I have taught English in Brooklyn for a number of years to immigrant women from all over the Muslim world, and I have ties to the community. So I was bothered by your article. Progressives abhor those abuses of women--FGM, honor killings, etc.-- that you mention. However, what Americans are fighting against here is the blanket vilification of Islam by everyone from the president to republican congresspeople. None of us progressives favor extremes of Islam, or of any other religion for that matter. In this country (and in Congress) we have extreme right-wing Christians who want nothing more than to take away the rights of women. Don't make the mistake of thinking you have allies in Republican men (or women). You don't. They are using you as a political weapon against progressives who actually do care about women's rights. Beware! These guys have no interest in you beyond the ways in which they think you can help them further their own agenda. It sounds as if you have both been through way too much to set yourselves up to be mistreated again. Take care, and I send my my best to you.
I have taught English in Brooklyn for a number of years to immigrant women from all over the Muslim world, and I have ties to the community. So I was bothered by your article. Progressives abhor those abuses of women--FGM, honor killings, etc.-- that you mention. However, what Americans are fighting against here is the blanket vilification of Islam by everyone from the president to republican congresspeople. None of us progressives favor extremes of Islam, or of any other religion for that matter. In this country (and in Congress) we have extreme right-wing Christians who want nothing more than to take away the rights of women. Don't make the mistake of thinking you have allies in Republican men (or women). You don't. They are using you as a political weapon against progressives who actually do care about women's rights. Beware! These guys have no interest in you beyond the ways in which they think you can help them further their own agenda. It sounds as if you have both been through way too much to set yourselves up to be mistreated again. Take care, and I send my my best to you.
492
The facts that these Republicans are using these two women as political weapons and that the Democrats and/or progressives often give Islam's reprehensible treatment of women a free pass are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. Pointing out that the Republicans have an ulterior motive does not absolve Democrats/progressives from all but abandoning these women. These women appear to be in need of allies, but unfortunately, they are not finding allies from the Democrats on this committee.
5
Blanket vilification of Islam? You miss the point.
Bigotry against Muslims is very different from criticism of Islam as a religious and political doctrine. You're worried, with good reason, about the first. Ayaan and Asra are talking about the latter issue which is very real and completely separate from your issue.
But thanks for educating them on what they've experiencing for years....
To your point about conservatives using them - the only reason they need to appear on conservative programs is because deeply mixed up folks like you refuse to listen to them and give them a platform to be heard.
Bigotry against Muslims is very different from criticism of Islam as a religious and political doctrine. You're worried, with good reason, about the first. Ayaan and Asra are talking about the latter issue which is very real and completely separate from your issue.
But thanks for educating them on what they've experiencing for years....
To your point about conservatives using them - the only reason they need to appear on conservative programs is because deeply mixed up folks like you refuse to listen to them and give them a platform to be heard.
5
They really don't have any allies in the right wing either. They are just useful at this point in time as part of the repugnantklan kabuki theatre.
1
The argument that we can't criticize the misogyny in Islam because the West is just as bad until there isn't a trace of it or we are all Sweden, is so obviously flawed it is hard to believe anyone would make it.
Feminism to misogyny is a continuum, and on a scale from 1 to 10, wahhabism and islamists are a 1, mainstream Islam is a 2-3, conservative Christians are a 5-6, mainstream America is a 7-8, Sweden a 9-10.
Jonathan Haidt's argument that political camps are like religions with the same classes of values, including purity, just applied differently, comes to mind. There seems to be this dismissal of any sense of proportion in favor of demand for ritual purity: one drop of misogyny renders the whole society "impure". Lack of equal pay is deemed equivalent to FGM, veiling, requirements for male guardians to travel, etc....
Feminism to misogyny is a continuum, and on a scale from 1 to 10, wahhabism and islamists are a 1, mainstream Islam is a 2-3, conservative Christians are a 5-6, mainstream America is a 7-8, Sweden a 9-10.
Jonathan Haidt's argument that political camps are like religions with the same classes of values, including purity, just applied differently, comes to mind. There seems to be this dismissal of any sense of proportion in favor of demand for ritual purity: one drop of misogyny renders the whole society "impure". Lack of equal pay is deemed equivalent to FGM, veiling, requirements for male guardians to travel, etc....
6
This a beautifully written and well deserved unmasking of the hypocritical women senators specifically and by extension the "progressive" left and its ideologically rigid group think in general. How embarrassing to be the naked emperor. What dissonance between their perception of themselves as compassionate defenders of the downtrodden and their exposure as willful oppressors of the truly oppressed. Collaborators with evil - these senators have sold their souls and find themselves abusers of injured women alongside the Islamic perpetrators of these horrors on women the world over. And how good it is that it published here - a mirror for all the other fellow travelers on the rest. If you feel the sting of shame - know that your conscience still lives a little.
126
Those of us who actually know Kamala and politics know she is shrewd. She smelled a republican Trojan horse designed to undermine her and took a pass . Shame on NYT for falling for this con by these two women.
3
The essay is beautifully written and I too am disappointed with the senators failure to engage the writers at the hearing. However your indignation over the admitted moral shortfall of the 'progressive left' is a little too self righteous to be believed. If you call Senator Harris a 'collaborator with evil' what terms have you left to describe the Christian alt Right of the Republican Party who promote America's home grown misogyny?
1
The essay is beautifully written and I too am disappointed with Your indignation over the admitted moral shortfall of the 'progressive left' is a little too self righteous to be believed. If you call Senator Harris a 'collaborator with evil' what terms have you left to describe the Christian alt Right of the Republican Party who promote America's home grown misogyny?
5
Neither one of these characters are muslims, but yet they are pushing themselves a muslim reformers. They are as dangerous as al Qaeda and ISIS for safety and security of this country, now they have taken their words to target a progressive senator. We should have nothing against political Islam as it is not our business, we should condemn and fight against Islamic terrorism. Pushing Islamic political parties underground creates Islamic terrorism. There is a good reason why most terrorists are from countries where political system is repressed such as Saudi Arabia, which these two have found a way to admire, because Saudi regime has become the bosom buddies of the Israeli regime.
7
Perhaps you could point out where these two have shown they admire Saudi Arabia? Have you read anything they have published? This is obviously an attempt to discredit two brave outspoken people. "as dangerous as al Qaeda and ISIS for safety and security of this country" Get serious!
5
You are incorrect. Both Asra Q. Nomani and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are Muslims, although Ali apparently is no longer practicing.
Those attacking Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Nomani for their affiliations with conservative leaning organizations miss the point entirely. The physical, mental, and spiritual abuse suffered by Muslim women under oppressive Islamist regimes is a NONPARTISAN, HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. If we cannot unite over that, then all women's issues are hopelessly subjugated to political tribalism.
37
No kidding! Too bad the Republicans are using that suffering as a red herring to play PARTISAN politics by feigning concern for them so that they can simultaneously practice xenophobia while adding fuel to their assault on liberal American women. It beggars belief that Republicans care about the abuses suffered by Islamic women. They ushered a sexual predator into the office of the U.S. Presidency.
7
If it is a non-partisan issue, and I agree it should be, then why are the repugnantklans trying to politicize it?
3
What a wonderful article. It addresses head on some of the key issues with which we as liberals struggle. Bravo! Keep writing, keep talking, keep sharing. Thanks to NYT for printing.
34
I am very familiar and in agreement with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book, Heretic - Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now, which should be read by everyone.
In it, she describes a similar reaction to what the authors write of in this article, in reference to an appearance of Ben Affleck on the Bill Maher show a few years ago. Affleck nonsensically took offense to any criticism of Islam that was knowledgeably stated on the program, to the extent that he displayed a shocking ignorance of the issues faced by Muslim women.
As a liberal and a Democrat, I was nauseated by his need to appear politically correct and offended by the rational and reasonable criticism of the religion and how it can negatively affect so many, both within and outside the faith.
In her book, Ali described an open letter written to Affleck by a Muslim woman that in effect asked him to not speak out about something he knew nothing of, and that did not impact him or any western liberal in the violent and oppressive manner that Islam can affect women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the Quran or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men.
I commend Ms. Ali and encourage her to continue her work. I also look forward to learning more about Ms. Nomani. You are not alone. Islam need not be reviled, but it must be reformed, just as Christianity and Judaism have been.
In it, she describes a similar reaction to what the authors write of in this article, in reference to an appearance of Ben Affleck on the Bill Maher show a few years ago. Affleck nonsensically took offense to any criticism of Islam that was knowledgeably stated on the program, to the extent that he displayed a shocking ignorance of the issues faced by Muslim women.
As a liberal and a Democrat, I was nauseated by his need to appear politically correct and offended by the rational and reasonable criticism of the religion and how it can negatively affect so many, both within and outside the faith.
In her book, Ali described an open letter written to Affleck by a Muslim woman that in effect asked him to not speak out about something he knew nothing of, and that did not impact him or any western liberal in the violent and oppressive manner that Islam can affect women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the Quran or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men.
I commend Ms. Ali and encourage her to continue her work. I also look forward to learning more about Ms. Nomani. You are not alone. Islam need not be reviled, but it must be reformed, just as Christianity and Judaism have been.
37
I'm curious about how Christianity and Judaism have been reformed, exactly? I acknowlege that there are more and less progressive branches within each religion. Beyond that, how has the systematically patriarchal, homophobic, and misogynistic basis of each religion been reformed?
3
For that, you'll have to do a lot of your own reading.
3
@Peter, United States
I found your paragraph below striking:
"In her book, Ali described an open letter written to Affleck by a Muslim woman that in effect asked him to not speak out about something he knew nothing of, and that did not impact him or any western liberal in the violent and oppressive manner that Islam can affect women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the Quran or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men."
This is how I as a white American woman feel about Christianity in my own country. No, Christians do not engage in FGM or similar violence found in Islamic extremists, but Christianity is pushed down our throats from indoctrination (Christian school vouchers, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-science, Fox News and alt-right news), political policy reinforcements (Proposed removal of Johnson Amendment, anti women healthcare laws, anti-woman wage/employment policies), and faith-based misogyny like on display in our presidential administration all the way down to the polygamist churches or "women are subservient" churches. And all of this affects "women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the [Bible] or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men."
There you have it. A universal gender equality call. This is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE for every woman across the globe, even in our allegedly "great" country.
I found your paragraph below striking:
"In her book, Ali described an open letter written to Affleck by a Muslim woman that in effect asked him to not speak out about something he knew nothing of, and that did not impact him or any western liberal in the violent and oppressive manner that Islam can affect women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the Quran or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men."
This is how I as a white American woman feel about Christianity in my own country. No, Christians do not engage in FGM or similar violence found in Islamic extremists, but Christianity is pushed down our throats from indoctrination (Christian school vouchers, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-science, Fox News and alt-right news), political policy reinforcements (Proposed removal of Johnson Amendment, anti women healthcare laws, anti-woman wage/employment policies), and faith-based misogyny like on display in our presidential administration all the way down to the polygamist churches or "women are subservient" churches. And all of this affects "women of all ages who are forced to withstand the humiliations built into the faith, whether in the [Bible] or the interpretations of it, all of which are by men."
There you have it. A universal gender equality call. This is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE for every woman across the globe, even in our allegedly "great" country.
4
I am a big fan of Ayman Hirsi Ali. When I think of heros, she comes to mind. If you want to know why she needs armed security, read her background in her book INFIDEL.
The silent senators in this article should walk a mile in her shoes to see just how oppressive Islam is to women (or just observe). Does their silence mean they won't listen to an avowed atheist? (she rejected her faith). Does their silence mean they will fear for their own lives if they criticize Islam?
The major world religions are highly paternalistic. Men rule. Christians would poo poo this, but it is just a matter of degree.
The senators should give a voice to these women. It would give a sense of empowerment to other Muslim women to stand up. This is one way Islam could evolve for the better.
The silent senators in this article should walk a mile in her shoes to see just how oppressive Islam is to women (or just observe). Does their silence mean they won't listen to an avowed atheist? (she rejected her faith). Does their silence mean they will fear for their own lives if they criticize Islam?
The major world religions are highly paternalistic. Men rule. Christians would poo poo this, but it is just a matter of degree.
The senators should give a voice to these women. It would give a sense of empowerment to other Muslim women to stand up. This is one way Islam could evolve for the better.
35
"The Lady is not for turning". The Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher.
Politics makes strange bed fellows, and nothing is stranger than seeing Ali and Nomani in bed with Republican senators and Roger Ailes.
Ali and Nomani are not naive, they know they're being exploited by the right, but since it advances their cause and are guaranteed a wide audience on Fox and in the WSJ (and even C-SPAN!), they are willing to play the political strumpet.
The only time the right talks about woman's rights is to point the finger at how bad Islam is at it, as though the right, given the opportunity, would not roll back every protection for women. The right's position seems to be, well, at least we don't do female genital mutilation.
Senators Harris and McCaskill are not for turning either.
Politics makes strange bed fellows, and nothing is stranger than seeing Ali and Nomani in bed with Republican senators and Roger Ailes.
Ali and Nomani are not naive, they know they're being exploited by the right, but since it advances their cause and are guaranteed a wide audience on Fox and in the WSJ (and even C-SPAN!), they are willing to play the political strumpet.
The only time the right talks about woman's rights is to point the finger at how bad Islam is at it, as though the right, given the opportunity, would not roll back every protection for women. The right's position seems to be, well, at least we don't do female genital mutilation.
Senators Harris and McCaskill are not for turning either.
27
So...because they are supported by the right, their truths dont matter? What they are trying to warn us about, which they have learned from experience and education, is to be dismissed because they are using the platform that the right has given them? Unfortunately, we all suffer when political hacks care more about where/who the truth comes from than actually hearing the truth.
23
Ms Nomani and Ms Hirsi Ali, both of whom voted for Trump/Pence, two agents of women’s liberation, might be more effective if they resisted partisan hectoring and addressed the attitudes towards women by this administration. Our collusion with one of the worst offenders on the matter of women’s human rights, Saudi Arabia, is genuinely bi-partisan but was taken to new heights in the visit of the Trump family to Riyadh.This visit was viewed by the "commentariat" as a great success. Even if it involved sucking up to the Saudis, $105 billion arms deal. war mongering, silence on the grossest violations of human rights, especially women’s. The same week this press headliner - "Saudi Arabia to behead disabled man 'for taking part in protests' after 'forced confession’".
I am not aware if Ms Nomani and Ms Hirsi Ali expressed any distress at this nausea-inducing endorsement of the Saudi Regime.
I am not aware if Ms Nomani and Ms Hirsi Ali expressed any distress at this nausea-inducing endorsement of the Saudi Regime.
21
Aayan Hirsi Ali has been consistently critical of Trump. Google or Bing that. If you haven't seen her critique of Trump's Saudi excursion, you haven't looked. I can find no site which indicates that she voted for him.
8
Funny thing is, none of the many people I know who are republicans admits to voting for Trump either. Yet, there he is in the White House, er...maralago
2
Liberal hypocrisy is there to see for all who don't wear red-tinted glasses. I applaud these brave women and the New York Times for publishing this (unexpected but powerful!) piece. These two women have more courage than all 100 Senators.
32
Please think, all hypocrisy is there for all to see but we rarely look at our own as we condemn the other side. These kinds of statements do not help us move towards a shared truth. We are very far from that, I am afraid.
1
I fully support our constitutional protection that separates church and state. If you are familiar with that concept in our Bill of Rights, then you must not fully understand it. It is not my business, nor that of our senators, what religion you choose nor what your religion teaches. Our government has no business judging a religion. Why should our senators ask questions about your religion? It is your choice to believe or not believe the teachings of your religion. Each religious faith must make changes within its own faith, so it is up to you and other members of your faith to make those changes. Perhaps more splinter groups of your faith are needed. That has happened since the beginning of Christianity and has also occurred within the Jewish faith. People often do not agree on how to enact their faith. Our senators do not question people of other faiths about their religious teachings. Do you want our senators to choose a religion for you that treats women better? That is not their business. Where our government does have a voice is when a "religious action" violates our laws. So, when a girl or woman is mistreated within this country in a way that violates a law, she must report that mistreatment or it must be reported on her behalf and then the law must handle the criminal who violated that law. Short of violating our laws, each of us is free to choose our religion and to practice that religion.
12
If you bothered to listen to either woman, you would know that they distinguish between the faith and the IDEOLOGY. The ideology is what is governing these predominately Muslim nations. This country was founded around the Christian faith, but you can talk negatively and lie about your neighbor (or your God or your president), a sin according to the ten commandments, without government punishment. A country governed by IDEOLOGY will behead you for speaking against their prophet or stone a woman to death for being raped.
Freedom of speech is not compatible with blasphemy laws. Same sex marriage is not compatible with laws that condones death to gays. Women's rights are not compatible with an ideology that allows, even requires, honor killings.
Who cares what political group is giving these women a platform. Their warnings are worthy of the platform. People need to start listening to people and not parties. Parties only care about the party. Political sheep will be the death of this nation.
Freedom of speech is not compatible with blasphemy laws. Same sex marriage is not compatible with laws that condones death to gays. Women's rights are not compatible with an ideology that allows, even requires, honor killings.
Who cares what political group is giving these women a platform. Their warnings are worthy of the platform. People need to start listening to people and not parties. Parties only care about the party. Political sheep will be the death of this nation.
4
Or not practice any religion. There are many of us who view all religion as fairy tales conceived for the purpose of the few (yes, mostly men) controlling the many; all about power. It is most disturbing to watch the foundational wall between church and state crumbling in our country in recent times.
4
I am a progressive and feminist who realizes that Islamism, Shariah, and Islam itself as usually practiced are extremely repressive to women and others. There are dangers from Islam (and from fundamentalist Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) and it is not phobic to be aware of them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
27
Thanks to the NYT for featuring the opinions and the brave work of women like Ayaan and Asra. I finally bought a subscription.
17
The tribal loyalties of the Republicans and Democrats (the need to cling to certain policy positions), is exactly the thing that prevents them from seeing such obvious travesties. Republicans will howl about gun control measures even when an innocent person is gunned down in the street. Democrats insist on being sensitive to different cultures even when that sensitivity can make them turn a blind eye to Shariah law's viciousness to women. Both parties are like cement, unable to move even when common sense dictates otherwise. That is why there is massive dysfunction in politics, and why the parties are ineffectual.
17
Liberals always give radical Islam a pass, their excuse is that radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam even though there is no comparison. Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are not going to save Muslim women from Islamic extremism. Only Muslim women can talk about honor killings,child marriages, polygamy,sex slavery and female genital mutilation, these senators are not going to march against those issues
their outspoken support of critical women’s issues lies outside of Islam, you can call it hypocrisy.
their outspoken support of critical women’s issues lies outside of Islam, you can call it hypocrisy.
19
So can we expect Trump and Mitch McConnell to lead the march you speak of. Talk about hypocrisy. Conservative concern for women's rights is phony as a $3 bill. Not holding my breath waiting for conservatives to march on this one. Conservatives had their chance to raise the issue within the last 100 days when visiting the Saudi House of Sharia and instead chose to sell them major weapon systems without ANY attempt to tie the sale to these issues. Weapons systems that will be used to further the abuses conservative phony tears pretend to decry.
4
Ayaan and Asra were before the wrong committee. Those who are fighting discrimination against women are also fighting discrimination against Muslims. Those concerned with Homeland Security are eager to marshal Muslim cooperation in their fight against domestic terrorism.
Ayaan and Asra do deserve a hearing but they will have to factor in the tremendous goodwill towards Muslims generated by Trump.
Ayaan and Asra do deserve a hearing but they will have to factor in the tremendous goodwill towards Muslims generated by Trump.
3
Plenty of Muslims in the United States are deeply conservative, and many voted for Donald Trump. That is a far greater mystery to me.
11
These women are asking for Muslim women in America to be protected from harmful practices that deny them individual. If you prioritize culture, religion, or any group identity ahead of individual human rights, then you are rejecting liberalism!
9
If a tough senator like Kamala Harris gets the usual criticism and abuse from all sides, as usually happens to strong women who enter politics and try to make a difference, we will continue to get exactly nowhere. Sure, ask her and Feinstein and all women politicians to stand up against the horrible treatment of women by religious extremists and others, but demand that the same of male senators. We all need to stop judging women by a different standard, whatever our perspective. Kamala Harris is a fighter, but she is one individual.
278
Well, in this case, it was ONLY male senators that asked them questions. So as far as this goes, it was the female senators intentionally avoiding having real conversations about Islam's oppression of women.
3
Fighting for POTUS 2020. I'm pretty liberal, unaffiliated politically, and worked (still do) for the public in SF. I do remember Harris as a tough talker. Period. But no surprise -- I don't know who said it, but politicians are vain people who were not good looking enough to make it in Hollywood. Dems are in sad shape if Harris is really their best shot in 2020.
But the males cared about them and asked questions and didn't ignore their concerns. So...they did hold them to the same standard. The women (really democrats) just didn't care
1
Women being sacrificed on the alter of progressive politics when it comes to Muslims is not new. See the long suppressed news of sexual assaults by Muslims in Europe, with its open borders.
Looks like the willingness of many of commenters here to excuse Ms Harris and others because it might play into the hands of Republicans or conservatives is more of the same, nevermind what is right or just or fair
Looks like the willingness of many of commenters here to excuse Ms Harris and others because it might play into the hands of Republicans or conservatives is more of the same, nevermind what is right or just or fair
16
Oh, please!
"... outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria..."
Has there been anyone in the US -- a politician, a business person, a carpenter, a homeless person, anyone at all -- who was NOT opposed to "the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria?" How much courage, exactly, did it require for a politician to be opposed to that?
"... outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria..."
Has there been anyone in the US -- a politician, a business person, a carpenter, a homeless person, anyone at all -- who was NOT opposed to "the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria?" How much courage, exactly, did it require for a politician to be opposed to that?
13
The notion that progressives tolerate extremism out of fear of being deemed racist has no basis in fact, and serves only to politicize what should be non-partisan issues. Using tough language and waging "War against Islam" is low-hanging political fruit. But true progressives understand that this rhetoric plays right into the hands of jihadist recruiters, who can eagerly sell such a war to, typically, troubled young men.
The experiences of these women are valid, and understanding them fully is essential. But targeting those that "aren't progressive enough" misses the forest for the trees. Wouldn't the lavish praise heaped on Saudi Arabia by our President be a more appropriate target for their ire?
The experiences of these women are valid, and understanding them fully is essential. But targeting those that "aren't progressive enough" misses the forest for the trees. Wouldn't the lavish praise heaped on Saudi Arabia by our President be a more appropriate target for their ire?
261
You're giving Harris too much credit.
She's launching her 2020 campaign for POTUS and this wasn't a high-profile hearing. Better to save your voice for when there are lots of cameras rolling.
The Republican party may have many retrograde social views, but at least it consistently represents its base. The Democratic party is a flat-out embarrassment of grasping, greedy career politicians who are constantly trying to morph their ideologies to keep themselves in the lucrative DC corridors.
She's launching her 2020 campaign for POTUS and this wasn't a high-profile hearing. Better to save your voice for when there are lots of cameras rolling.
The Republican party may have many retrograde social views, but at least it consistently represents its base. The Democratic party is a flat-out embarrassment of grasping, greedy career politicians who are constantly trying to morph their ideologies to keep themselves in the lucrative DC corridors.
11
Can't say I agree with you on the Dem/Rep contrast, but you nailed Harris' nail on the head.
1
I think Ms. Hirsi Ali should get off her high horse and take a close look at which party actually acts in the interests of women and favors a strict separation of church and state.
How does she view the decision of Republican presidents to withdraw funding for family planning organizations abroad that talk about abortion due to the religious beliefs of their voters? In Africa, where women still routinely die from childbirth, how can she see that decision as anything but a threat to women? Perhaps she should watch the documentary Jesus Camp and see how indoctrination is done here in the US among the religious right. How can the party that denies science and wants to take evolution out of textbooks take a stand against others incorporating their religious beliefs into governance? How can the party that wants publicly funded school vouchers to be used for religious school tuition and more private money involved in funding our public needs, fight against private donations to madrasas that cultivate terrorists?
Somehow, I suspect that if Democrats called on Ms. Hirsi Ali to testify against these worrying trends in American politics, she might choose to see it as a political act and not standing up for the truth.
How does she view the decision of Republican presidents to withdraw funding for family planning organizations abroad that talk about abortion due to the religious beliefs of their voters? In Africa, where women still routinely die from childbirth, how can she see that decision as anything but a threat to women? Perhaps she should watch the documentary Jesus Camp and see how indoctrination is done here in the US among the religious right. How can the party that denies science and wants to take evolution out of textbooks take a stand against others incorporating their religious beliefs into governance? How can the party that wants publicly funded school vouchers to be used for religious school tuition and more private money involved in funding our public needs, fight against private donations to madrasas that cultivate terrorists?
Somehow, I suspect that if Democrats called on Ms. Hirsi Ali to testify against these worrying trends in American politics, she might choose to see it as a political act and not standing up for the truth.
14
In this country, the threat to women's rights is almost entirely from the Christians that these women have aligned themselves with.
22
What if it was a "stunt?"
"Democratic senators viewed their invitation to the hearing as a stunt by their Republican colleagues."
Even if so, wouldn't the Democratic Senators have advanced the women's cause by highlighting their complaints (i.e. ask them some questions, or otherwise prolong their appearance at the hearing) and seeking to embarrass the Republicans who'd invited them by suggesting that the Senate Committee try to do something about it and accusing the Republicans of hypocrisy if they failed to do so?
"Democratic senators viewed their invitation to the hearing as a stunt by their Republican colleagues."
Even if so, wouldn't the Democratic Senators have advanced the women's cause by highlighting their complaints (i.e. ask them some questions, or otherwise prolong their appearance at the hearing) and seeking to embarrass the Republicans who'd invited them by suggesting that the Senate Committee try to do something about it and accusing the Republicans of hypocrisy if they failed to do so?
2
These women have risked their lives to convey information that progressives choose to ignore about political Islam. Why am I not surprised that these senators, who claim to be feminists, would choose to adhere to the Democrat Party line rather than to weigh the experiences and knowledge of female experts on the subject who have no dog in the partisan fight.
Ignorance is bliss in the New Democrat Party.
Ignorance is bliss in the New Democrat Party.
10
Karen from MN voiced what bothered me about this article. Ms Hirsi Ali and Ms Nomani complained about Democratic women, but very strangely said nothing about what their testimony was about. "ideology of political Islam" is extremely vague, and it is not clear what might have been relevant in their testimony. I've read Ms Hirsi Ali's "Infidel," and know that the lack of clarity in the article is not due to poor writing ability. Sharia law, as far as I know, isn't the law anywhere in the USA. One variety of FGM led to a case in MI, and the state legislature passed stronger laws against it 2 days ago, though it is already a Federal crime. The authors said nothing about that. So what was the point of this article?
8
The point was that questions like those you posed and discussion of them would have been welcome and expected. It is the fact they weren't even asked that was dismissive and insulting.
2
The point was to blast feminists and progressives. Ali is a Trump supporter.
3
And why is Ali a Trump supporter? Because the Democrats turn their backs on her plight.
2
What type of adverse experience do the 2 expert witnesses have (have they faced this type of adversity to make them an be experts). I check their credentials and it show none. They are only able to contribute their personal opinion, but not their personal related experience. The Senators where grateful to hear them even although they nothing contributed to the matter that may assistance the issue.
2
Really? That is a pretty ignorant thing to write. Hirsi Ali has been a victim of genital mutilation as child, had to flee her birth country to avoid a forced marriage and has had to live under death threats due to her work being critical of Islam (her filmmaker colleague was not as lucky; he was murdered).
That's not personal experience for you?
That's not personal experience for you?
4
I'm not sure if Mandingan Mudhi's comment is an intentional troll, but from paragraphs 9-10, it's as if they directly address your specific criticism:
"Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.
In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise."
"Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.
In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise."
2
As a liberal, female American - one of the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton is because "women's rights are human rights"! That was a global declaration. Liberal U.S. women are not going to let anyone tell us that we are "uninterested in sexism and misogyny". This piece really went wayward with that accusation.
8
We need to uphold western secular values whenever they are attacked by religious zealots _- Muslim, Christian or Other. That is what it means to support our Constitution.
11
The authors draw many conclusions about the attitude of these senators and their supporters based on little evidence. The senators showed up and listened. The authors say that that these senators did not speak, but more relevant questions are is did they listen and did they pay attention. The fact that these people did not ask questions, does not mean that the authors were not heard and that there was no sympathy for their positions.
I believe the authors ignore the careful path that liberals, and anyone who supports western values, must walk. I don't know anyone who doesn't condemn the treatment of women in many conservative muslim societies, but many people are reluctant to categorically condemn all people who practice one of the world's major religions. As our president as stated in his tweets, there is a move to use religion as a criterion in our immigration policy. This is inconsistent with our constitution and American values. Thus, responsible leaders must be careful not to further inflame emotions on this divisive issue.
I believe the authors ignore the careful path that liberals, and anyone who supports western values, must walk. I don't know anyone who doesn't condemn the treatment of women in many conservative muslim societies, but many people are reluctant to categorically condemn all people who practice one of the world's major religions. As our president as stated in his tweets, there is a move to use religion as a criterion in our immigration policy. This is inconsistent with our constitution and American values. Thus, responsible leaders must be careful not to further inflame emotions on this divisive issue.
3
I would like to know what questions the two Republican male senators asked them. This piece sounds more like an attempt to neutralize Democratic female senators than to actually state a case. Of course, all sane women and men deplore many of the practices exercised against women in Islam. But why highlight one particular hearing? I was unclear what the subject of this hearing was. I was unclear what questions were asked and I was unclear how these two women happened to be invited to the hearing; they both work for conservative institutions, which is fine, but something about the article just didn't ring true to me; like there was a hidden agenda.
4
Making excuses for the Female Senators at the hearing is pretty weak. They chose NOT to show ANY support for the cause these women brought to them looking for their support. They are too SCARED that someone will label them if they speak out. That fear is the hipocracy of the left. Political correctness is NOT a rational thought process. REALITY is the ONLY rational thought process.
2
How do you know what they thought? Did you ask them?
2
This article has it exactly right. This attitude, which has certainly prevailed in Europe - to treat Muslim' women as part of a cultural subgroup, rather than as human beings entitled to individual rights, is largely responsible for the frightening violent Muslim extremist & the violent native response to it, that we see today. Read the work of Ayan Hirsi Ali if you want to be enlightened on this subject.
20
I appreciate that the original headline of this article ("Kamala Harris was silenced in the Senate and then she silenced us") was changed as it portrayed a false equivalency likely to drive clicks on this article given the publicity last week regard the Senate trying to make her be quiet and "courteous" when interviewing Sessions and others during hearings. However, I am not completely clear why the headline singles her out still, especially give the article stresses that 3 other female senators also did not solicit their input at this hearing (which was a great oversight), McCaskill, Heitkamp and Hassan. Why not title this "Female Democratic Senators, Don't Be Silent on Women's Rights"? Seems a much less misleading title; it is not fair to make Kamala Harris the sole person blamed for this, unless their is an ulterior motive/reason given she like the other 3 is a female democratic Senator. I truly hope there is not. Very disappointing.
9
""But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation."
Oh, you are? Well organize it yourself. Democrats are not leading 'marches' on these issues but rather are focused on issues like reproductive healthcare and equal pay is because, in reality, it is the latter categories of issues that are faced by the majority of women in this country--including their constituents.
Your insinuation is that because honor killings, child marriages, FGM et al are not being "marched about" or given whatever other arbitrary measure of attention you deem appropriate, democrats/libruls/progs do not care about these issues. That is a dishonest and false assertion.
Oh, you are? Well organize it yourself. Democrats are not leading 'marches' on these issues but rather are focused on issues like reproductive healthcare and equal pay is because, in reality, it is the latter categories of issues that are faced by the majority of women in this country--including their constituents.
Your insinuation is that because honor killings, child marriages, FGM et al are not being "marched about" or given whatever other arbitrary measure of attention you deem appropriate, democrats/libruls/progs do not care about these issues. That is a dishonest and false assertion.
14
This is one of the reasons why Trump got elected, democrats are scared to criticize extremes of other religions other than Christian.
17
I don't think that's true. Do you read Nicholas Kristoff? There are many, many people speaking out against honor killings; there are lawsuits being brought all the time, there is refugee status for Islamic women who have been victims of genital mutilation, people have spoken up at the UN and there was an attempt in Turkey to bring two brothers to justice who killed their sister because her way of life was too "western." Tragically the Turkish court found them not guilty. If you want to get involved rather than judge, just look on the internet. There are hundreds of groups out there you can join and help to make a difference.
1
I know many speak out against extreme positions, but none of them you quoted are democratic leaders.
2
As a liberal woman I take issue with the idea that we don't care about these issues. We do, vehemently disagree with any woman being treated this way.
4
It is true that immigrants do bring many welcome talents with them to America, but likewise their problems. Who knows if it's worth it on the average?
9
until the major racial discrimination is sorted out all these will linger leave them to individuals to deal with on one on one basis leaving the legislators to deal with immediate problems like HEALTH CARE.
1
This is an extremely strong and convincing piece, with important parallels: As an observant Jewish woman, I would never make excuses for certain strands of Haredi Jewish men forcing women to change seats on buses and airplanes, or publicly attacking secular women for the way that they are dressed on the street. Traditional religious customs can always be set in balance with women's rights, with human rights, and public space. We are all responsible for listening to what the authors of this piece say, rather than handing their cause over to the Republicans.
66
It has already been handed over. They are Trump supporters.
4
You do not understand what this women is saying.
How you feel towards principles taught in your region isn't what they were referring to.
They were saying that what ever principles you use are absolute and should also be the principles used to judge people of other cultures as well.
There are many liberals who will not condemn others because they will not judge another culture based on the values they have.
You are doing the opposite.
You are judging your culture based on the value other people have.
If you are truly observant you would never compare Jewish customs and real issues these woman have.
How you feel towards principles taught in your region isn't what they were referring to.
They were saying that what ever principles you use are absolute and should also be the principles used to judge people of other cultures as well.
There are many liberals who will not condemn others because they will not judge another culture based on the values they have.
You are doing the opposite.
You are judging your culture based on the value other people have.
If you are truly observant you would never compare Jewish customs and real issues these woman have.
1
The writers complain about honor killing, child marriages, polygamy,sex slavery and female genital mutilation in Muslim nations, but the forgoing are actually not encouraged or even mention in the Quran which is the ultimate source of Islamic law. In the case of sexual slavery,genital mutilation and honor killing, there is nothing in the Quran which justifies these actions.Some scholars have stated that polygamy is actually discouraged. See http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/polygamy_in_quran_%28P1411%29...
And regarding child marriages, there are scholars who belief that the Quran doesn't sanction it. Shariah isn't divine, it was developed as an interpretation of the Quran by scholars, so the Senators may be wary of protesting acts like genital mutilation as actually being justified by the Quran. Finally, liberals and conservatives who want to gain some knowledge about Islam should read the Quran to get a better idea of the basis of Islam, so that they can gain their own knowledge.
And regarding child marriages, there are scholars who belief that the Quran doesn't sanction it. Shariah isn't divine, it was developed as an interpretation of the Quran by scholars, so the Senators may be wary of protesting acts like genital mutilation as actually being justified by the Quran. Finally, liberals and conservatives who want to gain some knowledge about Islam should read the Quran to get a better idea of the basis of Islam, so that they can gain their own knowledge.
10
Divine? None of it — it's all a product of human cognition and bias, and I feel no differently about the Bible, especially in its Catholic interpretation, which I know only too well. The central problem in either case is the autocracy underlying proscriptions of behavior. Rather than freeing minds, these dogmatic pieces of literature enslave.
10
Your argument is superfluous. Even if you are correct in your assertion that the practices that the authors are complaining about have no basis in the Quran, women in wide swaths of the Muslim world remain subject to these practices. And this is from a native Arab speaker with an interest in these issues.
19
"You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah" - the Quran specifically states that the surest way to assure one is following the will of Allah is to do as Mohammad did. This requirement to imitate Mohammad makes the Hadith, in essence, the last word. The Hadith meticulously record, reference and source first hand accounts of all the Mohammad did and said. He married a 6 year old, therefore child marriage is permitted (even encouraged.) He had slaves; slavery is permitted. He spoke favorably of FGM,... etc.
1
I believe them. And I'm opposed to child marriage, FGM, etc. I'm just not willing to paint all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims with the same brush. And I don't think a military solution is the answer. But that's what Republicans want to hear.
3
A thousand times this. "Western" liberals have to acknowledge that the Islamist Patriarchy are just Republicans (far-right) in other countries. Saudi Arabia, for example, and the Republican party have much in common. Misogyny? Check. Disdain for the environment? Check. Gross wealth inequality? Check. Disdain for science? Check. Mixing religion and government? Check. No workers' protection? Check.
Democrats, liberals, and progressives can dislike Islamists not because of their religion, but because their overall ideology is diametrically opposed to everything we stand for.
Democrats, liberals, and progressives can dislike Islamists not because of their religion, but because their overall ideology is diametrically opposed to everything we stand for.
31
So, RP why don't you read the Quran to find support for you views? Are afraid that actually read it would shake your faith in the so called patriarchy of Islam. Quite frankly, you sound like a person who lives in echo chamber, and firmly believes that the Western world is the most superior culture despite Hitler, slavery, colonialism and on going racism. In any event, the problem of what "we" sand for is open to debate. America was built on wealth inequality. You can freely criticize Muslim nation, but I sense a fear in you that America and the West may no longer be the dominant influence throughout the world, especially given the rise of Japan and China. Finally, science is simply a toot that can serve good or evil.
Thank you for writing this. I agree with you. I am with you.
16
Thanks a lot, Sens. Harris, Heitkamp, McCaskill and Hassan for snubbing these courageous women! What, you say the hearing was called by a Republican? So what? If you felt so strongly about that, why did you attend the hearing in the first place? And then to sit there and ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani, who have paid more for standing up for women than any of us in the West ever will, is practically beyond belief. As a Democrat, I never would have thought that any of you capable of such cowardice, such contempt for fighters for basic human rights. Next time I hear or read of any of you speechifying about the rights of women, I will remember your treatment of Hirsi Ali and Nomani. So will many others.
39
Virtually no one will read this article or care about the situation. The USA is focusing inward.
1
How did the Senators snub these women? By not asking questions? Perhaps they didn't need to? These are well-read elected officials who no doubt know the horrors of Sharia Law. They showed up, they listened and what they heard will likely inform them going forward. That's what you hope for when you testify.
2
Gee, Mary. Maybe you should organize a march if you feel so strongly.
1
Get rid of all religions, particularly theist religions, and you'll find little in the way of excuses about the superiority of men and the inferiority of women. Religious texts are the culprit as are those who continue to follow them in the 21st century.
14
This stuff is hard to get through, as it mixes emotions into what should be intellectual conversations or concepts.
Even if it might make a lot of people cringe at the idea of actually getting rid of all religion, the most important part of what you have said here is as an intellectual exercise.
For if we take out all religious consideration, then we can see.
Your post here does all of us a great service
with its clarity, thank you
Even if it might make a lot of people cringe at the idea of actually getting rid of all religion, the most important part of what you have said here is as an intellectual exercise.
For if we take out all religious consideration, then we can see.
Your post here does all of us a great service
with its clarity, thank you
"The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah".
Yes. And only muslims, not the government, can resolve these conflicts.
Yes. And only muslims, not the government, can resolve these conflicts.
9
Leftists tend to blame all the Muslim world's ills on the West. But those most harmed by Islamic violence are peaceful, "modern" Muslims, who are loathed by extremists. Islamic expansionism and imperialism itself has a long and odious history, a fact often ignored. Over time, Islamic radicals have morphed from specific complaints about the West, which of course they still have, to a general disgust for modern civilization and its "immorality." This is the real target.
One of the reasons terrorists often attack dance clubs and concert halls is because this is where the sexes meet and mingle -- it's not just opportunistic. From their point of view, Islamists aren't oppressing women; they simply wish to ensure that women live as God commands. Islam can mean and has meant many different things to many different people. It is not and cannot be the enemy. We must help peaceful, tolerant Islam win out. Even this effort, however, will strengthen the radicals in the short term, by allowing them to cast moderates as Western pawns.
There have long been academic leftists who so loathe capitalism that they will side with its enemies, no matter how heinous, in order to weaken it. These academics are just personally unhappy and seeking meaning in a revolutionary cause. The line between these people and progressives is thinner than we like to imagine. This is an uncomfortable topic for cultural relativists. But as intolerant Islam spreads like wildfire, they should get over the discomfort.
One of the reasons terrorists often attack dance clubs and concert halls is because this is where the sexes meet and mingle -- it's not just opportunistic. From their point of view, Islamists aren't oppressing women; they simply wish to ensure that women live as God commands. Islam can mean and has meant many different things to many different people. It is not and cannot be the enemy. We must help peaceful, tolerant Islam win out. Even this effort, however, will strengthen the radicals in the short term, by allowing them to cast moderates as Western pawns.
There have long been academic leftists who so loathe capitalism that they will side with its enemies, no matter how heinous, in order to weaken it. These academics are just personally unhappy and seeking meaning in a revolutionary cause. The line between these people and progressives is thinner than we like to imagine. This is an uncomfortable topic for cultural relativists. But as intolerant Islam spreads like wildfire, they should get over the discomfort.
8
The repugnant practices about which these brave women complain are also found in non-Islamic so-called "conservative" patriarchal societies and, in Islamic societies, generally pre-dated the coming of Islam. Male religious leaders make sure that religious precepts are tailored to fit their craving for dominance.
6
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Thank you Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani for talking about this blind spot on the progressive side. I'm always baffled that Moslems generally are seen as victims. We can't uphold human rights and ignore the apartheid system between men and women practiced in the Islamic religion at the same time.
14
Harris is just another political hack, more concerned with her own career and grandstanding than getting to the truth of a matter. Her 'questioning' of Sessions was a disgrace- anyone of independent mind recognized it.
She's a newly elected Senator and wants to make a name for herself- plain and simple. If your agenda does not work for her, she is simply not interested. She personifies all that is wrong with the democratic party, and politics in general.
Respect to Hirsi Ali, a VERY impressive human being.
She's a newly elected Senator and wants to make a name for herself- plain and simple. If your agenda does not work for her, she is simply not interested. She personifies all that is wrong with the democratic party, and politics in general.
Respect to Hirsi Ali, a VERY impressive human being.
I have read a great deal about Islam and it various cults. I have had many Muslim friends over the span of my life beginning when I was 30 and now I am 67. I have Muslim friends now whom I have considered friends for ages. So you are not talking to a stone wall when you talk to me. But there is a vast difference between the way I feel about myself and how Muslims feel about themselves.
I am a female. I am equal to any one else on earth and equal to is not the same as a clone. I also have a political standing and an understand of good/evil and right/wrong that defines me. I am a wife, mother, and grandmother, these do not define me. I was baptized Catholic shortly after I was born - I am not defined by that. I was born in America but now live in France, so yes, I consider myself influence by both countries.
I am defined by my thoughts and actions. Not by what religion or political party or country I live in or was born in. I am far more than a breeding uterus and care taker of children.
My Muslim friend consider themselves Muslim first and foremost and always. I can plainly see that Muslim is Islam, a religion. You've chosen your religion to define everything about you. I would not council any one on the religion they Choose. Religion right is a different and personal plain. If you want to be set free from Islam you are the only one who can free yourself. It was, is, has always been your personal choice.
I am a female. I am equal to any one else on earth and equal to is not the same as a clone. I also have a political standing and an understand of good/evil and right/wrong that defines me. I am a wife, mother, and grandmother, these do not define me. I was baptized Catholic shortly after I was born - I am not defined by that. I was born in America but now live in France, so yes, I consider myself influence by both countries.
I am defined by my thoughts and actions. Not by what religion or political party or country I live in or was born in. I am far more than a breeding uterus and care taker of children.
My Muslim friend consider themselves Muslim first and foremost and always. I can plainly see that Muslim is Islam, a religion. You've chosen your religion to define everything about you. I would not council any one on the religion they Choose. Religion right is a different and personal plain. If you want to be set free from Islam you are the only one who can free yourself. It was, is, has always been your personal choice.
Certainly there is Islamist extremism, just as there is extremism influenced by all religions, but the Congressional testimony was so one-sided, so "all of Islam and only Islam" is the cause of terrorism, it was laughable.
Congress doesn't seem to want to get to the bottom of terrorism, which we have seen from both Islam and Christianity. Congress just wants to gain political points by scapegoating.
Congress doesn't seem to want to get to the bottom of terrorism, which we have seen from both Islam and Christianity. Congress just wants to gain political points by scapegoating.
3
Ayaan is a personal hero of mine. Thank you so much for publishing this. It was thrilling to see this in the pages of the New York Times!!!!
14
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani know of what they speak. They have lived of what they speak. Please any liberal minded person, regardless of they're being invited by a Republican, pull back your blinders of preconceived ideas, research their backgrounds, and give them a fair hearing.
14
You got a Senate hearing. May be you couldn't generate enough headlines out of it. The US Senators, especially the Democratic side, did their job. I am proud of Senator McCaskill, especially.
10
Proud of what exactly?
Proud that she stood up for the millions of peaceful followers of Islam, many of whom are my friends. Proud that she clearly, verbally, stood up to these passive-aggressive vilification tactics used by Republicans, and even some liberals like Bill Maher (of whom I am a big fan, except for this nasty tendency of his).
3
You can oppose patriarchy & outdated attitudes in religion without propagating broad stereotypes. Modern Christianity fights hard to overcome the labels of homophobia, racism, and sexism; the same challenge is taking place within Islam. But denouncing the Muslim faith entirely, and spreading myths about what Sharia means (it is a lot less black & white than these authors suggest) does a tremendous disservice to the cause of modernizing Islam they are supposedly in favor of, by validating the misinformed views of those who hate Islam.
5
Kudos to the NYT for giving these brave, liberal voices the opportunity to speak and be heard.
14
Reading all the comments I find it amazing that the women senators wouldn't at least agree this is a serious problem all over the world. But we'll keep hearing them talk about first world feminist issues. American women live in the greatest country that ever existed with absolute freedom and rights. I have and never will support modern feminism here. I have always financially supported helping real oppressed women in other countries.
11
@Conjc: One surmises that when one sees a woman wearing a burqa or a niqab its merely a sartorial preference. Perhaps the harsh sun in the temperate climes is too much for them. OR - maybe it's a sign of oppression by their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, indeed any man who can claim "ownership" of them. And we thought slavery was over in the so-called lands of freedom.
5
Maybe these Senators are focussing on other women's rights this week, such as the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the bogus Trumpcare bill. But maybe your definition of absolute freedom and rights does not include the basic matter of women's reproductive health and freedom. And not really sure how you could conclude that these Senators don't consider the problems women face in other cultures to be serious based on any interpretation of these avowed conservatives.
1
Kamala and her Senatorial colleagues are interested solely in being reelected and advancing their careers. All of their actions are driven by that, not ideology, or opposition to Trump-driven anti-Muslim.
12
Disappointing to read such dismissive comments from fellow progressives. Violations of human rights must be addressed, irrespective of the political identities of those bringing them to our attention.
33
Unfortunately, Republicans have not spoken out about violations of human rights. In point of fact, they are going forward to deny human rights to many in this country. Nor did their invited guests, Trump supporters all, condemn Republicans for not organizing marches against abuses against women in Muslim countries. Nope, they left that for the Democrats. This article is factually incorrect.
7
Well, the Republicans are wrong. But does that absolve progressives of the need to speak out against the human rights abuses these two women have drawn to our attention? Do we ignore the abuse because of the fact that the two giving testimony voted for Trump? If so, we are on shaky moral grounds.
2
It's mainly Republicans who've been leading the efforts against worldwide human trafficking and slavery, as well as Islamist honor killings and FGM. The Democrats are too busy Resisting Republicans to fight against real abuses of human rights.
Sounds good, but...
"Instead of criticism Senators for what they did not do, perhaps, the oped could have more thoroughly explored what specifically US Senators could accomplish..."
If Senate hearings were held only on matters where the Senate could actually accomplish something, we wouldn't see many Senate hearings.
Even if the Senate can't accomplish much (for example: to reduce oppression of women in Muslim countries), Senate hearings focus attention on problems. The authors are right to criticize the 4 female Senators (and several male Senators) for not asking the two women any questions at that hearing.
"Instead of criticism Senators for what they did not do, perhaps, the oped could have more thoroughly explored what specifically US Senators could accomplish..."
If Senate hearings were held only on matters where the Senate could actually accomplish something, we wouldn't see many Senate hearings.
Even if the Senate can't accomplish much (for example: to reduce oppression of women in Muslim countries), Senate hearings focus attention on problems. The authors are right to criticize the 4 female Senators (and several male Senators) for not asking the two women any questions at that hearing.
16
Muslim women in the US are subject to Sharia Law, as enforced within families and Moslem communities, if not by the civil and criminal legal systems. Other religious communities also have their modes of female repression. The hearing could have been turned into something worthwhile, from the point of view of taxpayers, but one shouldn't expect too much. What will be done with a drained swamp?
2
The “outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault” and “pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination” represents a conflation of issues that cry out for balance. They are not “women’s issues” and will remain looser issues for as long as they remain women’s issues in the mind of most people. When you realize why the government and most representatives have long abandoned “men’s issues” you will understand. Even the suggestion that “Islamist extremism and its war on women” can be better understood as a “war on people” caused by “Islamist extremism”. Do you think men like telling women what they can and cannot do? Should progressive Senators impose their ideal of feminism on all? It is bad enough that the NY Times Editorial Board thinks right always means left.
5
"Do you think men like telling women what they can and cannot do?"
All evidence points to a resounding "yes."
All evidence points to a resounding "yes."
1
My views of Asra have been clouded since I read her post, defending voting for Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-m...
I am unable to get her point of view. Sometimes the messenger is as important as the message.
I am unable to get her point of view. Sometimes the messenger is as important as the message.
13
Instead of relying on the "Trump" card and otherwise professing bewilderment at this courageous and independent-thinking woman's "point of view", why not deal with the specific points at hand? You might as well argue, "women legislators such as Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan and McCaskill, have stood up publicly in the past in strong support of the showboating brand of women's rights espoused by their colleague Hillary Clinton, so no matter they remain mum when given the opportunity to stand up for the rights of Muslim women who have actually borne the pain of religious oppression".
10
"Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate."
Wow. What a condemnation of women who claim to care about women's rights!
I hope that readers of the New York Times are reading this essay -- and are as angry as I am.
Wow. What a condemnation of women who claim to care about women's rights!
I hope that readers of the New York Times are reading this essay -- and are as angry as I am.
25
It's terrible to have your cherished illusions shattered, isn't it? The senators, regardless of race, showed their true "colours." Is opaque a colour; it should be.
2
We are aware of this and don't approve. But we also know that all religions have their fanatics. And we know when republicans pretend to care they are doing it to advance a anti Islamic agenda to support a unconstitutional religious ban. End of story.
7
"when republicans pretend to care they are doing it to advance a anti Islamic agenda to support a unconstitutional religious ban"
Even the most conservative Christian is a feminist compared to conservative islamists, and cares about women,s basic rights which conservative Islam denies them, and that is what drives their anti-islamism, not the other way around.
Even the most conservative Christian is a feminist compared to conservative islamists, and cares about women,s basic rights which conservative Islam denies them, and that is what drives their anti-islamism, not the other way around.
4
End of story. Look at what's going in Europe. All religions are not equal and all cultures are not equal.
3
End of story? Far from it. Someone has got to care about these women, these human beings. Sounds like oppression on the level of The Handmaid's Tale but worse. How can anyone sit by and ignore the victims, let alone supposed advocates for human rights? This is a complicated issue but the bottom line is you can't use God as an excuse to oppress and hurt people. It's great to respect peoples' religious traditions but we've got to know when to draw the line.
1
The most important knowledge one can have is that religion is not knowledge.
11
Ah, but it is the most fundamental of knowledge. Saint Anselm famously said, "Lord, let me not understand so that I might believe. Let me believe so that I might understand."
Really? These traditions stem out of the strict, totalitarian wahabism practiced in and Saudi Arabia and propagated by petro dollars all over the world. Fifteen out of nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia- and the country has not been touched. No democrat or Republican will ever take on anything coming out of Saudi Arabia for fear of offending the oil controlling monarchs.
If you want change, lobby from within. Empower women in the communities you seek to change.
If you want change, lobby from within. Empower women in the communities you seek to change.
7
Miss Hiraani's Op-Ed highlights the vacuity of today's feminist movement which is one merely a shrill wing of the Democratic Party's socialist movement , free healthcare for all open borders and higher taxes, with the occasional nod to abortion rights. These are the issues consuming feminists Millions of women in the Muslim world in various states of the stress- not their problem
16
I thank these two women for at least trying to bear witness - and shame on the US left for refusing to support human rights for the women living under Shariah law. It's a disgrace. Feminists? What feminists? These Democratic senators are just politicians, nothing else.
All the patriarchal religions have as their basic premise that women are to be ruled over by men. They all expect women to be what men want them to be, without any choice in the matter.
Sure, the more liberal versions are more lax about that, but every one of them carry the seeds of enslavement of women and children to men. As long as people follow those religions, women will have the threat of enslavement hanging over their heads.
Sure, the more liberal versions are more lax about that, but every one of them carry the seeds of enslavement of women and children to men. As long as people follow those religions, women will have the threat of enslavement hanging over their heads.
11
"We believe feminism is for everyone
No one shushed you. The people you condemn in this op-ed listened to you respectfully.
It is beyond ironic that you were there as part of a Republican stunt, Republicans who are busy trying to take away healthcare from women, take away control of their own bodies and lives, take away gender equality, etc etc etc. If Ali and Nomani support the Republican party currently in power they must have a very skewed definition of feminism. Or they are completely blind to the legislation the Republicans are trying to push through.
No one shushed you. The people you condemn in this op-ed listened to you respectfully.
It is beyond ironic that you were there as part of a Republican stunt, Republicans who are busy trying to take away healthcare from women, take away control of their own bodies and lives, take away gender equality, etc etc etc. If Ali and Nomani support the Republican party currently in power they must have a very skewed definition of feminism. Or they are completely blind to the legislation the Republicans are trying to push through.
48
I've been a subscriber for 20 years but the editorial judgement displayed this year has me reconsidering my subscription almost every day. This piece and its flatly misleading and inflammatory headline is just another brick in the wall.
15
Interesting, I am also a several decades long subscriber, but feel exactly the opposite. I want more and more, not less, of this kind of editorial judgement!
4
The silencing of Harris was racist not sexist. Sen. Diane Feinstein, a white woman, fired questions at Sessions and wasn't interrupted. The difference was Harris' race, not necessarily her sex. Also, Republicans clearly had an agenda calling the hearing. Thus, Democratic voices wouldn't have been taken seriously if at all.
8
No, the difference was that Sen. Feinstein gave Sessions a chance to answer questions while Harris was shooting question after question at Session, interrupting him and not giving him a chance to respond. Sen Harris was rude, while Sen. Feinstein was not.
2
Harris was acting obnoxiously in her questioning. Feinstein was not. Big difference there.
1
To the so-called "progressives" and folks on the left questioning the motives of Ayaan and Asra wondering why they choose outlets like the Hoover Institute, Wall Street Journal, and the conservative media: YOU, PROGRESSIVES, ARE THE ANSWER to your question. Get a mirror! You think Ayaan or Many Muslim/ExMuslim reformers and activists have not tried to get the attention of liberal media? Long before the travel ban, they were brushed off as people who only have an agenda or attacked as native informants. Just like the rest of us ordinary folks who come from a Muslim background, live in the West, and are critical of our own culture, beliefs, and politics. You shut down women like Ayaan for more than a decade and then ask "why does she seek attention from the conservatives?"... Hmmm, I WONDER!
46
The authors are right. Liberals and progressives as a whole, and I'm one of them, tolerate far more and worse abuses in the name of Islamic faith and practice than they ever would for any Christian denomination. It's not even close.
However, because put-upon Muslim immigrants and refugees, now existing only in smallish numbers in the USA and Western Europe, have attained coveted protected-minority victimhood status---without much justification---Democrats do NOT. It is deeply disappointing.
I'm a liberal, a progressive, a total believer in women's equality in and out of the home. I recognize that part of that is resisting and turning back Islam-as-it-is, not giving that group a free pass from the progressive standards of an more-evolved society.
The authors are absolutely right when they assail the oppression of female members, and the embedded hostility to "infidels," that is contained in the Holy Quran, the Hadith, and the many rulings of Shariah law. Don't waste our time by telling us that the islamic code may have been liberal in some ways---1300 years ago!
The authors are absolutely, eternally right when they put this near-total failure of the progressive, secular left down to "identity politics, moral relativism, and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values."
Shame on the Democratic senators named, one of whom I voted for only last year, if they will not stand up for women oppressed behind the wall of Islamism and Islam's broad refusal to modernize.
However, because put-upon Muslim immigrants and refugees, now existing only in smallish numbers in the USA and Western Europe, have attained coveted protected-minority victimhood status---without much justification---Democrats do NOT. It is deeply disappointing.
I'm a liberal, a progressive, a total believer in women's equality in and out of the home. I recognize that part of that is resisting and turning back Islam-as-it-is, not giving that group a free pass from the progressive standards of an more-evolved society.
The authors are absolutely right when they assail the oppression of female members, and the embedded hostility to "infidels," that is contained in the Holy Quran, the Hadith, and the many rulings of Shariah law. Don't waste our time by telling us that the islamic code may have been liberal in some ways---1300 years ago!
The authors are absolutely, eternally right when they put this near-total failure of the progressive, secular left down to "identity politics, moral relativism, and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values."
Shame on the Democratic senators named, one of whom I voted for only last year, if they will not stand up for women oppressed behind the wall of Islamism and Islam's broad refusal to modernize.
28
Progressives see pandering to the Mullahs as promoting multiculturalism. Though minorities, women, transgendered are persecuted in every Muslim majority country, liberals see this as the work of a few misguided souls. Though Muslims have been killing (mostly each other) in the name of religion for a 1000 years, progressives see Islam as being unfairly denigrated. Why don't the Liberals uphold Muslims to the same progressive, secular, democratic expectation the rest of the world is held to?
35
The problem in this country is that too many issues (all?) are seen as binary - good, bad - and nuance is lost. A fear on either side is that any nuanced comdemnation will be taken out of context, and in the case of liberals, show that 'even liberals know that islam is evil!', guilt of the whole religion by association with criticisms of extreme behavior, or in this case, behavior that isn't in the Koran but related to culture.
I get that, but it remains incumbent on liberals to MAKE IT NUANCED AND UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH. It is only by taking steps in that direction that issues can become less binary, less all or nothing, more about their reality. People will understand that, if slowly, and fear/hate will diminish.
I get that, but it remains incumbent on liberals to MAKE IT NUANCED AND UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH. It is only by taking steps in that direction that issues can become less binary, less all or nothing, more about their reality. People will understand that, if slowly, and fear/hate will diminish.
4
Leftists such as Pamela Harris and her ilk are nothing more than cowards. They will never stand for the sanctity of individual rights when they can trade it away for a sliver of political power.
7
There, there, Mark. Had the hearing been about race, there would have been a clamor from them. A Democratic Senate would have hearings about race, but hols your breath if you expect them to notice Islamic extremism, or any other religious affronts to human dignity.
1
I believe the article refers to one KAMALA Harris. Whatever you may think of her (and I don't like her either) at least get her name right.
2
NYT is of course considered to be a "liberal" newspaper, as are its readers - which is expected. However, being "liberal" MUST NOT mean being left-leaning (and NYT is not to this reader) though typically and increasingly that seems to be the norm in the US.
Left-leaning ALSO seems to imply that Democrats can do no wrong and must not be questioned even if their actions do deserve to be questioned. This is poppycock!
Many comments here seem to attack the messenger rather than refuting the message. Even when the message is debated, the commentators seem to bend over backward to justify the Democratic Senators actions - which were.....NOTHING!! It seems that the Senators were like potted plants on the Senate floor.
One cannot have it both ways! One cannot just chastise Republicans for all their wrongs - and there are many - but ALWAYS condone wrongs of Democrats, if any!
Left-leaning ALSO seems to imply that Democrats can do no wrong and must not be questioned even if their actions do deserve to be questioned. This is poppycock!
Many comments here seem to attack the messenger rather than refuting the message. Even when the message is debated, the commentators seem to bend over backward to justify the Democratic Senators actions - which were.....NOTHING!! It seems that the Senators were like potted plants on the Senate floor.
One cannot have it both ways! One cannot just chastise Republicans for all their wrongs - and there are many - but ALWAYS condone wrongs of Democrats, if any!
13
I watched a portion of the hearing which was painful. The women were more than ignored and were in fact lectured sternly by Mccaskill. She was not there to listen but to grandstand in a quite ugly way. It was chilling and although I have supported her in the past, she lost me. She's likely to lose her seat in the next election and her behavior at that hearing will not have me wondering why. In fact, she kept her seat in the last election by a stroke of luck with the infamous "legitimate rape" comment by her opponent, whithout which she would have gone down. It's ironic that she holds this double standard in respect to Islam. Legitimate rape, apparently.
6
I seriously doubt this applies to Ms. Harris:
"Democrats are worried about getting re-elected..."
Ms. Harris can pretty much count on being re-elected. If she runs for higher office (i.e. President), maybe not. But unless she does something really stupid, which I don't expect, she'll be a California Senator for as long as she wants the job (just like her predecessor, Barbara Boxer, and the current second CA Senator, Dianne Feinstein, who will be 91 years old when she leaves office if she runs for re-election next year, as she is rumored to be planning).
"Democrats are worried about getting re-elected..."
Ms. Harris can pretty much count on being re-elected. If she runs for higher office (i.e. President), maybe not. But unless she does something really stupid, which I don't expect, she'll be a California Senator for as long as she wants the job (just like her predecessor, Barbara Boxer, and the current second CA Senator, Dianne Feinstein, who will be 91 years old when she leaves office if she runs for re-election next year, as she is rumored to be planning).
6
Of course, you are invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate. Muslims are a protected PC group - just look at how the NYT and much of the media treats Islamic terrorism and the reactions of the Muslims to it. It's news to be put on page 10 after a day, not op-ed pieces and so-called "investigative" stories that run week after week on the front page on race-related issues.
Wise up, you'll get no relief.
Wise up, you'll get no relief.
Are these women blithely unaware of how their supposed platform for Muslim women's rights is being co-opted by an Islamophobic regime to justify discriminatory legislation, or are they gleefully taking the ride?
I found myself wondering this until I came to the line "The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law." Forget that they forgot to include Christian and Jewish law here. Like Omarosa and other washed out faux celebrities of her ilk, the Trump era is Ayaan and Asra's only time to shine.
Muslims by and large don't want Sharia law in the U.S. They just want to live their lives. Women don't need or WANT interventions from people like this pair here, who at best fundamentally misunderstand practicing women's problems with Islam and men. Muslim women need organization in their own communities to tackle these problems - and we DO have problems - for ourselves. People like Ayaan and Asra only perpetuate and justify the climate of hate and fear towards us. If they really cared about Muslim women (they don't), they'd be less incendiary in their claims and wouldn't align with the party trying to take away our civil liberties. They are phonies, through and through.
I found myself wondering this until I came to the line "The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law." Forget that they forgot to include Christian and Jewish law here. Like Omarosa and other washed out faux celebrities of her ilk, the Trump era is Ayaan and Asra's only time to shine.
Muslims by and large don't want Sharia law in the U.S. They just want to live their lives. Women don't need or WANT interventions from people like this pair here, who at best fundamentally misunderstand practicing women's problems with Islam and men. Muslim women need organization in their own communities to tackle these problems - and we DO have problems - for ourselves. People like Ayaan and Asra only perpetuate and justify the climate of hate and fear towards us. If they really cared about Muslim women (they don't), they'd be less incendiary in their claims and wouldn't align with the party trying to take away our civil liberties. They are phonies, through and through.
7
I believe they have been Muslim women much longer than you have.
1
"But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation."
This is absurd, the Democrats are against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery, and female genital mutilation more than the Republicans are. If you disagree, why are you not pressing the Republicans to organize this march?
This is absurd, the Democrats are against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery, and female genital mutilation more than the Republicans are. If you disagree, why are you not pressing the Republicans to organize this march?
9
Because they are Republicans, voted for Trump, and were invited there to blast progressives for not taking all the ills of all the world.
4
Thanks to the New York Times for publishing this ediitorial and to Ms. Ali for her stubborn courage in the face of leftist bigotry against reformed Muslims.
13
The distinction between one Islamist's view of Shariah law and another's is lost in all of this. The debate raging within Islam over what constitutes Shariah law and what does not is unending. The practices of female genital mutilation, or forced marriages, are cultural phenomena and not Koranic in nature. Shariah practiced in one country may be completely different in another. Shariah may be seen as a guide to personal growth and behavior in one sense, and a framework for an entire society in another. Perhaps our Democratic senators were, as most people in the US, ignorant of any of this and chose not to reveal their ignorance. Perhaps they were afraid to offend the religious sensibilities of Moslems. Perhaps they, and all of us, should learn a thing or two about Islam.
Love this article pigeon-holes all Muslims and all Muslim men as in favor of genital mutilation. Hear what you want to hear, see what you want to see. What about Christian men beating up their wives and doing drugs and killing them?
Maybe they only read the NYT but this article from Reuters is refreshing We are becoming a nation of zealots Jewish and Christian zealots Jews like me seem so happy now that they are in the mainstream and want to enjoy this as the Moslems are not what target. You can't just read the NYT and New York Times a great paper but I can't believe the comments here. It's as if ISIS, an extremist crazy group has given an excuse for these opinions It only helps those who want t be out of the limelight
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-conference-fgm-men-idUSKCN0Y80HI
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-conference-fgm-men-idUSKCN0Y80HI
Maybe they only read the NYT but this article from Reuters is refreshing We are becoming a nation of zealots Jewish and Christian zealots Jews like me seem so happy now that they are in the mainstream and want to enjoy this as the Moslems are not what target. You can't just read the NYT and New York Times a great paper but I can't believe the comments here. It's as if ISIS, an extremist crazy group has given an excuse for these opinions It only helps those who want t be out of the limelight
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-conference-fgm-men-idUSKCN0Y80HI
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-conference-fgm-men-idUSKCN0Y80HI
This article points out, " Orthodoxy does not like to be challenged ." Neither Islam nor the so called " Progressive" wing of the Democratic party. The blow-back is often violent.
7
The witnesses, including the gentlemen from the Institute of World Politics, are right wingers and were invited to the hearings by right wing Republicans. Therefore, I would expect nothing different from Ali and the others. They were given a forum to blast feminism and progressives. Small wonder the women on the panel asked no questions. There would be no point.
5
Then why didn't Harris et al take the opportunity to defend feminism and progressives? Were they afraid of something?
2
"We bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise"
What the Democratic senators objected to - openly and from the start, as Claire McCaskill said in her opening statement - is that the two authors of this article do not possess ANY 'scholarly expertise' on terrorism or extremism. Both rely heavily on their (admittedly moving) personal experiences when speaking about these issues, and it seems clear that the Democratic senators viewed their invitation to the hearing as a stunt by their Republican colleagues.
At the hearing, both of these authors continued to promote their respective brands of dog-whistle conspiracy theories. Ms. Hirsi Ali implied that dawa (an Islamic concept akin to proselytizing and engaged in by ordinary Muslims - I was first told about it by a school teacher and a street food vendor) is actually essentially linked to jihadism, and that non-violent extremists must be feared as much as violent ones (a notion not supported and indeed highly disputed by the academic literature on terrorism). Ms. Nomani implied repeatedly that sharia law was secretly encroaching upon and seeking to subvert the US Constitution.
Aside from vague proclamations about needing to confront the ideology of groups like the Islamic State, neither author added anything other than exactly what the Republican senators who invited them to the hearing already believed and wanted to hear - that Islam & Muslims are inherently dangerous and problematic.
What the Democratic senators objected to - openly and from the start, as Claire McCaskill said in her opening statement - is that the two authors of this article do not possess ANY 'scholarly expertise' on terrorism or extremism. Both rely heavily on their (admittedly moving) personal experiences when speaking about these issues, and it seems clear that the Democratic senators viewed their invitation to the hearing as a stunt by their Republican colleagues.
At the hearing, both of these authors continued to promote their respective brands of dog-whistle conspiracy theories. Ms. Hirsi Ali implied that dawa (an Islamic concept akin to proselytizing and engaged in by ordinary Muslims - I was first told about it by a school teacher and a street food vendor) is actually essentially linked to jihadism, and that non-violent extremists must be feared as much as violent ones (a notion not supported and indeed highly disputed by the academic literature on terrorism). Ms. Nomani implied repeatedly that sharia law was secretly encroaching upon and seeking to subvert the US Constitution.
Aside from vague proclamations about needing to confront the ideology of groups like the Islamic State, neither author added anything other than exactly what the Republican senators who invited them to the hearing already believed and wanted to hear - that Islam & Muslims are inherently dangerous and problematic.
3
In fact the cultural jihad is more insidious than violent, terror driven jihad. Cultural Jihad is integral to Islamism, and can be found within the foundational texts of massive movements like the Muslim Brotherhood with millions of followers. This is clearly laid out in tomes such as Syed Qutb's "Milestones" written after he was repulsed by the mores of his American hosts when he was their guest here in the US in the late 1940s. Read for "Milestones" for yourselves. Then research the disturbingly large percentages of Muslims worldwide that support death to apostates, oppose free speech, punishment or death to homosexuals, stoning of women. Of course not all, but within the Ummah these are massive numbers.
2
I'm reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens in one of his debates making the case that throughout human history the most persecuted minority of humans, to the extent that their persecution is not even recognized/recorded most of the time, have always been the unbelievers, the disbelievers, the infidels, the apostates, the faithless - you name them. Despite all the liberal and secular achievements of the West, those few us non-Westerners who woke up in an Islamic society but chose to walk a different path will have to face the harsh reality that religious critique and reformation is met with more than just a few hurdles, and there always seems to be enough reasons for people not to stand by your side.
I stopped advocating for Democrats with the passion I once used to, and practice increasing silence in conversations around Islam. Here in the West, most of us 'Atheist Muslims' are stuck in between a rock and a hard place. The left has allied itself with people and a religion they do not understand, and have empowered way too many right wing and conservative Islamists through their excessive cultural relativism - the sheer refusal to criticize the people of color for something they'd disapprove aggressively had it been their own children. The right on the other hand is struggling with a nationality/identity crisis and is now willing to use hard immigration to restrict this change in the ethnic demographics.
I stopped advocating for Democrats with the passion I once used to, and practice increasing silence in conversations around Islam. Here in the West, most of us 'Atheist Muslims' are stuck in between a rock and a hard place. The left has allied itself with people and a religion they do not understand, and have empowered way too many right wing and conservative Islamists through their excessive cultural relativism - the sheer refusal to criticize the people of color for something they'd disapprove aggressively had it been their own children. The right on the other hand is struggling with a nationality/identity crisis and is now willing to use hard immigration to restrict this change in the ethnic demographics.
25
WELL SAID!
2
While it's hard to say why these female Senators chose not to participate actively in the hearing, I don't think they were silencing you. They did listen.
What's important is that the two of you continue to speak out for what is right and just for women of all colors, all religions and all nations. Your goals are just and moral.
You can only be silenced if you choose not to continue to speak out.
What's important is that the two of you continue to speak out for what is right and just for women of all colors, all religions and all nations. Your goals are just and moral.
You can only be silenced if you choose not to continue to speak out.
10
Nah, Barbara. It's not hard to say. This article explains it.
1
I watched the hearing. They didn't listen and McCaskill sternly lectured Asra and Ayaan. It was painful to watch. She was not there to learn or listen.
1
Why can't I, as a liberal democrat, care about women and sexual minority oppression in the name of Islamic law?
Perhaps we as democrats keep losing because we are not brave enough to speak about complex issues that need to see the light of day. Not from the dark lens of the far right, but from the vision that I once believed the Democratic Party stood for: universal human rights. In my mind as a humanist, religion, all region, comes in a distant second.
Perhaps we as democrats keep losing because we are not brave enough to speak about complex issues that need to see the light of day. Not from the dark lens of the far right, but from the vision that I once believed the Democratic Party stood for: universal human rights. In my mind as a humanist, religion, all region, comes in a distant second.
35
Disagreeing with Ayaan or her husband's politics is not itself an argument against this article.
7
The hostile and patronizing attitudes reflected in many of these comments is disturbing. Basic human rights should be an issue of concern for everybody -- regardless of whether they come from a right wing, left wing or centerists. The silence from many feminists regarding systematic human rights abuses of women living in Islamic countries is already glaringly obvious.
36
Part of the problem these feminists see is that the women living under these systems of Islam, or others where females are not recognized as even as human and special as males - is they disconnect when those women just dont jump up and agree with their Western, modern point of views. In a manner of speaking they kinda blame the women for not being more proactive, if not aggressive in demanding their emancipation. American feminists think the American suffragette model is applicable everywhere else.
Its part of the overall weaknesses of how Americans view others. Expecting others to think like us, behave like us in all circumstances. Ignoring culture, ignoring tradition, and pretty much not seeing, or belligerently ignoring, the nuances in other places.
How does a female who cant drive, has never left their small clan village, etc get away from an abusive reationship, and then navigate the complexities of a larger more "advanced" town or city? When just being an unaccompanied female will bring down the wrath of every male encountered...! Where even the police are not there to protect you!
Its part of the overall weaknesses of how Americans view others. Expecting others to think like us, behave like us in all circumstances. Ignoring culture, ignoring tradition, and pretty much not seeing, or belligerently ignoring, the nuances in other places.
How does a female who cant drive, has never left their small clan village, etc get away from an abusive reationship, and then navigate the complexities of a larger more "advanced" town or city? When just being an unaccompanied female will bring down the wrath of every male encountered...! Where even the police are not there to protect you!
1
Great piece. It's very disturbing how the left treats brave feminist reformers like Ali, because she says politically inconvenient (but true) things about Islam. Progressives pretend to like strong women "speaking truth to power" but they really don't, not when the speakers contradict liberal orthodoxy.
65
Wrong. I do admire a person of integrity and courage. I also know that religion and religiosity is a personal choice in every democratic country. That these women choose to be pious and strong I can admire. That they want to bring their religion into politics, I can not. I don't care what a person's religious declarations are just keep them out of the government. This is why I am not Republican because it has adopted a wide and diverse amount of religious dogma into governing. There Government is in place to make sure that Equality is protected, that our infrastructure operates properly and is well maintained, that we are protected during an aggression. That is why I am Liberal.
Not sure how you have come to your conclusions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now an Atheist. Her concerns are for women's rights within Islam, not infusing domestic politics with religion, not at all.
2
Thank you for this article and for your work. I say this as a dyed in the wool liberal (or not to be confused with classical liberalism, a progressive).
29
If the Democrats' concern was over Trump's ban on travel from certain Muslim majority countries, they should have asked Ali and Nomani whether they thought the ban would help or hurt their cause. They had a great chance to turn the Republicans' ploy against them but they chose instead to stay silent.
I guess you can't be criticized for what you say when you don't say anything.
I guess you can't be criticized for what you say when you don't say anything.
16
The “Republicans' ploy”, President Trump’s order targeting the same seven countries that were singled out with a law President Obama signed in December 2015?
I suspect these women would have relished the opportunity to discuss the cultures in these countries vs. Western Culture. That was their point in being at the hearings. But this is a topic Liberals are afraid to broach.
I suspect these women would have relished the opportunity to discuss the cultures in these countries vs. Western Culture. That was their point in being at the hearings. But this is a topic Liberals are afraid to broach.
13
Harris was correct in refusing to debate; it's an open academic question as to whether Islam as such oppresses women or rather the traditional cultures that have, in point of fact, existed far before c 600 AD. Moreover, Hooverite screed that blames Islam is hardly the accepted scholarly received wisdom. Had Ali obtained a real degree, she'd understand this; rather, she's only an ideological mouthpiece.
I also believe that the local community college to which Hoover is attached --'Stanford'-- offers courses in basic anthropology that describe women's oppression in non-Islamic cultures within a general area shared by Islam. To get her started, this is called 'cross-cultural referencing'. I do hope that I'm not too far over her head; on campus, hooverites carry the same intellectual feather-weight as the football team.
Harris, moreover, seemed to have been engaging in an appropriate genre of Ockham's Razor: the most agreed-upon political truth is usually the best. So yes, we all know of how horrible life can be for women in 'traditional' Afro/Asia. That's why there's America and Western Europe --to welcome the oppressed as a refuge. Ali should try to understand this.
I also believe that the local community college to which Hoover is attached --'Stanford'-- offers courses in basic anthropology that describe women's oppression in non-Islamic cultures within a general area shared by Islam. To get her started, this is called 'cross-cultural referencing'. I do hope that I'm not too far over her head; on campus, hooverites carry the same intellectual feather-weight as the football team.
Harris, moreover, seemed to have been engaging in an appropriate genre of Ockham's Razor: the most agreed-upon political truth is usually the best. So yes, we all know of how horrible life can be for women in 'traditional' Afro/Asia. That's why there's America and Western Europe --to welcome the oppressed as a refuge. Ali should try to understand this.
23
Kudos on crafting the least logical sentence surrounding this piece, which I think does a good job of illustrating Ali et al.'s concern about moral relativism couched in cultural relativism:
"Harris was correct in refusing to debate; it's an open academic question ..."
Just to be clear, if it's an open academic question, I think that means it should probably be open for debate.
"Harris was correct in refusing to debate; it's an open academic question ..."
Just to be clear, if it's an open academic question, I think that means it should probably be open for debate.
14
Bill, you seem to believe that academic views should predominate, when a larger and larger portion of the population is turning their backs on academia's multicultural assault against industrial society. We will make our own determinations about whether we allow the Caliphate revivalists to succeed. Yes, we know that if they succeed against these 2 good women, they will have huge strides to reviving an imperial Caliphate with worldwide ambitions of universal rule and utter religious intolerance.
No, we don't intend to turn the US, or Europe, into the world's squalid refugee camp, just to please academics. We intend to place industrial society's norms first and foremost, to allow the freedoms of action needed to build and maintain the high levels of productivity in the worldwide networks of industrial society in *all* countries. Thus, no one will ever need to become a refugee from an agrarian culture's poverty, tyranny and intolerance.
No, we don't intend to turn the US, or Europe, into the world's squalid refugee camp, just to please academics. We intend to place industrial society's norms first and foremost, to allow the freedoms of action needed to build and maintain the high levels of productivity in the worldwide networks of industrial society in *all* countries. Thus, no one will ever need to become a refugee from an agrarian culture's poverty, tyranny and intolerance.
4
"the most agreed-upon political truth is usually the best" that's a pretty significant perversion of Occam's razor. And to say that America should welcome the oppressed but do absolutely nothing to support the oppressed in their original country seems a bit cold-hearted.
1
This is just another example of an individual trying to create a crisis where not exist. You came to speak, you spoke. What questions do you want to be asked. Your attack on Ms Harris is misplaced. You have the problem with islam and its treatment of women. Ms Harris listened. You were not cut off. Was the quality of the questions from the male republican of any substance, did it convey the inquisitiveness you desired. Its hard to sympathize here.
14
"we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation."
It isn't a "march" the authors want, of course. It is State interference in the practice of Islam. They want the State to identify "honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation" as "extreme Islam" and outlaw it.
The basis for this interference into religious practice would be, I can only guess, that certain religious practices are not in accord with popular beliefs of citizens who are not members of the religion. Action on this basis is a tar baby if ever there was one.
The simplest position for the State is to insist that membership in a religion must be voluntary, and the religion cannot force its activities or beliefs upon non-members. So, I guess, the authors' idea is that some members aren't free to opt out, and the State should liberate them?
That sounds like a difficult undertaking because such interference could easily cross a line and become State control of religion. Where is that line? Conflict with popular mores of non-members? Removal of children from religious indoctrination? Religious membership and instruction is to be limited to those over 21 years old who have made a free choice?
The authors have not helped us understand what grounds they want the State's basis for intrusion to be, or where they would draw the line.
It isn't a "march" the authors want, of course. It is State interference in the practice of Islam. They want the State to identify "honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation" as "extreme Islam" and outlaw it.
The basis for this interference into religious practice would be, I can only guess, that certain religious practices are not in accord with popular beliefs of citizens who are not members of the religion. Action on this basis is a tar baby if ever there was one.
The simplest position for the State is to insist that membership in a religion must be voluntary, and the religion cannot force its activities or beliefs upon non-members. So, I guess, the authors' idea is that some members aren't free to opt out, and the State should liberate them?
That sounds like a difficult undertaking because such interference could easily cross a line and become State control of religion. Where is that line? Conflict with popular mores of non-members? Removal of children from religious indoctrination? Religious membership and instruction is to be limited to those over 21 years old who have made a free choice?
The authors have not helped us understand what grounds they want the State's basis for intrusion to be, or where they would draw the line.
16
The United States has laws that people must follow regardless of religious belief. That certainly is applied to Christians some of who believe in faith healing and have denied medical care to their children. Many of these people have been tried and found guilty. Their religious beliefs are no excuse.
21
I admit this is purely my assumption, but I'm guessing that you were not disturbed by a Christian couple being forced out of the bakery business for following a traditionalist definition of marriage. So that state intrusion into religious practice was certainly "not in accord with popular beliefs of citizens who are not members", but one could argue their action was somewhat less harmful to society than an honor killing or the mutilation of a female child.
9
Hi Scott: I'm unclear how the ideal State determines which religious practices should be interfered with and which not. As for my personal view, I'd suggest that before a person is exposed to adherents of a particular religion they should be exposed to a thorough comparison of the various choices with an historical background of how they worked out in various cases.
1
Ayaan Ali and Asra Nomani are well-known as representatives of the far-right who have made their careers and fortunes by attacking Islam and Muslims. Both trade on rejection of their background as a talking point for fame and fortune. That they were called to testify before this committee in and of itself confirms the agenda of those behind it. I am shocked that the New York Times would give a platform to these people. What's next? An Op-Ed by Pamela Geller? Does the anti-Islam movement not have enough reach in the West Wing without the newspaper of record providing a platform?
28
Thanks for putting some context around this piece. It changed my view completely. The NYT should consider doing the same for many Opinion pieces.
4
Personally attacking these courageous women is disingenuous when you ignore the facts they presented.
4
Are you kidding me? They are trying to bring attention to misogyny and extreme abuse of women under the guise of religion. Religion, all religions, are ideologies, and therefore are subject to criticism. She speaks the truth about progressives. .
1
Sounds like the ladies wanted a hit job on Islam in the guise of radical extremism. There is a difference.
7
If Ayaan and Asra think those Republicans will help them or any woman for that matter, they better think again. It was a dog and pony show. Their scholarly expertise should have seen through the ruse.
12
Why does such an important issue have to be left or right? There are plenty of Republicans who support women's rights including the right to an abortion. This is a human rights issue.
13
Where are the republican politicians supporting women's rights? Please refer to latest heath care bill put out by the republication with particular attention to planned parenthood.
2
You spoke before a congressional panel in an official hearing. You weren't shushed. You weren't silenced. You got disagreement from Harris, after a moment on a pedestal that we can only dream of.
Ironically your idea of free speech is for you to talk in Congress and Senator Harris keep her thoughts to herself. And people wonder why we are afraid for our democracy.
Ironically your idea of free speech is for you to talk in Congress and Senator Harris keep her thoughts to herself. And people wonder why we are afraid for our democracy.
11
Actually, the authors said nothing of the sort. They asked why the Democrat Senators failed to address the important topics they were invited to discuss.
They aren't seeking to silence anyone but rather to engage them in discussion.
They aren't seeking to silence anyone but rather to engage them in discussion.
12
As I read the column I saw that the writers were criticizing Sen. Harris precisely because she "kept her thought to herself".
1
Obviously, when the authors claim to have been "silenced" they aren't acting in good faith to raise issues ...,they are trying to falsely portray Harris. Seems to me that the Senator was right to give her opinion and not ask questions as if they were experts on issues of human rights. If they are willing to portray themselves as silenced, they are not even marginally familiar with the idea of rights in a western democracy.
Bill Maher and Sam Harris are some of the only progressives who are willing to deal with the truth of this issue. The rest of you are enablers for abuse of women. You care more about opposing conservatives than protecting women.
36
i'm sorry you were treated poorly by the Senators and I do hope that changes in the future. Good luck to you both.
10
Well. Gee. Those republican fellows sure are doing a lot for human rights around the world and helping improve the lives of women in this country. This entire article is void of credibility and debth. Republicans want to blow things up. Liberals want to build schools and institutions that are beneficial for all. A female democrat didn't ask a question and we get an entire op-ed off of that?
14
When are we going to look beyond party affiliations for our consideration and evaluation of the issues that confront us? Is it too hard to think?
1) Should we police social norms throughout the world?
2) Should be police social norms practiced here that violate our laws?
3) Do we need to tie criminality to a particular group, religious or otherwise, or can we simply go about prosecuting it?
4) How far does freedom of conscience go? Military exemption? Wedding cakes? Genital mutilation? Human sacrifice?
Somebody really needs to make a decision on these.
1) Should we police social norms throughout the world?
2) Should be police social norms practiced here that violate our laws?
3) Do we need to tie criminality to a particular group, religious or otherwise, or can we simply go about prosecuting it?
4) How far does freedom of conscience go? Military exemption? Wedding cakes? Genital mutilation? Human sacrifice?
Somebody really needs to make a decision on these.
7
What passes for contemporary, 'pink' feminism in America is that of a spoiled, soft form of rebellion with a strange affinity for sympathy with violent, radicalism.
Ayaan and Asra embody the spirit and action of real superheros. Like Benazir Bhutto or Aung San Suu Kyi, these women have faced the knives and fire of their oppressors head on and willingly to their own mortal end. Pink feminism reject them because Pink feminism is a fraud. Pink feminism merely wears the trappings of Fearless Feminism and only enjoys the sacrifices of others without ever really fighting for them. Wearing pussyhats and waving signs in venues where all of their rights are defended by the powerful state is a mockery of Fearless Feminism.
Ayaan and Asra embody the spirit and action of real superheros. Like Benazir Bhutto or Aung San Suu Kyi, these women have faced the knives and fire of their oppressors head on and willingly to their own mortal end. Pink feminism reject them because Pink feminism is a fraud. Pink feminism merely wears the trappings of Fearless Feminism and only enjoys the sacrifices of others without ever really fighting for them. Wearing pussyhats and waving signs in venues where all of their rights are defended by the powerful state is a mockery of Fearless Feminism.
27
Unfortunately , we have agenda's on both sides of the ideological spectrum that 'Trump' human rights. Or, as the fictional mob boss said to the corrupt Nevada Senator in The Godfather Part ll..."Senator you and I are both part of the same hypocrisy".
5
Ms. Ali, Ms. Momani,
I don't believe you both understand that this hearing was a set-up by the Republicans to propagandize US hatred of Muslims. Our US female senators wisely listened to your explanations of suffering without adding to the Republican manipulation.
Please take a look at the big picture and realize you were being used by the Republicans who do not care about your situation.
Your anger is misplaced. I believe the senators will act later on your behalf when it can truly do some good.
I don't believe you both understand that this hearing was a set-up by the Republicans to propagandize US hatred of Muslims. Our US female senators wisely listened to your explanations of suffering without adding to the Republican manipulation.
Please take a look at the big picture and realize you were being used by the Republicans who do not care about your situation.
Your anger is misplaced. I believe the senators will act later on your behalf when it can truly do some good.
23
lechrist: "...the Republicans who do not care about your situation."
Apparently the Republicans care far more than the Dems as only the Republicans invited them and asked them about their concerns. The Dems studiously ignored them.
But please continue to ignore the facts if you don't like them.
Apparently the Republicans care far more than the Dems as only the Republicans invited them and asked them about their concerns. The Dems studiously ignored them.
But please continue to ignore the facts if you don't like them.
1
lechrist, Sadly, I think that Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani are well aware of how they are being used and are taking advantage of it to boost their personal fortunes. There is strong precedent for small numbers of visibly identifiable people to sell their souls to the Republican party and speak against the needs of their social group in order to become prominent. Ben Carson is one of these people. Ms. Ali goes further than many, writing editorials for the NYT to try to justify her bizarre role with talking points from the Hoover Institute. It must be a bit strange to be hanging out with people like Ron Johnson, purportedly speaking for women's rights. I agree with the comment above that the NYT should not be giving such charlatans visibility.
2
"Please take a look at the big picture and realize you were being used by the Republicans who do not care about your situation."
Used? They're being paid handsomely by their right-wing sponsors.
Used? They're being paid handsomely by their right-wing sponsors.
3
This mighty woman is one of the few (very few) bright spots for Dems right now. She's rising fast.
2
Sadly, we are stuck with her for the moment out here in CA. Soon, however, the tide will turn and intelligent people will evolve in CA. I got here from Mars and can tell you that it is a sad scene out here.
3
There is a difference between actively silencing a person and not asking questions. As someone mentioned, this is just a hit piece from two extremists. Go to the National Review or whatever rag you read if you wish to complain. Begone!
8
The actual practice of Islam in any country is an amalgam of the teachings of Islam itself and pre-existing religious and cultural practices. It is the same with Christianity. Determining which social practice can be attributed to Islam or Christianity is, therefore, not straightforward. But some insight can be obtained by comparing different societies with the same religion.
While female genital mutilation is definitely a problem in sub-saharan Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran are, for the most part, free from it. Its practice in India, the country with the largest Muslim population, is confined to one or two small sects of Muslims, notably the Bohra muslim community. The practice is mostly absent in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus, there is good reason to think that this practice has nothing to do with Islam as such.
Identifying which social practice can be directly attributed to Islam needs carefully study but the authors are not willing to do the hard work. Rather they are banking on their status as "Muslim women" to persuade their readers. The strategy has good payoffs at the moment but sooner or later, the sloppy analysis will be found out. (Just to be clear, I am not discounting their personal experience; just noting its limitations.)
We do need to understand extremist political groups using Islam like ISIS but this needs careful work. I am not sure Ali and Nomani can provide it.
While female genital mutilation is definitely a problem in sub-saharan Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran are, for the most part, free from it. Its practice in India, the country with the largest Muslim population, is confined to one or two small sects of Muslims, notably the Bohra muslim community. The practice is mostly absent in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus, there is good reason to think that this practice has nothing to do with Islam as such.
Identifying which social practice can be directly attributed to Islam needs carefully study but the authors are not willing to do the hard work. Rather they are banking on their status as "Muslim women" to persuade their readers. The strategy has good payoffs at the moment but sooner or later, the sloppy analysis will be found out. (Just to be clear, I am not discounting their personal experience; just noting its limitations.)
We do need to understand extremist political groups using Islam like ISIS but this needs careful work. I am not sure Ali and Nomani can provide it.
12
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population currently, followed by Pakistan. India is third.
Well said. People really need to understand the difference between culture and religion. Smearing a religion, without knowing much about it, has become an ignorant fad. I wish people would make friends with people of other faiths and stop insulting religion(s). When I look around and talk to people, two people of the same religion, in the same family, can have totally different interpretation of the same lines in their holy book.
I hope all Americans (and us Canadians) live according to our laws and leave religion in our homes/hearts.
I hope all Americans (and us Canadians) live according to our laws and leave religion in our homes/hearts.
1
The left continues to astound me. Hysteria about a man saying something to a woman that they feel is demeaning or "less than." Genital mutilation, child marriage, beheading, etc. of women by proponents of sharia law? Yawn.
You can be highly critical of and speak out against these and other practicnes without being anti-Muslim. So - why is the left so silent about this, when clearly these brutal attacks on women are vastly worse than the standard complaints about misogyny in the U.S.?
You can be highly critical of and speak out against these and other practicnes without being anti-Muslim. So - why is the left so silent about this, when clearly these brutal attacks on women are vastly worse than the standard complaints about misogyny in the U.S.?
15
Forced marriage and genital mutilation are both illegal in the United States.
5
Of course they are but that does not mean it is not occurring.
3
Do you yhink the shooting might have made the timing of this hearing stink,, that something else might have occupied their thoughts? True, the hearing could've been canceled but sensitivity? Where is yours?
1
A continuing message we see daily among our leaders is that they cannot be bothered by facts for they already know everything important. I have watched C-Span for hours on end shocked at the arrogance of our leaders as they bring in the best minds available to educate them on various subjects only to lecture these guests about their ignorance and misunderstandings.
>
What we are watching is the death of the expert, of humility, and of respect. Now we are overcome by this bizarre thought that if I think I am smart, then I must be smart and if I think I know all about some subject then I must be the expert. I continually encounter those who read an article or two on the computer and they are now their very own expert with very limited knowledge with absolutely no depth.
>
How bad is this? It is not that uncommon to have an incoming freshman in my first year chemistry class tell me, their professor, how I am incompetent as a chemist because I do not share their views on global warming, vaccines, the effect of power lines on the brain, or any of a multitude other topics. My colleagues report similar behavior in their classes.
>
In this country we have lost the art of listening preferring instead to lecture because we feel oh so much smarter than anyone else. Likewise, we have lost the art of questioning ourselves for now we blindly believe what we want and the facts be damned. This is not enlightenment nor is it leadership. It is the height of ignorance and hubris.
>
What we are watching is the death of the expert, of humility, and of respect. Now we are overcome by this bizarre thought that if I think I am smart, then I must be smart and if I think I know all about some subject then I must be the expert. I continually encounter those who read an article or two on the computer and they are now their very own expert with very limited knowledge with absolutely no depth.
>
How bad is this? It is not that uncommon to have an incoming freshman in my first year chemistry class tell me, their professor, how I am incompetent as a chemist because I do not share their views on global warming, vaccines, the effect of power lines on the brain, or any of a multitude other topics. My colleagues report similar behavior in their classes.
>
In this country we have lost the art of listening preferring instead to lecture because we feel oh so much smarter than anyone else. Likewise, we have lost the art of questioning ourselves for now we blindly believe what we want and the facts be damned. This is not enlightenment nor is it leadership. It is the height of ignorance and hubris.
6
Feminism denies real, meaningful, and impactful differences between the sexes that manifest themselves in different strengths and weaknesses and suggest voluntarily playing different roles within the family and society. Feminism has taught girls and women that selfishness and materialism are preferable to the selflessness and maternalism that have given women meaning, fulfillment, and happiness for millenia. Feminism encourages women to act like men; consequently, it denigrates rather than celebrates the feminine and should be called masculinism. Like all other movements based on falsehoods, feminism has been destructive and must eventually fail. Let's help it do so.
1
As Sen Harris's profile rises, she becomes click bait for right wing hit pieces... like this one.
5
you can clearly see by the patronizing look on her face that kamela Harris is a career politician spoiled by the steady stream of public employee unions in California. another Barbara Boxer in the making! Harris loves the limelight and the cameras, that's her priority. when it comes to doing what's right, she will be wrong...or as in your case, invisible.
7
I think the answer is simple. Muslims vote for Democrats. Supporting Muslim women could cost these women votes, so, they choose to support genital cutting, second class status for women, and male domination because it does not impact them.
5
No one is supporting those things.
I am sure that Senator Harris opposes the oppression of women inherent in and fundamental to Islamism. I am sure she is as horrified by genital mutilation as all Americans must be. But this hearing seems to have been called by right-wing Republicans to advance a right-wing political agenda, which constantly attacks "Shariah law" as if it is somehow spreading within the United States. It is not. The right wing in America is simply on the hunt for Moslems in the same way as it used to hunt communists.
5
Shame, shame, deep shame on these cowardly senators. Liberals?? Progressive?? Hardly.
8
Mindlessly publishing "essays" from people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is what is causing the Times to hemorrhage new subscribers. The "point of view" of hack performance artists literally bought and paid for by AEI is not something I need to pay for - I can get it for free every day on Fox News or NewsMax or InfoWars. Why, Times, Why?
4
Yes, yes, yes!, to all especially your last paragraph.
Recently I was at a mosque for the first time, at an event hosted by the women there in a visit for mostly liberal Christian women like me. The Muslim women all wore hijab and they spoke about Islamic history and practices (which actually shares a lot with Christianity).
One of the first things they brought up was they wear the hijab so as to reduce the distraction of "looks" and get those with them to focus on their minds and what they say and think, instead.
But I wanted to challenge them: I’ve seen women in hijab look quite fetching with skillfully applied makeup and perfectly sculpted brows, etc. which kind of neutralizes the whole "look at my mind" thing. So I don’t believe their stated reasons for a second: although they may believe this, I think they are really doing what the men require them to do (Islamic men: grow up and control yourselves). How I wanted to say "I do not believe you".
The reason I didn’t: I caved to an unspoken pressure in the room. About 3/4 of the 75 guests wore some version of the hijab perhaps out of deference to the hosts. I understand that. However, I saw this instead as sympathetic with Islamic male rules (i.e., *repressing women’s sexuality* rules). Which includes sexual mutilation, for one, to this day.
We have to ask the questions that lead us to change practices designed to make women less than what we truly are. The world, now more than half women, requires nothing less.
Recently I was at a mosque for the first time, at an event hosted by the women there in a visit for mostly liberal Christian women like me. The Muslim women all wore hijab and they spoke about Islamic history and practices (which actually shares a lot with Christianity).
One of the first things they brought up was they wear the hijab so as to reduce the distraction of "looks" and get those with them to focus on their minds and what they say and think, instead.
But I wanted to challenge them: I’ve seen women in hijab look quite fetching with skillfully applied makeup and perfectly sculpted brows, etc. which kind of neutralizes the whole "look at my mind" thing. So I don’t believe their stated reasons for a second: although they may believe this, I think they are really doing what the men require them to do (Islamic men: grow up and control yourselves). How I wanted to say "I do not believe you".
The reason I didn’t: I caved to an unspoken pressure in the room. About 3/4 of the 75 guests wore some version of the hijab perhaps out of deference to the hosts. I understand that. However, I saw this instead as sympathetic with Islamic male rules (i.e., *repressing women’s sexuality* rules). Which includes sexual mutilation, for one, to this day.
We have to ask the questions that lead us to change practices designed to make women less than what we truly are. The world, now more than half women, requires nothing less.
7
There are three million Muslims in the U.S. Each is accused routinely by the Republicans of supporting Sharia law, painting every Muslim in the U.S. as hating women, all supposedly guilty of genital mutilation. While there are certainly some nuts among our Muslim neighbors, the rest do not deserve to be castigated this way.
None of these Democratic senators stopped Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Asra Q. Nomani from talking. These Senators are simply aware that the current administration is engaged in an anti-Muslim agenda that is not directed at the true villains in Muslim society but at all Muslims. We are in a time that Muslims girls in Portland are threatened by a right wing nut and when ordinary citizens tell the nut to stop it, three of these good Samaritans are knifed and two of them are killed. These deaths were the fruit of the current anti-Muslim hysteria.
If the Trump administration and the Republicans would defend the rights of American Muslims and stop sucking up the Saudis, we might be able to focus on the real problems. Everyone knows that most of the money for ISIS comes from Saudi Arabia, not American, so let's get real here.
None of these Democratic senators stopped Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Asra Q. Nomani from talking. These Senators are simply aware that the current administration is engaged in an anti-Muslim agenda that is not directed at the true villains in Muslim society but at all Muslims. We are in a time that Muslims girls in Portland are threatened by a right wing nut and when ordinary citizens tell the nut to stop it, three of these good Samaritans are knifed and two of them are killed. These deaths were the fruit of the current anti-Muslim hysteria.
If the Trump administration and the Republicans would defend the rights of American Muslims and stop sucking up the Saudis, we might be able to focus on the real problems. Everyone knows that most of the money for ISIS comes from Saudi Arabia, not American, so let's get real here.
7
As a prosecutor, Kamala Harris' questions require the answers she demands; equivocations and clarifications are not allowed, get drowned out and shouted over with more Kamala Harris questions. The American judicial system becomes Kangaroo Kourt under Kamala's sense of justice.
3
Comment on the comment stream: When progressives trip all over themselves defending the indefensible, or in this case appearing indifferent to the plight of millions of women world wide, they lose more credibility with mainstream voters. Equating Islam's general treatment of women with contemporary Christian treatment of women aint helping the cause folks. Your living in a bubble with an echo chamber.
9
There are interesting parallels here to the Civil Rights Era in the United States, when the struggle for gender equality was often ignored or expected to be supressed for the "greater" cause of racial equality.
9
Why didn't the speakers contact the women senators directly rather than confronting them in a public forum? Feminism is a red letter word for politicians running in Missouri or California. Women's right to health care, equal treatment under the law, and contraceptive planning are OK to talk about. Hirsi Ali is married to a far right conservative (Nigel Ferguson). Both she and her husband are paid by the same far right think tank. If she genuinely wants to improve the lot of Islamic women in the United States - a difficult position for an atheist - then she must realize that there are other channels in which to broach this topic and be effective. Democrats are worried about getting re-elected, and keeping Republican healthcare legislation from being adopted. Ayaan needs to reconsider how to be effective Her novelty has worn off, and she needs to understand how politics works in America - very poorly at this point. She works for the Bad Guys and doesn't even acknowledge it.
12
Democrats should be worried about more important things than getting elected. Your note helps me to remember why I refuse to register as a Democrat despite usually voting for them.
8
These women should have acknowledged their partisan ties. I thought it was a good article until I read the comment above; now I doubt what their motives are, which is a sad thing indeed. I thought it more like a desire to punish Democratic women than to reach out and ask for the attention their cause deserves. Not nice at all, and I will, in the future, question everything these women write.
5
"Why didn't the speakers contact the women senators directly rather than confronting them in a public forum?"
Because they are SENATORS and addressing them in a public forum and having their opinions and thoughts shown is literally their job.
I completely agree with your sentiment that this is basically grandstanding by Ali and Nomani, and I personally have trouble supporting them because their efforts on behalf of Muslim women always seems to be a small part of a much bigger effort to demonize Muslims and only Muslims.
But that said, I 100% would love to hear what female Democratic senators feel, in a public forum, about the terrible plight of women in vast swaths of the Muslim world.
Because they are SENATORS and addressing them in a public forum and having their opinions and thoughts shown is literally their job.
I completely agree with your sentiment that this is basically grandstanding by Ali and Nomani, and I personally have trouble supporting them because their efforts on behalf of Muslim women always seems to be a small part of a much bigger effort to demonize Muslims and only Muslims.
But that said, I 100% would love to hear what female Democratic senators feel, in a public forum, about the terrible plight of women in vast swaths of the Muslim world.
1
There is a state department Office of Global Women's Issues. This is the organization in the US government that works with foreign countries where women's rights are at risk.Trump wants to eliminate this office. If they were sincere, that should be the focus of the authors' complaint. When the budget gets in front of Congress, it will be people like Senator Harris fighting to preserve the budget for the Office of Global Women's Issues.
13
And, women who are attempting to escape bad situations, similar to the situations the 2 authors have endured, will be barred from coming to the U.S. by the GOP whom the authors have embraced because of their country of origin and religion.
1
Instead of criticism Senators for what they did not do, perhaps, the oped could have more thoroughly explored what specifically US Senators could accomplish to address complaints concerning the alleged persecution of Muslim women. What did they wanted the hearing to accomplish: War? Sanctions? Harangues? Ego satisfaction in being asked questions? Otherwise, this sounds more like a Bill Maher Real Time bashing of Islam.
7
You can't be serious with your response you're saying that feminists are not able to bring attention to the atrocities committed by Muslims against their female population other than going to war? That's the best thinking you can come up with, you obviously the problem
"the alleged persecution of Muslim women ... Peter there is no 'alleged' here -- it is glaringly obvious. The point of this article is the question why these Democrat women who claim to champion the human rights of women remain silent on this glaringly obvious issue.
1
Perhaps the female senators kept silent to enable you to tell your stories without aiding and abetting their male republican colleagues in their efforts to prove to the world that a ban on Muslims is justified. It could also be that sound of your voices is what they wanted the nation to hear, not theirs nor the 'mansplaining' ramblings from the men who run the show. We can only hope that someone heard you over the sound of gunfire.
6
Upon finishing your article, I thought: "Or will you join them?". Our politicians are not philosophers, nor made of stone. Though they have their own priorities, the overriding urgency for them is pressure to get and stay elected. As you clamor for attention, there are powerful special interests forcing their wants and needs on the pols. You felt neglected because you had not been heard. You didn't get the attention that you needed. Had it occurred to you that the information you had was nothing new, or perhaps, that the spectacle of paying attention to you in public might cause problems with their competition? These Senators are not operating in a political vacuum. They must spend much of their time posturing and arguing over things that might seem meaningless. They are not against women's rights. Your pleas are meritorious, but not necessarily new material that will grip the public in a Country where women have been fighting steadily for hundreds of years for the modest gains that they have made. Perhaps these Senators did not want to be used by you for your agenda, as urgent and as important as it may be. Don't play the voiceless brown woman card. Lean on your own oppressors.
Perhaps you should join them and the democratic party and speak for all national issues.
Perhaps you should join them and the democratic party and speak for all national issues.
9
The growing alliance between fundamentalist Islam and the progressive/radical left should disturb any fair minded American patriot. Egyptian Greek Melkite Jesuit Father Henri Boulad and American Jesuit Father Schall have explained why they believe Islamist terrorists are applying what their religion teaches them. This is something Ayann Hirsi Ali has experienced and most of the progressive Islamophiles have not. I'm reminded of all the excuse making for Soviet misbehaviours during the Cold War among the American elitist class. Victims of communist regimes just happened to know more about what they were talking about.
17
An alliance between progressives and fundamentalist Islam! You must be joking! I thought conservatives flocked together, i.e. fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, the former leaders of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump, etc.
This is a hit piece on Sen. Harris by women who work for WSJ and The Hoover Institute, both right wing organizations (one of them that's owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News). The Hoover Institute is also on the 'right wing' watch list. And while I have have loathed most of my life the deep seated misogyny of all major religions, but especially Islam, writing a column bashing one of the new bright feminist stars in the US Senate, in no way persuades me. To me Asra and Aayan are just right wing mouthpieces out to bring down a progressive women. Awful!
32
Thank you for pointing this out! ASRA Q. NOMANI's article in the WP
- "I'm a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump." pretty much says it all. AYAAN HIRSI ALI appears more moderate but I didn't look deeply. Very proud to have Harris as my Senator!
- "I'm a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump." pretty much says it all. AYAAN HIRSI ALI appears more moderate but I didn't look deeply. Very proud to have Harris as my Senator!
The authors are missing the forest for the trees. sexism and misogyny are not unique to one religion. The hearing described is sickening and should never be held in a Democratic Senate. We have amoral GOP senators to thank for that.
Maybe the authors are truly ignorant of the lack of balance, or our Declaration of Independence?
When are we going to have the Christian experts explain how their violence contributes to terror? It does. Every day.
Maybe the authors are truly ignorant of the lack of balance, or our Declaration of Independence?
When are we going to have the Christian experts explain how their violence contributes to terror? It does. Every day.
6
Ayaan Hirsi: You are a big peddler of all kinds of falsehoods about Islam and even about your background as a Somali girl --- all for the sake of exploiting general American ignorance of Eastern cultures. Please explain to Americans why you had to give up your Dutch citizenship although you were a prominent member of parliament in the Netherlands. When you do that, we will be willing listen to what you have to say about more trivial matters. The senators who refused to acknowledge you know the phony issues you peddle. Bravo to them!
13
Only 20 comments. Never mind the senators - what does that say about us.
2
But read those comments -- and when you realize that the authors are right wing shills, it casts their piece and their testimony in a whole new light. Which is a shame, because their message about the horrors Islam inflicts on women is important. They should not have allowed themselves to be used in this way.
Regardless of the Republicans intent at the Homeland Security meeting, the three female Democratic members should have engaged Aayan and Asra to counter the attempt by the Republican members to portray Islam as a malevolent religion.
1
There is something entirely dishonest and disingenuous about a writer claiming to be "silenced" when she was given every opportunity to speak but no one attacked her with questions.
I guess this is the Trump definition of truth. "Being silenced" = being allowed to say whatever you want without someone challenging your and attacking you and undermining you. As long as you are a very conservative who promises only to offer praise to the Republican Party.
A shameful headline by the same NY Times headline writer who turned every Republican trumped up charges against Hillary Clinton into a headline implying corruption.
I guess this is the Trump definition of truth. "Being silenced" = being allowed to say whatever you want without someone challenging your and attacking you and undermining you. As long as you are a very conservative who promises only to offer praise to the Republican Party.
A shameful headline by the same NY Times headline writer who turned every Republican trumped up charges against Hillary Clinton into a headline implying corruption.
1
"the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures"
That's lightening the facts up a bit to make their case...here's the reality check:
The GOP believes that women must bear the babies of rapists - the GOP enables wife beaters who swear to kill their wives or girlfriends to have not only guns, but assault weapons so there is no way to escape the spray of bullets alive - the GOP takes away medical care from pregnant women (while they cover viagra!) - the GOP refuses sex education in schools (which is why GOP-run states have the highest teen pregnancy rates) - the GOP allows older men to marry 14 year old children, legalizing the rape of children.
The authors are wrong. We decry and abhor Islamic extremists who treat women abominably AND we decry and abhor the poor treatment of women everywhere - beginning at home.
Decent treatment of all people - by religious extremists of all religions and everyone else - should be the shared goal of our common humanity.
That's lightening the facts up a bit to make their case...here's the reality check:
The GOP believes that women must bear the babies of rapists - the GOP enables wife beaters who swear to kill their wives or girlfriends to have not only guns, but assault weapons so there is no way to escape the spray of bullets alive - the GOP takes away medical care from pregnant women (while they cover viagra!) - the GOP refuses sex education in schools (which is why GOP-run states have the highest teen pregnancy rates) - the GOP allows older men to marry 14 year old children, legalizing the rape of children.
The authors are wrong. We decry and abhor Islamic extremists who treat women abominably AND we decry and abhor the poor treatment of women everywhere - beginning at home.
Decent treatment of all people - by religious extremists of all religions and everyone else - should be the shared goal of our common humanity.
21
Americans like issues, especially moral ones, to be black or white. It's hard for us to find time and energy to research, understand and accept complexities. The writers suggest liberals champion Muslims out of concern for discrimination and overlook serious Islamic human rights issues. Commentors say republicans are using these women to fuel hate against Muslims.
Maybe the authors are aligned with extreme conservatism? Because Ms Ali is with the conservative Hoover Institution, should we dismiss her fight against female genital mutilation?
Obviously, we need to fight for human rights and what's right even when it is hard, messy and fraught with contradictions. I don't know if the women senators were acting politically. I hope they weren't.
It used to be that some issues cut through partisanship. Women's rights needs to be one of those issues. Otherwise, we're on the road to surreal hypocrisy like Saudi Arabia, where women need a male guardian to function in society, giving $100 million to "female empowerment" via Ivanka's World Bank fund.
Maybe the authors are aligned with extreme conservatism? Because Ms Ali is with the conservative Hoover Institution, should we dismiss her fight against female genital mutilation?
Obviously, we need to fight for human rights and what's right even when it is hard, messy and fraught with contradictions. I don't know if the women senators were acting politically. I hope they weren't.
It used to be that some issues cut through partisanship. Women's rights needs to be one of those issues. Otherwise, we're on the road to surreal hypocrisy like Saudi Arabia, where women need a male guardian to function in society, giving $100 million to "female empowerment" via Ivanka's World Bank fund.
5
Which makes it doubly a shame that these women allow their important message to be subsumed and subverted.
The left is continuing its obscurantism and obfuscation ostrich policy. This is already hurting them in the polls and is costing lives in the West. The obvious problem of normative Muslim violence across the planet will not take care of itself if we pretend Muslim mass murder has nothing to do with Islam.
11
To the authors: You've run afoul of the feminist/Marxist doctrine of "intersectionality." That's the concept that everyone except straight white males (SWMs) are divided into victim classes. The more victim classes you "qualify" for, the higher your status and the more deserving you are of pity and reparations. And, most importantly, the victim class members are not allowed to challenge, disparage, or lessen other victim classes, no matter what. This helps the SWM devil-oppressors. Thus, sexist, religionist, terrorist-tolerating Muslims, because they are not SWMs, are a legitimate victim class... and shouldn't be criticized under intersectionality. Yes, this is sick, twisted, and absurd. Welcome to progressive thinking.
8
"Yes, this is sick, twisted, and absurd."
Of course it is. Because it's not real. This is your fantasy about what progressives are saying. Don't blame others for your rank incompetence.
Of course it is. Because it's not real. This is your fantasy about what progressives are saying. Don't blame others for your rank incompetence.
1
Give us your definition of intersectionality, and see if you can do it without personal attacks.
1
How did Kamala Harris "silence" you by sitting and listening to you?
14
This piece was a waste of my time. How were the authors silenced? They were given a hearing in front of a Senate committee!
Ms. Ali has certainly been an outspoken voice for human rights, but doesn't she also see how she is continually used by the racist right as propaganda for their ugliest views?
Ms. Ali has certainly been an outspoken voice for human rights, but doesn't she also see how she is continually used by the racist right as propaganda for their ugliest views?
8
I read the article. If you don't have time to read here's a summary: there are no sentences that even remotely match the headline.
15
I object to the headline, the writers testified. They weren't 'silenced'. What is the writers objective? Would the writers be happy if we dropped a fusion devise on Damascus or Riyad or Tehran to demonstrate our opposition to islamism?
2
Authors are research fellow and author/former journalist. Also, founder and co-founder of foundations.
If they can get back to "girding ourselves for tough questions" (interesting selection of words), .. Are you responsible for this headline? "Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us."
BECAUSE.. Kamala Harris Was NOT Silenced (she was just rudely interrupted) and... She DID NOT Silence You (your microphone worked and you had the Republican Senators' questions designed for public lambasting.)
And again today, you are NOT SILENCED, but here in digital and print media, doing your widened scope of public lambasting.
Obviously, the "best of show" thrown at these Democratic Senators is your "This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity."
The hearing, Republican "show." This article, extension of same "show." Not aimed at advancing pragmatic solutions of laws and justice, but aimed at keeping roadway open for public lambasting.
People could tire of "hating", so more outrage has to be delivered. But ASSIGN "extreme political correctness" to the DESPISED LIBERALS, and the target audience's pragmatic sensibilities can be overwhelmed and visceral revulsion, again, has free reign. Bottom line: Republican's "Whack a Immigrant/Muslim And Win a Vote" strategy stays healthy and thriving.
I suggest that a founder and a co-founder of foundations would understand that major strategy, especially when they emote in lockstep. Own it.
If they can get back to "girding ourselves for tough questions" (interesting selection of words), .. Are you responsible for this headline? "Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us."
BECAUSE.. Kamala Harris Was NOT Silenced (she was just rudely interrupted) and... She DID NOT Silence You (your microphone worked and you had the Republican Senators' questions designed for public lambasting.)
And again today, you are NOT SILENCED, but here in digital and print media, doing your widened scope of public lambasting.
Obviously, the "best of show" thrown at these Democratic Senators is your "This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity."
The hearing, Republican "show." This article, extension of same "show." Not aimed at advancing pragmatic solutions of laws and justice, but aimed at keeping roadway open for public lambasting.
People could tire of "hating", so more outrage has to be delivered. But ASSIGN "extreme political correctness" to the DESPISED LIBERALS, and the target audience's pragmatic sensibilities can be overwhelmed and visceral revulsion, again, has free reign. Bottom line: Republican's "Whack a Immigrant/Muslim And Win a Vote" strategy stays healthy and thriving.
I suggest that a founder and a co-founder of foundations would understand that major strategy, especially when they emote in lockstep. Own it.
6
I think the heading of the article was very misleading and unfair to Senstor Harris and your readers. I'm really surprised at NYT. You usually do better. Senator Harris and other female senators did not silence Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani by not asking questions. Obviously the senators knew more than I and probably most readers knew - that these two women had a hidden, Republican agenda. Next time please provide some context for the readers. Senstor Harris was cut off by her boorish male colleagues; Ali and Nomani got a chance to speak. Totally different circumstances. Don't get it twisted.
26
All religion should not be tolerated.
We forget that constantly. Human history of religion is a tapestry of dictatorial obedience, abuse and intolerance of everything outside of it's worldview.
Western civilization has somehow elevated 'religion' to some status that should protected at all costs. Thus we get stonings, honor killings, genital abuse and forced/arranged marriages of children.
We need to set limits. Religions tolerance/freedom should come at a price of meeting compliance with basic secular human rights in its practice and teachings. If you want tolerance, you must also give it.
We forget that constantly. Human history of religion is a tapestry of dictatorial obedience, abuse and intolerance of everything outside of it's worldview.
Western civilization has somehow elevated 'religion' to some status that should protected at all costs. Thus we get stonings, honor killings, genital abuse and forced/arranged marriages of children.
We need to set limits. Religions tolerance/freedom should come at a price of meeting compliance with basic secular human rights in its practice and teachings. If you want tolerance, you must also give it.
7
Both the issues of honor killings and female genital mutilations predate Islam by centuries if not by millennia. They have nothing to do with Islam. I urge interested readers to look up these practices among pagan African tribes who have never been exposed to Christianity or Islam. Because Islam is generally being demonized in the West these days, these two women are simply piling on and taking advantage for the exposure it affords them.
Islam has been at war with Europe & the West for a thousand years. Gates of Vienna battle in 1683 prevented the Islamization of Europe.
We need to read Winston Churchills views on Muhammadism over and over.
Wonderful individuals ,misguided faith
We need to read Winston Churchills views on Muhammadism over and over.
Wonderful individuals ,misguided faith
2
I do not recognize the "progressives" of whom the author paints a portrait. This reads like right wing propaganda. Another hit piece against Liberalism. *sigh*
6
It's not propaganda simply because you don't want it to be true.
1
The progressive hypocrisy in the comment section is evident. Islam is an oppressive religion for women, gays and actively discriminates against Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. The political manifestation of Islam is violent. Islamic terrorist may be a minority and a perversion in part, but it has more widespread support in the Islamic world than the left wishes to acknowledge.
8
There are 1.3 billion Muslims. There are around 100,000 who have joined an evil, twisted cult that teaches murder and mayhem. That means well less than 1% of Muslims are "radical". Those who want to destroy this radical cult have nothing against Muslims or Islam. It is obvious that over 99% of Muslims are peace-loving, good people. Those who want to destroy ISIS, Al Quaeda, Taliban, etc are not racists. Get it?
3
Where do you get your data? Resources, please. I suggest that what can be surmised from the mind boggling lack of condemnation of the evil twisted cult ( you really mean pious orthodox Muslims) is that your numbers are not accurate or relevant.
Moreover, sharia is the norm... the immutable, absolute norm and it is this norm which the author attacks in addition to those who gloss over the patent misogyny and injustice of sharia.
Moreover, sharia is the norm... the immutable, absolute norm and it is this norm which the author attacks in addition to those who gloss over the patent misogyny and injustice of sharia.
It is unfortunate that due to the way the authors are framing their message, laced with an underground tone of right wing ant-muslim ideology, they and their promoters are intentionally putting progressive senators in a bind. Every point they make is valid, except the time/place/framework, cleverly crafted to start a new mind game relating to the older tactic of constantly criticizing former president Obama for not using the term "radical islam." Tbe authors are shamelessly exploiting serious, real ssues in the realm of gender abuse (practiced, by the way, by muslim countries favored by the United States and certainly many of our republican as well as democratic legislators such as Saudi Arabia), to promote a more sophisticated version of divide and conquer through confusion and disguised propaganda.
2
Why was Kamala Harris silent? There were no cameras rolling. She is running for President next time and that is all she cares about.
Foolish of you to believe she actually cares about what happens to others.
Foolish of you to believe she actually cares about what happens to others.
5
Brave women. Much braver than the cowardly Democrat Senators that sat silent in tacit approval of the true parade of horribles suffered by millions of women around the world. While they will gladly appear in the press to spew platitudes and pseudo-concerns for the fiction of a 'rape culture' on college campuses, the "wage gap" tall story (unless it is their employee, see, e.g., Hillary's staff) or pillory some man for an off color joke, they (and Western feminists writ large) lose their shrill and often hysterical voices when faced with a true 'feminist'/equality issue. It is for these reasons that honest, thinking women (cf. Camille Paglia) largely reject the modern feminist movement, a movement led by and peppered with unhappy and lonely harpies and harridans incapable of maintaining a meaningful and loving relationship with a man. Sad.
7
Wow. Intimidated by strong women much? Lonely harpies incapable of loving relationships? Shrill and hysterical? Oh, and the ever present fall-back-on-Hillary retort. You're hilarious. Is that part of your stand-up routine? This is an opinion piece, not a recitation of facts. These authors have absolutely no idea of Ms. Harris's opinion, and making assumptions based upon not receiving the response they apparently had expected is unfair at best. They are still waiting for marches? Perhaps they should organize them.
The author should know that leftist pols, even leftist pol women, don't want to hear the truth about shariah and those who want to see a world-wide caliphate.
2
Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. Running for safety when one of it's practitioners yells Allahu Akbar while wielding a machete is NORMAL, not Islamaphobia. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but vast majority of terrorists are Muslim. Fact.
5
Long life to you, ladies
4
Harris and their ilk have more fear of Christian fundamentalists that Islamic extremists who treat women like total dirt. And thanks to the Muslims posting here who are trying to bring the religion into the 21st century.
4
I recommend that people read the first two or three chapters of the Quran (or more) as they decide what the religion stands for and how it stands for it.
4
Kamala Harris silenced these two women? A "gotcha" headline that's patently untrue?
I expect better from the NYT.
I expect better from the NYT.
5
Harris badgered Sessions incessantly and rudely and would not allow answers. That is obvious and on YouTube. The larger the Islamic population that your Western country allows, the more terrorista attacks you will have. That is also a fact
3
Two conservative scholars ignore the body of American laws (passed with bipartisan support) that prohibit female genital mutilation, rape, forced marriage, marital rape, child marriage, etc. to claim that they were "silenced" by one Democratic Senator (on a bipartisan Committee) because no member of the Committee asked them any questions. They argue that because no Republicans or Democrats asked them questions, American feminists and progressives somehow support myriad forms of violence against women. Their lack of basic logic and factual support for their argument make me wonder why the NYT published this piece. This isn't a scholarly argument, it's just another unfounded conservative attempt to claim Democrats support violence against women.
4
These women are heroes. Those who ignore, denigrate or silence them are craven, blinded-by-their-ideology cowards.
6
Anglo-Saxon(primarily) evangelism has defiled large parts of the world and it's on the march again. Everyone should think like us is the motto of the besotted and the arrogant. We also sell snake oil, arms, false promises on any subject, drugs to make you forget about it all, alcohol, cults, psychiatry, and instruments for dumbing down galore like facebook and twitter.
Asra has it right with her Islam Reform Movement. Islam needs to reform itself. Judeo-Christian America cannot and will not despite endless promises by rabble rousers and false prophets like Hillary or Harris or McCaskill et all. All they do is stir the pot and skim off the profit like the owners of a cheap, ideological cafeteria.
We follow them, because we are ever so slightly beyond stupid, brain washed. It would be useful if those in other spheres who don't think like we do in this wasteland were a bit smarter and played their game on their playing field or change the rules if they can. We can't.
Asra has it right with her Islam Reform Movement. Islam needs to reform itself. Judeo-Christian America cannot and will not despite endless promises by rabble rousers and false prophets like Hillary or Harris or McCaskill et all. All they do is stir the pot and skim off the profit like the owners of a cheap, ideological cafeteria.
We follow them, because we are ever so slightly beyond stupid, brain washed. It would be useful if those in other spheres who don't think like we do in this wasteland were a bit smarter and played their game on their playing field or change the rules if they can. We can't.
Anyone watching Harris's behavior during the Session's hearing could clearly see she was constantly cutting him off. Whether this was due to some kind of rude power play or deliberately trying to change the meaning his responses, it was obvious that she was way out line with Senate rules and decorum. She wasn't silenced. She's playing the victim. And it's not working.
6
Universal rights should not be denied women and children because they're born into a particular religion. I support Kamala's efforts in the capital but not on this issue.
1
Thanks to the NYT and these writers for bringing these issues to our attention. I find it troubling that not only the 'right' but the 'left' in the US seem to be unaware of the major facts of life in much of the rest of the globe, even though we become ever more rapidly interconnected. Recently I was reading an article about female genital mutilation in the US, and was reading it online in the BBC news, where the topic was so familiar that it was referred to as FGM. This hideous, painful, and life-ruining procedure is performed on millions of women, but we Americans are unaware, even when it is going on here.
6
I am trying to reconcile the purpose of this hearing with the reactions noted in this article by the witnesses.
I have started to listen to the actual hearing which lasts over two hours.
I respect what I see as the stand of women about how they perceive their treatment under their religion. However approaching our government to correct these problems via a hearing is to conflate their goals with the goals of the hearing, which are quite different. It is a slippery slope. I need to finish listening to the hearing to come to solid conclusions.
Reform is much more painful however and needs to start at the grass roots level. If you live in this country you are free to:
Leave your religion
Reject genital mutilation
Wear what you wish to wear
Go to school, get educated, get a job with power behind it
Get a license and drive
Speak out
However to ask the government to step in and make these changes for you is outside of the purview of our government.
Women need to unite with stated goals, find sympathetic men in and outside of power, of their families, of their community, do everything that they are able to change their conditions. It will take an evolution or a revolution but it is outside the control of this particular venue.
If you are living in this country, you should start by countering anything illegal that is happening in this country by legal action.
I empathize with the emotions of these witnesses, but the method of achieving goals needs to be revised.
I have started to listen to the actual hearing which lasts over two hours.
I respect what I see as the stand of women about how they perceive their treatment under their religion. However approaching our government to correct these problems via a hearing is to conflate their goals with the goals of the hearing, which are quite different. It is a slippery slope. I need to finish listening to the hearing to come to solid conclusions.
Reform is much more painful however and needs to start at the grass roots level. If you live in this country you are free to:
Leave your religion
Reject genital mutilation
Wear what you wish to wear
Go to school, get educated, get a job with power behind it
Get a license and drive
Speak out
However to ask the government to step in and make these changes for you is outside of the purview of our government.
Women need to unite with stated goals, find sympathetic men in and outside of power, of their families, of their community, do everything that they are able to change their conditions. It will take an evolution or a revolution but it is outside the control of this particular venue.
If you are living in this country, you should start by countering anything illegal that is happening in this country by legal action.
I empathize with the emotions of these witnesses, but the method of achieving goals needs to be revised.
2
When I glanced to the upper right side of this web page and saw only 107 comments, I knew right away that an objective non Trump bashing article was to follow.
5
Why are you surprised? Democratic ideology demands fealty to anything Trump is opposed to. President Obama could never bring himself to describe any Islamic terrorism in the US as just that. The NYT isn't much different. Imagine if Christians were doing what you describe..the Democrats would be all over it.
5
I find it remarkable that people are puzzled about how the situation that Nomani and Ali described relates to terrorism. Are so-called liberals unable to understand why societies that WIDELY believe that shariah law should be observed in Muslim communities today routinely produces pathologically entitled men who resort to terrorism? It's disappointing that so many commenters have obfuscated the extreme deprivation of human rights that exists throughout nearly all of the Muslim world by making irrelevant points about how other religious texts malign women as well. It's disturbing that so-called progressives are so paranoid about avoiding "stigmatizing" muslims that they are more concerned about the true motives of republicans than they are motivated to stand up for human rights in Muslim communities. This is a major reason for why progressives are losing share of the electorate around the western world. Wake up and recognize the fact that claiming Islam is oh-so-diverse is an irresponsible deflection. While there are numerous sects and a spectrum of beliefs regarding devotion to Islam, the vase majority of Muslims around the world oppose free speech and the separation of church and state. They genuinely think it is the govt's place to punish those who blaspheme. And yes, the normalization of exactly that attitude is the foundation for the religious terror which cripples entire countries in the ME. And don't pretend that ignoring these women is much different from silencing.
12
There's a big difference between being told to shut up (which is effectively what happened to Senator Harris) and choosing not to ask questions. No one tried to prevent the testimony in question from being given. No one interrupted your testimony, or belittled your comments. The senators sat there and listened to what you had to say. You're not entitled to anything more than that.
8
"There's a big difference between being told to shut up (which is effectively what happened to Senator Harris) and choosing not to ask questions."
The comment above NOT ONLY suggests that the point of the article is missed, it is ALSO a copout. This kind of event is NOT a monologue, it's a dialogue.
It's rather inconceivable to imagine that the senators knew EVERYTHING about EVERY point the women made. Surely, there must have been certain points that needed further explanation.
By not asking a SINGLE question, the senators SIMPLY showed that they were NOT appropriately interested, if at all, in what Ali and Nomani had to say.
The comment above NOT ONLY suggests that the point of the article is missed, it is ALSO a copout. This kind of event is NOT a monologue, it's a dialogue.
It's rather inconceivable to imagine that the senators knew EVERYTHING about EVERY point the women made. Surely, there must have been certain points that needed further explanation.
By not asking a SINGLE question, the senators SIMPLY showed that they were NOT appropriately interested, if at all, in what Ali and Nomani had to say.
2
Sen. Kamala Harris was not interested enough in the plight of oppressed Muslim women to bother herself to ask any questions because she was more interested in the optics of seeming to refuse to cooperate with Republican senators for the sake of her future political career than in standing up for justice for Muslim women. Hypocrtite!
While I sympathize with these women and would hope that we all fight for sexual equality across the board, what is the remedy these women were expecting from this hearing? To have all Senators denounce Islam as extremist and ban Islam from the planet? I mean the atrocities that are routinely committed around the globe in the name of religion or in the name of tribal conquest or in the name of national security interests are all extreme and should be denounced. But it seems they have been and that many folks are striving to eradicate this behavior. But the US can do only so much. And if these women are frustrated that the US is not doing more to eradicate this type of behavior, I don't blame them, but I'm not sure this was the forum to determine how much our female Democratic Senators care.
7
Our female Democratic senators probably do care but Democrat orthodoxy prohibits any dissent. Islam is a religion of peace we are told and anyone who tries to point out extremism exists is is essentially silenced.
4
Begin the attacks on a rising star in the Democratic party as quickly and incessantly as possible. Note the source of this opinion article: the Hoover Institution. Attack in the guise of caring about women of color, and have it come from minorities. Those are the words. While the actions are the opposite: the head of the GOP party pushes for a ban on Muslim travel to the US and promotes elimination of women's reproductive rights.
Watch the actions, not the words.
Watch the actions, not the words.
25
Did Ms. Ali really think they would put principles before politics? It's easy for Harris to go after an old white Republican, since that plays to her base. Standing up for women that are abused by one of her constituent groups requires real courage. Her actions speak directly to her lack of that quality.
12
Various religious groups, sects, and even families are known to abuse and manipulate their members. Extremist Christian groups are not so different from extremist Islamic groups in their efforts to control women and take away individual liberties -- the very liberties that are protected under our constitution. If the administration is truly concerned about extremist religious ideologies oppressing our citizens than it needs to look at the whole gamut. For sure, Islamic groups in the US account for far, far less abuse than Christian groups.
6
But scale matters. Yes, fringe self-declared Christian groups are extreme. The very fact we rightly call them extreme is that they are very far from mainstream Christianity and the vast number of believers. But sometimes these conservatives, if we are fair and not ideological, get it right, even as we disagree on much else.
There is a blind spot on the left toward Islam and its culture, with some brave exceptions. The very fact you would compare a huge number of people within Islam to a tiny sub-set of "Christians" in America says it all.
There is a blind spot on the left toward Islam and its culture, with some brave exceptions. The very fact you would compare a huge number of people within Islam to a tiny sub-set of "Christians" in America says it all.
7
I must wholeheartedly agree our home grown christian fundamentalists are as much a danger to the American way of life as any of the other sects mentioned. Their small mindedness and prejudices are being stoked by our embarrassment-in-chief to the detriment of our own existence. Reprehensible!
2
Your final comparison is a worthless one, in that Islamic believers in the United States are outnumbered by Christians by an enormous factor, and that Islamic believers in the United States are largely prevented from doing what their fellow-believers do in Muslim countries, by our equal-justice laws and a secular society that doesn't tolerate or encourage religious extremism.
"Extremist Christian" groups, unidentified by you and certainly small, also can't be compared to "extremist Islamic groups" which are in fact the entire governments and judicial systems of such countries as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., neither in their tiny numbers nor in their hostility to individual liberties. Not even close. Your comment is whataboutery intended to relativize what should be intolerable, and under attack by all decent people.
"Extremist Christian" groups, unidentified by you and certainly small, also can't be compared to "extremist Islamic groups" which are in fact the entire governments and judicial systems of such countries as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., neither in their tiny numbers nor in their hostility to individual liberties. Not even close. Your comment is whataboutery intended to relativize what should be intolerable, and under attack by all decent people.
2
So the writer -- whose salary is paid by the very right wing Hoover Institute -- thinks that Kamala Harris less concerned about women's rights than Saudi Arabia?
This op ed is emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among right wingers. They overlook abuses of females in countries -- like Saudi Arabia -- whose leaders do "business' with our President. These writers attack Kamala Harris for "not asking us questions" while overlooking that the Governor of NJ just refused to ban child marriages in his state. I suppose that's because the governor was a Republican? How dare these writer try to politicize women's rights by this pretense that the Republicans who embrace the Saudis care more about them.
Where is this writer's outrage directed at the Trump-approved regimes whose billions is funding the anti-women Sharia law? And how dare these writers accuse women who have never defended honor killings, child marriages or sex slavery of not caring far more about the place of women in society than their colleagues at the Hoover Institute.
This op ed is emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among right wingers. They overlook abuses of females in countries -- like Saudi Arabia -- whose leaders do "business' with our President. These writers attack Kamala Harris for "not asking us questions" while overlooking that the Governor of NJ just refused to ban child marriages in his state. I suppose that's because the governor was a Republican? How dare these writer try to politicize women's rights by this pretense that the Republicans who embrace the Saudis care more about them.
Where is this writer's outrage directed at the Trump-approved regimes whose billions is funding the anti-women Sharia law? And how dare these writers accuse women who have never defended honor killings, child marriages or sex slavery of not caring far more about the place of women in society than their colleagues at the Hoover Institute.
22
Then why did not Kamala Harris speak up for these women and against female genital mutilation during the hearing instead of remaining silent on these issues? She cared more about not being seen as "anti-islamic" that doing the right thing?. Leftists are all such hypocrites.
There is a place and a time to be counted, and Senator Harris failed in this respect, because she was more concerned to appear to refuse to cooperate with Republican senators than in the plight of these women.
1
While I am in sympathy with many of the comments the authors make, the connection between their hearing and Ms. Harris' questioning of the Attorney General seems tenuous at best. The article headline (perhaps not written by the authors?) is quite misleading: Not being asked a question is not the same as being silenced. To suggest an equivalence dishonors the many people who are indeed silenced by their governments worldwide. To make such a statement in the course of speaking your piece in the nation's leading newspaper is simply farcical.
By all means, speak out against illiberal Islamist ideologies and call out those who look the other way out of political expediency or intellectual dishonesty. But please don't lay claim to victim status by claiming to have been "silenced." We have enough intellectual and moral confusion around the concept of free speech these days as it is.
By all means, speak out against illiberal Islamist ideologies and call out those who look the other way out of political expediency or intellectual dishonesty. But please don't lay claim to victim status by claiming to have been "silenced." We have enough intellectual and moral confusion around the concept of free speech these days as it is.
12
I suspect that Harris and McCaskill, etc. are far more sympathetic than the authors suggest (and the misleading heading implies), and you may be misinterpreting their silence. I'm surprised the authors don't have far more criticism for the men (Republicans Johnson and Daines) who called the hearing and who appear to be promoting an agenda, one that supports a Muslim travel ban.
11
Personally I am very excited about Senator Harris, and I hope that she will be our first female POTUS. She is quite the package and has what it takes ....and the NYTimes should take her very seriously when they cover her activities.
7
The left should demand that the international community put forth a resolution that delegitimizes the concept of Islamic rule. The UN did it for Nazism and Fascism. Given all that has happened in the region, the genocide, the murder of dissidents, the oppression of women - it is time for the progressives and left to push for the international community to pronounce Islamic state or governance as antithetical to human rights. This won't solve the problems of extremism or authoritarian in the region but, symbolically, it is an important step. And it is important for the LEFT to be on the same page about this issue.
5
How is not being asked questions the same as being silenced? The thesis that both Hirsi Ali and Nomani have is that Islam, at times they qualify as Radical Islam, is the cause of jihadist terrorism and that liberals/progressives/left (with the exception of liberals such Maher and themselves) are complicit because they refuse to acknowledge (due to their focus on Islamaphobia, something both women deny even exists, and general weak-minded liberal thinking) Radical Islam aka Islam is the problem. Further, they see themselves as champions for liberating Muslim women (with virtually no Muslim women's group even progressive ones supporting them) from the oppression, which they personally faced, from the evils of Islam, and see liberals and Democratic Senators as opposing their crusade. To suggest Islam or Radical Islam is the only cause of terrorism is as simplistic as suggesting Islam or Radical Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. From the 7th to 19th centuries Islam gave women greater legal protection and status than most of the rest of the world - the basis for how Islam needs to reform. Today, some of the countries with worst women's rights (including horrific practices) are Muslim countries - most US allies. In many ways the worst offender is Saudi Arabia and its toxic Wahhabism - both in terms of being the ideological foundation for AQ and ISIS and in terms of horrific abuse of women - the country Trump just drew closer to - how does Trump supporter Nomani justify that?
1
anything emanating from the Hoover institute, funded by conservative businesses, is rightly suspect.
10
Why can't we see a benefit from even if it comes from the other party? Does it really matter who sponsored a hearing on an issue? Can't we get together on any issues? Just because it's a Democratic- advocated issue or a Republican-advocated issue, does it mean that we discard its value?
We are so far apart politically, that we fail to see the merit of any offering from either party. This issue should touch every woman, and it seems not to have done that, at least, not for the Democrats on the committee. This is very sad.
We are so far apart politically, that we fail to see the merit of any offering from either party. This issue should touch every woman, and it seems not to have done that, at least, not for the Democrats on the committee. This is very sad.
4
Of of course no questions were asked. Their positions on women's rights are calculated. They didn't want to stake out a position that contrary to the votes they hope to get from Muslim Americans.
The noise made about campus sexual assault is theater, given there's no comparable effort to help and protect poor women who are at much greater risk of serious crime.
But they want those white middle class female votes, because that's where there's a swing opportunity. Poor black women will vote Democrat so reliably that there's no point in worrying about their needs.
You're less important than the votes of the men in your communities who would also tell their wives how to vote.
The noise made about campus sexual assault is theater, given there's no comparable effort to help and protect poor women who are at much greater risk of serious crime.
But they want those white middle class female votes, because that's where there's a swing opportunity. Poor black women will vote Democrat so reliably that there's no point in worrying about their needs.
You're less important than the votes of the men in your communities who would also tell their wives how to vote.
9
A history of domestic abuse is a better predictor of potential terrorist actions than religion. Take guns away from abusers. Focus attention on some real issues. Sharia law in the US is not a serious threat. To echo other commenters, what was the point of this hearing other than to fuel prejudice?
7
At some point it would be interesting to see the legal immigrants from India, China, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, etc etc publicly excoriate the practices in their country of origin which are so coercive and destructive of human rights and dignity. We protect their rights to their native culture in America and are outraged when they are offended.
But I never see them attacking the repression, brutality and tryanny in their homelands.
Why should an American senator or representative constantly have to make this case and then be condemned when they fail to do it?
Every day these practices should be publicly condemned by the communities from which these communities come.
I lived in an area with affluent Indians, Chinese and Pakistanis driving Mercedes and Lexuses and they sure aren't protesting on weekends the indignities their countrymen subject their fellow countrymen to.
Please note I went to Bosnia with the U.S. Army and was in Sarajevo where we made the Christians stop killing the Muslims.
Retired U.S. Army Officer and Vietnam Veteran
But I never see them attacking the repression, brutality and tryanny in their homelands.
Why should an American senator or representative constantly have to make this case and then be condemned when they fail to do it?
Every day these practices should be publicly condemned by the communities from which these communities come.
I lived in an area with affluent Indians, Chinese and Pakistanis driving Mercedes and Lexuses and they sure aren't protesting on weekends the indignities their countrymen subject their fellow countrymen to.
Please note I went to Bosnia with the U.S. Army and was in Sarajevo where we made the Christians stop killing the Muslims.
Retired U.S. Army Officer and Vietnam Veteran
7
If you read any one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books you'll see her being critical, very critical, of her homeland.
I don't want her to be critical. I want the legal immigrant residents and citizens to discuss the repression they fled when they came to America.
Like I said I live in a multicultural community that is very affluent and all of them are driving Mercedes and Lexuses and trying to figure out how to get their extended families in the USA. One of them even said "I am proud to be an educated Brahman. I thought.....you are fortunate to not be a dalit if you are that caste and class conscious in america. Last count he has brought over 15 family members from India.
Like I said I live in a multicultural community that is very affluent and all of them are driving Mercedes and Lexuses and trying to figure out how to get their extended families in the USA. One of them even said "I am proud to be an educated Brahman. I thought.....you are fortunate to not be a dalit if you are that caste and class conscious in america. Last count he has brought over 15 family members from India.
Let's speak up against injustice, whatever religion it comes in. Right now, it's the Muslim religion that keeps women from exploiting their potential, living as free and independent agents, and garnering the respect they deserve. Can you imagine the abuse they receive, both physical and emotional? You can't see the scars and bruises under the tents they wear, and they can't confront the emotional pain because they have no real support. Some safe houses exist for them, but too few. They are chattel in Arab countries, and denied rights. A Saudi progressive has advocated for their right to drive alone. This is laughable. They can still be stoned for little infringements. Many of their laws are similar to Jewish ultra-orthodox laws and customs, because they are cousins, sharing an ancestor, Abraham. Shame on those women on the committee that remained silent. We should be advocating for the rights of Muslim women (laws against cutting, currently being used in a trial against a Muslim doctor), and working against any injustice against them. Respect is earned, and I have no respect for a religion that subjugates anyone. For me, it means all the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity. The notion of respecting one's religion is being tried in these days. Religion is seen now to infringe on individual liberties, i.e., our love lives, our bodies, our bedrooms. our psyches. Live your creed, but don't impose it on me, or anyone else.
7
There is religion, and there are the humans who distort its teachings. Two different things. The same thing happens in Christianity. That said, these women must find the channel for their grievances. Shame on Harris and the whole committee for not frankly addressing their concerns and helping them to find the proper way to address their issues. As for Harris being silenced at the Sessions hearing, she was not questioning, she was using her time to interject her message into the hearing like a typical prosecutor. Sessions could not get a word in edgewise.
2
Fundamentalism (whether it be religious or political, and whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism Conservatism, etc.) is the enemy. Women are usually the victims of fundamentalism. I can only hope that if you ladies didn't get your voice when expected, that circumstances allow it later.
4
I fail to comprehend just about anything that comes out of the Democratic Party and its proponents/adherents. Worse yet, it appears from situations such as this, that those within the party are themselves wrapped in a ball of confusion. This all augurs poorly for the prospects of the party in forthcoming elections. Women like Sen. McCaskill genuinely don't seem to get it; that Sen. Harris also seems clueless is astonishing and indicates the depth of the problem. There is currently rampant insecurity among the party leaders, after the whupping delivered by the elections of 2016. There exists no common core of ideas and philosophy in a party yet splintered by economics — market capitalism vs. more socialistic drivers; income inequality; the oligarchs vs. the working class.
5
We are caught between the alt-right morlocks who want to bomb the world back into the stone age and wussie progressives who want to hide under the bed at the first sign of danger. This example of extreme passivity in the face of religious barbarism is no virtue. I am cancelling all my political contributions until the middle ground of sane politics is recaptured and the radical hacks of both ilks are gone from the seats of power.
2
The problem is that this is a complex minefield of issues, and it's all too easy to step somewhere you shouldn't and make everything worse. Yes, we should call out abuses and inequalities sanctioned by religions. But in doing so, are we equating the practices of extremists with the more moderate lifestyles of the vast majority of believers? Are we hypocritically focusing on the abuses in Islamic cultures while turning a blind eye to the abuses in Judaeo-Christian cultures? Are we guilty of arrogant imperialism, telling other societies what's best for them rather than letting them work out their own solutions to their problems? Is our criticism of Islam giving cover to bigots to commit hate crimes against the Islamic community? And so on and so forth. There are so many ways to come up with the wrong response and make things worse. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm skeptical that barging right in with righteous condemnation, without appropriate nuance and self-reflection, would yield any positive results.
3
How could anyone not oppose Islamist extremism and its war on women? Of course, it goes beyond just Islam, as all religions tend to be absolutists in their dogma (not subject to discussion) as interpreted from holy books written by primitive men, ignorant and prejudiced, against all women. A secular future must be assured for all, men and women, by educating children in the intrinsic values we all hold within and worth enhancing by loving each other, or at least allowing justice to prevail. Just don't expect any worthwhile changes in the near future, if based on religion intolerance, hypocrisy and a male-dominated sexually-repressed extremist interpretation of a book supposedly reflecting the tenets of an all-loving god. If there were a deity, lokely invented by us humans, he/she/it would feel insulted by our flare in killing and maiming in it's name.
1
Yes, the left is the problem when it comes to women's.issues and being nuanced about Islam...we'll get right on that. /s
Maybe these women weren't taken seriously because they work for shadowy conservative non-profits with a dubious agenda. Unless we know who funds these groups and what their true agenda is, they should always be eyed with suspicion. Does anybody think they would be making the rounds on the conservative media circuit if they weren't pushing something nefarious?
If I were to venture a guess, I would speculate that these groups are aligned with the Zionist/Likud agenda of securing Israeli dominance of the Middle East. One method of securing this goal is mobilizing public opinion in the West against Muslim nations. These women may be more PR flacks than anything else.
Unless we have some transparency regarding the donors to these front groups, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
If I were to venture a guess, I would speculate that these groups are aligned with the Zionist/Likud agenda of securing Israeli dominance of the Middle East. One method of securing this goal is mobilizing public opinion in the West against Muslim nations. These women may be more PR flacks than anything else.
Unless we have some transparency regarding the donors to these front groups, that's the only conclusion I can draw.
3
I believe that the writers are taking this out of context. This was a Republican hearing with Republican picked witnesses. There is no need for Democrats to play into this political charade, and it is a bit self-important to suggest that the Senators had an obligation to ask questions in such a hearing.
2
I listened to the Senate hearings where she aggressively interrogated Jeff Sessions.Her questions were tough but I forgive that but her inability to listen to the answers were rude and her interruptions showed that she doesn't want to understand and learn but only to grandstand.
She is what is wrong with the Democratic party.To make her a feminist hero is misguided.None of her male counterparts were rude so they were not asked to let the attorney general finish the answers.
Not a single a question to these two women who are the real feminists exposes Ms Harris for what she is and it is not pretty.
She is what is wrong with the Democratic party.To make her a feminist hero is misguided.None of her male counterparts were rude so they were not asked to let the attorney general finish the answers.
Not a single a question to these two women who are the real feminists exposes Ms Harris for what she is and it is not pretty.
2
Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Nomani are feminists. Feminism is a global movement. The United States of America is not in a global mood right now. Other issues of global concern and huge global effect such as climate control, bank regulation, universal health care and education, refugees and the murderous dictatorships that create them, to name a few, are also of no interest to Americans at all levels of 'leadership' right now. Hirsi Ali and Nomani were sadly barking up the wrong tree: America's not even remotely what it used to be.
2
I had two look twice at the site address when I was reading this to confirm that it was the NYT. My Google News aggregator is always topped with either NYT or WaPo headlines. I nearly always skip those articles because I know they are a distortion of partial truths hemorrhaging leftist talking points. This article was different...
Regardless the issue -- Women's Rights in Islam -- the fact that the NYT has published an article critical of Democratic Women provide nothing but hypocritical condescension towards these women and their issue is cause for celebration. Good job. Maybe I'll read some more of the Grey Lady's stuff in the future.
Regardless the issue -- Women's Rights in Islam -- the fact that the NYT has published an article critical of Democratic Women provide nothing but hypocritical condescension towards these women and their issue is cause for celebration. Good job. Maybe I'll read some more of the Grey Lady's stuff in the future.
2
Essentially, they didn't want to be seen going along with people who pretend that Islamic and Islamist are the same thing.
They didn't want to go along with the falsehood that muslims created abhorrent practices like fgm and honor killing. The practices pre-date islam and are carried out in exactly the same way in neighboring non-muslim communities. So why pretend that islam or shariah is responsible?
The senators couldn't go along with crude falsehoods about islam, nor did they want to start pointing out the inaccuracies, lies and distortions in what these ladies had to say. So they wisely refused to engage.
I'm not a muslim and I detest the very idea of shariah law. But let's not use lies and nonsensical screeds to start condemning muslims.
They didn't want to go along with the falsehood that muslims created abhorrent practices like fgm and honor killing. The practices pre-date islam and are carried out in exactly the same way in neighboring non-muslim communities. So why pretend that islam or shariah is responsible?
The senators couldn't go along with crude falsehoods about islam, nor did they want to start pointing out the inaccuracies, lies and distortions in what these ladies had to say. So they wisely refused to engage.
I'm not a muslim and I detest the very idea of shariah law. But let's not use lies and nonsensical screeds to start condemning muslims.
4
Hirsi Ali and Nomani discredit their own argument by their bizarre claim that Harris "silenced us." One is "silenced" when busy elected officials don't opt to interview you? Really? This twists the plain meaning of words. Scholars who use false innuendo of this sort will rightly be mistrusted on other matters.
Hirsi Ali and Nomani rightly argue that Islam badly needs reform. Hateful Muslim scripture must be somehow removed from Muslim practice, just as mainstream Catholicism at long last removed hateful anti-Jewish scripture and teachings from its practice during the Vatican II reforms. All true and important!
But Hirsi Ali and Nomani need to make their case differently. Their claim of being "silenced" is dishonest and a slander. Please stop it. Try civil and honest argument instead, without the false ad hominem.
Hirsi Ali and Nomani rightly argue that Islam badly needs reform. Hateful Muslim scripture must be somehow removed from Muslim practice, just as mainstream Catholicism at long last removed hateful anti-Jewish scripture and teachings from its practice during the Vatican II reforms. All true and important!
But Hirsi Ali and Nomani need to make their case differently. Their claim of being "silenced" is dishonest and a slander. Please stop it. Try civil and honest argument instead, without the false ad hominem.
4
This is a perfect example of political correctness gone awry by the Democrats. They are so afraid to criticize the religion of the "minority" that they fail to even admit there are some awful elements in that religion. This kind of correctness leaves a vacuum which others fill with false perceptions and makes the Democrats appear not in touch with real life issues. Stop being so afraid of being called a "racist" or Islamophobic because such fear has emboldened the true racists and Islamophobes to come out in the open loud and clear. There is no room for civil discourse since the left is too busy being politically correct and the right is too busy accusing them of not saying what needs to be said.
4
You want to be politically correct? Know your history! Look at a map of the world. Note the countries which have been at tribal war since the beginning of time. Note these same countries have taken their battles to global proportions, committing heinous crimes against humanity. History will tell you about the killing, torture and the treatment of women, all in the name of their god.
Now tell it like it is.
Now tell it like it is.
3
This is a bit unfair to Senator Harris. If you made a statement before Congress, you weren't "silenced." However, you are right that Democrats should forcefully champion liberal values such as feminism and freedom of speech and religion when they are attacked -- in Muslim countries or anywhere else. The reason they don't is because Republican politicians have made Muslims scapegoats to whip up their base, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with defending liberal values, and Democrats don't want to lend any support to that cynical game. Republicans are masters at creating such dilemmas with their blatant lying and hypocrisy and perversion of rational thought. Liberals must stop walking on eggshells and stand up for their convictions with courage, in this and every area, and forget about the optics. It's the only way to counter the Republican 2 2=5 narrative.
2
Political theater creates the illusion of doing something while actually doing nothing; a form of propaganda where one side builds itself up by demonizing and tearing the other side down. While I sympathize with women oppressed by honor killings, genital mutilation, and other forms of exploitation in the name of righteousness my primary concern is the burgeoning fascism within the United States of America as its colonial empire implodes. When will journalists and think tank "research fellows" be invited to the Senate to discuss this issue?
1
The authors undermine their claims of dismissal and persecution by their choice of venue to air their grievances. Chastising Democratic female senators for refusing to participate in a blatantly xenophobic panel hurts their cause. If they think they can gain allies by participating and aligning themselves with judeo-Christian Islamaphobia they are sorely mistaken. Extremist Islam is just as much a scourge as extremist evangelicalism and Zionism. If these authors want allies they need to understand this.
3
Modern western women are disconnected from the plight of women in non-western nations. Its really that simple.
5
Huh? The authors try to argue the Democratic Senators have some special blind spot for bad stuff done by Muslims, but they also say the Senators are outspoken in their outrage at the kidnapping of young girls by the Islamist organization Boko Haram in Nigeria. The article isn't even internally consistent. This is what passes for "argument" on the right these days.
3
No disrespect to Ayann Hirsi Ali (I'm her biggest fan, since Brandeis U. withdrew her Honorary Doctorate) and Asra Q. Nomani; I agree with all that is written in this opinion piece. However, Kamala Harris was not silenced once but twice. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee excoriated her for not allowing The National Intelligence Director, Dan Coats, for not allowing him to answer with his non-answers while allowing all the male Senators to have their say with regard to Dan Coats and his cohorts. Someone please draft this woman to present herself as a candidate for the next POTUS.
"Will they find their voices"?
No! No they will not because they are "paid" not to. On the left when one's, claimed, values collides with reality, reality must be explained away. It is complete hypocrisy on the part of these women Senators but this type of is rampant on the left and so, ultimately, a yawner.
If this cogent and undeniably correct missive does not change one's perception of what is going on there is not much hope to come out of the ideological fog one is in.
No! No they will not because they are "paid" not to. On the left when one's, claimed, values collides with reality, reality must be explained away. It is complete hypocrisy on the part of these women Senators but this type of is rampant on the left and so, ultimately, a yawner.
If this cogent and undeniably correct missive does not change one's perception of what is going on there is not much hope to come out of the ideological fog one is in.
1
Sorry Asra and Ayana, neither of you is an Islamic scholar. I am a progressive to the nth degree but I do make my own decisions when it comes to any religion. You have your point of view, others have theirs. What gives you the idea that your point of view is more authoritative than others?
1
It appears your outrage at Senator Harris is a case of thou protest too much. Your posit that these liberal female Senators did not care about what you had to say is nothing but a political wedge you are trying to insert into making your argument. What you are attempting to say, in portraying Senator Harris et al. as not interested the plight of Muslim women of Islamic cultures, then you have lost me completely in your battle to criticize these women Senators. Nice try, but no cigar.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
4
If you want to know why the Democratic Party is the weakest it has been in nearly 90 years, read these comments. As a non Trump conservative, I have to say, they really cheered me up, because if this is the base, there is no way the Democrats are going to take back the House and especially the Senate anytime soon. Apologizing for Islamic terrorism and Koranic based hostility to human rights will not get you to 50 plus one. Sorry.
5
The egregious rationales for defense of Harris et al's silence against the experiences of a Muslim woman speaks volumes. In this instance, the fine moniker "Silence = Death" must be too dangerous for American feminists to lend their voices. Lack of support for our oppressed and mistreated sisters? This hypocrisy should shame us all.
3
While I'm sympathetic and agree that the treatment of women within orthodox Islam is brutal from our Western perspective, it is unfortunately part of their religious beliefs. It highlights the danger when religious beliefs/orthodoxy is allowed to trump human and civil rights.
We have similar conflicts growing right here in America where Christian orthodoxy is meddling into our civil rights when it comes to issues like woman's right to choose, the death penalty, euthanasia, prayer in school, access to contraceptives, teaching of creationism vs. evolution, LGBT rights, etc., etc.
It seems every organized religion holds to certain orthodoxy that is intolerant of other religions and secular laws. This has contributed to centuries of religious wars. Until each organized religion is able to reform itself so as to recognize human rights and equality for all people, these conflicts and wars will continue.
For us this highlights the importance of our Constitution which provides for the separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, we have seen a steady erosion of that separation.
We have similar conflicts growing right here in America where Christian orthodoxy is meddling into our civil rights when it comes to issues like woman's right to choose, the death penalty, euthanasia, prayer in school, access to contraceptives, teaching of creationism vs. evolution, LGBT rights, etc., etc.
It seems every organized religion holds to certain orthodoxy that is intolerant of other religions and secular laws. This has contributed to centuries of religious wars. Until each organized religion is able to reform itself so as to recognize human rights and equality for all people, these conflicts and wars will continue.
For us this highlights the importance of our Constitution which provides for the separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, we have seen a steady erosion of that separation.
1
I did follow the link from this article to the supposed "shushing" of Harris, and what I saw was Harris badgering Sessions as he attempted to answer her question. As for the hearing in question here, if the authors had put their case forward adequately, then their need for questions from female Senators sounds as like affirmation seeking rather than an opportunity to embellish their message.
3
There is another hard truth besides "that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah".
It is on the order of naivety that you would not understand that you are being used for a political agenda which will end up marginalizing even the most enlightened Muslims.
It's a hard choice to turn down such a large stage. Especially when the problems you point to are real.
But if you think those Republican senators won't marginalize Muslims and women at their first opportunity, you are sadly mistaken.
It is on the order of naivety that you would not understand that you are being used for a political agenda which will end up marginalizing even the most enlightened Muslims.
It's a hard choice to turn down such a large stage. Especially when the problems you point to are real.
But if you think those Republican senators won't marginalize Muslims and women at their first opportunity, you are sadly mistaken.
10
Bigotry of Low Expectations. You're saying that the poor brown woman isn't capable of deciding her own agenda free from manipulation by the Evil White Man. Condescending and disrespectful of these intelligent, accomplished women and indeed of all Muslims and ex-Muslims who speak out against political Islam. Shameful.
Please. Do you seriously think those republicans who invited her give a damn about her and women's rights. In a perfect world what I said would be shameful.
In that world she would have been invited because the republicans generally care about the health of Islam and women's rights.
And you cannot provide me with one iota of evidence that they do.
So, as I said , the problems in Islam are real. And the treatment of some women in some Islamic sects is deplorable. But give me a break about the theater any republican wants to generate with this kind of hearlng.
That's why I said that their judgment was sadly mistaken that they would be advancing the cause of women by appearing before this committee.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist anyway.
Radical Islamist who want to deny equal human rights are deplorable. Activists who want to criticize this are admirable.
Activists who will accept any opportunity in any context to spread this message are naive to think they can't be used to advance reactionary agendas that undermine equal human rights.
I stand by comments and hardly think them as shameful. Either that or they knew what they were doing aligning themselves with right wing sexist bigots in which case we need to ask what is shameful about this situation.
In that world she would have been invited because the republicans generally care about the health of Islam and women's rights.
And you cannot provide me with one iota of evidence that they do.
So, as I said , the problems in Islam are real. And the treatment of some women in some Islamic sects is deplorable. But give me a break about the theater any republican wants to generate with this kind of hearlng.
That's why I said that their judgment was sadly mistaken that they would be advancing the cause of women by appearing before this committee.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist anyway.
Radical Islamist who want to deny equal human rights are deplorable. Activists who want to criticize this are admirable.
Activists who will accept any opportunity in any context to spread this message are naive to think they can't be used to advance reactionary agendas that undermine equal human rights.
I stand by comments and hardly think them as shameful. Either that or they knew what they were doing aligning themselves with right wing sexist bigots in which case we need to ask what is shameful about this situation.
1
This headline is incredibly misleading! These women were allowed to speak their piece at the hearing. I think Ms. Harris did them a favor by not asking pointed questions about their positions on freedom of religion for Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. who chose not to practice religious customs that are not allowed under our system of civil law.
5
Baloney. Had Harris simply said,"tell us about honor killings," there's there's the less in for a news sound bite. Her silence is her tacit approval.
1
Why would that be a favor to them? Do you think they wouldn't be able to answer pointed questions?
I need to point out that the headline has been changed since I wrote my comment. It used to be, "Kamela Harrris was silenced, then she silenced them". The new one reflects the premise of the piece. I find that premise disingenuous but that is a different matter.
While I'm at it: Mike in Alabama, I think they might have had some trouble squaring legally categorizing people solely based on their self identification with a particular religion, rather than disobedience of civil law, with the First Amendment guarantee of separation of religion and government.
While I'm at it: Mike in Alabama, I think they might have had some trouble squaring legally categorizing people solely based on their self identification with a particular religion, rather than disobedience of civil law, with the First Amendment guarantee of separation of religion and government.
The crux of the issue is that there are politicians who wish to critize a religion, or its most radical adherents to achieve political ends, but they don't really wish to change the status of women or the rights of women to have control over their own bodies. Family planning agencies, health organizations, human rights organizations are all trying to change hearts and minds and laws, but they'll get little support from this administration.
5
How about control over the women's children's bodies? Each human being, whether born or unborn, is a distinct living being from the natal mother.
Your position is ignorant and disgusting. None of the organizations you mention concentrate on Islamists. May your sister be subject to the horrors of these two women.
These women are not those politicians. They want to end oppression of Muslim women for its own sake. They exposed the hypocrisy of these "liberal" female politicians.
1
If they were having a hearing on religious radicalization, I would have hoped there would have been women from radicalized Christian groups at the hearing as well. They do just as much damage to women and society as radical Islam. In fact, the domestic terrorism cases in America the past ten years have overwhelmingly been carried out by white, radicalized Christians. But I don't see any of that either. Freedom of and from religion are important concepts not just when we're talking about Islam, but every major religion out there. Religious radicalization is a problem. Until it is addressed honestly by both parties, we will make no progress.
11
Yes, violent radical Christians are the real problem in the world today. You do know that Christians are being martyred and displaced at record numbers these days, especially at the machete holding hands of Islamic fundamentalists. History has its lessons only for those who know and understand it. Turkey had provided the paradigm for a moderate version of Islam until Erdogan (Obama's good friend) started turning it, too, toward the dark side.
1
The difference is that our modern western societies are Secular. We have the rule of law. In Islamic majority countries Sharia is the Law. How many "Radicalized Christians" are there in this country? 1000? 2000? Pews poll on Muslim Attitudes shows that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi to name 4, 90% of the people believe they should be ruled by Sharia.
1
In total numbers, worldwide, who is worse, radical Christian groups or radical Muslim groups? Comparing the two as you are makes it certainly sound like you believe that radical Christian groups are a large threat than Islamic ones, and the numbers simply do not support that.
1
Kamala Harris did not silence you. She herself remained silent. She observed you being questioned but chose not to question you. Was she right to do so? Lets see: the hearing was called by Republican senators at a time when the Republican Administration continues to press, against judicial defeat after judicial defeat, for a travel ban against Muslims. This ban, extensive reporting shows, is the brainchild of Trump advisor and former Breitbart editor Steve Bannon, who apparently believes that the greatest threat facing western civilisation is jihadi extremism. With all due respect and without for one moment downplaying the appalling experience of women in many Muslim communities, this hearing was called, and you were invited to testify, for the sole purpose of boosting the case for a travel ban by stoking the hatred of Muslims in America, not to provide a forum for Muslim women to air their (quite understandable) grievances against certain practices in certain Muslim communities. The treatment of women is a major public relations vulnerability for the faith, and the Republican senator who called the hearing knows that. That's why the hearing was called--not because of a deep sympathy for your plight. The women senators on the panel recognised this and determined not to be used by this man for this frankly un-American agenda. I don't blame you for availing yourself of a high-profile forum for your cause, but neither can I blame the women senators for their silence. Unfair.
1456
I so totally agree with this comment. I will add that Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to use and denigrate female senators in an attempt to advance their own fame and fortune. The real threat to feminism is women who step on other women to get ahead. Shame on you both!
3
What an ignorant and ignominious reply. You state your opinions as facts and use them to belittle these women.
In addition, the fact is that the temporary travel ban is demonstrably not anti-Muslim, by the clear fact that only 6 of 50 Muslim majority nations are named, and Muslims are not banned from any of the remaining 150 countries in the world. QED.
In addition, the fact is that the temporary travel ban is demonstrably not anti-Muslim, by the clear fact that only 6 of 50 Muslim majority nations are named, and Muslims are not banned from any of the remaining 150 countries in the world. QED.
6
"The treatment of women is a major public relations vulnerability for the faith...
Got it. Not an absolute moral failing, but a PR problem.
Got it. Not an absolute moral failing, but a PR problem.
6
These comments are revealing just how dogmatic progressives can be when there is a conflict in their worldview. We are the side that is supposed to break through party lines and correct the wrongs of the world. We can do this because we are not restricted to dogmas of the past. Even if you hate the organizations/groups Ayaan represents, it does not change the fact that Muslim women are abused in a statistically overwhelming fashion the world over. It is incredibly disheartening to hear people who claim to be progressive, liberal, and moral get swept up in a partisan tornado. Do yourself a favor and just listen to her thesis . Then try to refute the message with evidence and statistics. The partisanship will melt away on this issue.
443
But folks who are left leaning are against child marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and all manner of abuse of women and girls. But the reality is that these issues are not confined to Islam. Here in New York a law just passed to increase the minimum age to marry and the discussions that's came before highlighted how child marriage has been used in fundamentalist Christian communities to hide abuse. Our focus on Islam, since 9/11 has brought to light abuses in fundamentalist homes. If we shined the same light elsewhere we would fine the same or similar horrors. So I assume that the Senator's are concerned with framing these issues as predominantly Muslim issues when they are societal issues.
1
But what about the possibility of being used for a larger anti-muslim agenda? Of course the violations against women's dignity is horrible. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. Do you really think those republicans care at all for Muslim women's dignity?
3
I hope that other commenters here who disagree with your position will stop for a few moments and consider what you have said. Very important points!
The issues presented by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani really should transcend the typical right vs. left political spectrum.
The issues presented by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani really should transcend the typical right vs. left political spectrum.
1
I am not sure why Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill didn't ask a single question of a woman in that hearing. I am sure they are in sympathy with the women of Islam who are being abused on a daily basis even in the US and worldwide. I can only guess that it is very difficult to bring up religious issues in the US because they are likely to stir up anger and intolerance. Of course, that is no reason to fail to mention them. I would love to hear from Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill on their silence. Hopefully they would wholeheartedly support the women of Islam who are suffering around the world -- also the women of Christianity and other religions who are enslaved by ancient religious beliefs.
6
Interested to know what you mean by "also the women of Christianity and other religions who are enslaved by ancient religious beliefs". How does Christianity enslave women. Really really interested in your thoughts on that?
Thank you.
Thank you.
3
I think you're being too generous. The point of these hearings (this one, at least, seems to have occurred despite some passive aggression on the Harris side) is to ask questions. It's the duty of those attending to listen and to probe.
Passivity is seen in these settings as a form of disagreement with either the speakers, the format or the topic itself.
Passivity is seen in these settings as a form of disagreement with either the speakers, the format or the topic itself.
3
You almost made sense until you started talking about people being enslaved by beliefs then you drifted into leftist nonsense... you know, the people that don't have a God that keep looking to things like environmentalism and social justice because they have a big hole in their spiritual life
Discrimination against women is a hallmark of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all dominant religions of the world. Discrimination against women is a hallmark of all dominant governments of the world.
The shift of economic opportunity from physical to mental ability has altered the balance. Giving up power over half of the population is monumentally difficult. Constant vigilance is the cost of freedom and equality. A better world for all humanity is possible.
The shift of economic opportunity from physical to mental ability has altered the balance. Giving up power over half of the population is monumentally difficult. Constant vigilance is the cost of freedom and equality. A better world for all humanity is possible.
6
Really really interested in your statement "discrimination against women is a hall mark of Christianity and Judaism". Please explain how these two religions discriminate against women. Love to hear it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
6
You could probably find explanation for the statement by simply reading the texts that these two major religious traditions claim to rely upon for their theology.
1
We could start with how very long it has taken for women to be allowed to be part of the clergy. They are still excluded in some parts of Christianity and Judaism. We could talk about the biblical injunction that women obey their husbands. Or the idea among various conservative branches that woman's role is to remain in the home and birth children. Or the opposition to birth control. Or the hostility to female sexuality. There is more, but I have to go to work. Hope that helps, Jenny.
1
How is not asking questions "silencing"? The authors were able to speak. Do they additionally demand the right to force others to speak? And to dictate to them what they'll say? What part of the authors' ideology grants them those extraordinary rights?
9
well said! obviously the authors are a republican propagandists who hope to taint Senator Harris and the rest for not obliging their bigotry. The authors start with the shooting of Scalise by a Christian (which they failed to point out) then mentioned being heckled by a Muslim (I guess Muslim Americans cannot heckle bigots)... What a travesty when connery becomes normalized! Trump's America represent the post-reconstruction politics with all the violence that entailed. I worry for my country.
2
Because when experts are invited to a panel to testify and you ignore them and don't ask them a thing, you are openly showing your contempt for them.
The retrograde, medieval beliefs behind Islamist movements is a proper subject for national discussion. This is especially true when some of our allies (e.g.. Saudi Arabia) finance or encourage financial support for groups exporting such beliefs around the world. This said, nothing in the opinion piece suggests let alone demonstrates that the hearing in question was in furtherance of any pending or proposed legislation to address this problem. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that the Democratic senators silence may have been motivated by an unwillingness to help the GOP exploit real concern about radical Islamic movements to further a simplistic, partisan fear-mongering about adherents to Islam. What legislation if any do the authors seek, and what legislation is the GOP-controlled Senate will to pass?
15
For those who may not know, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the author of a most compelling book entitled, "Infidel," which documents her escape from the Muslim family and country where she was born. She made her way to the Netherlands, then to America after her life was threatened there. Anyone who believes in women's rights should listen to her and her colleague. Progressives, of which I am one, would do well to examine how Muslim women in our country are living under rules that none of us would tolerate.
60
Yes, "Infidel" deserves to be read by those progressives who allegedly know so much about Islam and its subtleties that they see a clear answer as to what is "religion", what is "culture", and which varieties of "religion"-plus-"culture" we find in various groups of Muslims in various countries and situations.
It's not so easy.
Maybe a better approach is more carefully educating all Americans (including new citizens and would-be citizens) about the value of the separation of church and state in the U.S..
It's not so easy.
Maybe a better approach is more carefully educating all Americans (including new citizens and would-be citizens) about the value of the separation of church and state in the U.S..
Interesting that articles/opinion pieces regarding Russian interests or Georgia election generate thousands of comments yet this piece has 105(at 9:51). No question that the female Senators are playing to their base. American feminists are afraid to confront inequity in various religions even those that harm their own constituents.
37
Why the need to lie? These Senators did no such thing. They listened politely to these women's testimony and made no attempt to shut them down. Nor did they question whether these two women were suggesting that we cut ties with Saudi Arabia which is funding this repressive anti-female religion. It's funny that these women -- and posters like you -- have the chutzpah to blame American feminism for the repression of women in Saudi Arabia. Boy do you have chutzpah.
1
I am leery of focusing on a particular religion for some of its less than admirable practices. It can lead to a general condemnation of its adherents even if they do not condone such practices. Ayaan and Asra should be heard, they have valid points to make, but the ones who should really pay attention to what they have to say are those Muslims who would like to see Islam become part of a tolerant just world. I do admire women like Ayaan and Asra who are willing to speak out but I wish they would put more effort in a dialog with moderate Muslims, they are the ones that can reform Islam, not liberals or conservatives politicians whether secular or religious.
47
serban
Very well said.
Very well said.
3
You have to start taking the facts and more specifically the rate of those facts more seriously. The general condemnation exist. That behavior will always persist if we let politics play out in these important hearings. Just like the general condemnation of anyone who picks of a bible and says "The truth shall set you free"
If we ALL... democrat, republican, independent, do not use the first amendment to talk to each other about these issues, these extremist using Islam to hurt people and prolong war, will always exist. As will Mrs. Harris's blatant ignorance.
If we ALL... democrat, republican, independent, do not use the first amendment to talk to each other about these issues, these extremist using Islam to hurt people and prolong war, will always exist. As will Mrs. Harris's blatant ignorance.
On what precisely do you base Mrs. Harris blatant ignorance? On questions not asked? Your bias is showing.
The truth is that women are invisible in too many places in the world. We're considered the lesser sex, baby machines, slaves, but not full human beings. We're told that we're best at being wives, mothers, and dutiful beings. Yet in all of this there is usually no mention of what we're owed if we keep up our end of the bargain. Men try to tell us how to run our lives but they rarely consider the reasons behind our actions or how we run our lives. They blame us for rape, molestation, being single mothers, not raising the children properly, etc. In short we're blamed for being female while living.
How many women who have been sexually assaulted or molested internalize the blame? How many of us never tell anyone what happened because we know that someone will tell us to get over it, it wasn't that bad, and we must have wanted it to happen if it happened more than once? How many of us tolerate horrible relationships because we know that no one will protect us? How many of us worry about being raped and limit our movements because of it and our lives?
In America we're watching as men work in secret to repeal the ACA. In other countries women are stoned or murdered if they are raped while the men walk away. In America women are paid a lot less than men for doing the same work. In some countries, if a woman's husband dies or divorces her, she loses everything. And American Republicans do nothing to change it here or abroad.
How many women who have been sexually assaulted or molested internalize the blame? How many of us never tell anyone what happened because we know that someone will tell us to get over it, it wasn't that bad, and we must have wanted it to happen if it happened more than once? How many of us tolerate horrible relationships because we know that no one will protect us? How many of us worry about being raped and limit our movements because of it and our lives?
In America we're watching as men work in secret to repeal the ACA. In other countries women are stoned or murdered if they are raped while the men walk away. In America women are paid a lot less than men for doing the same work. In some countries, if a woman's husband dies or divorces her, she loses everything. And American Republicans do nothing to change it here or abroad.
25
Ugh, the Republicans held this hearing, no? [fyi-I am not a Republican. Or Democrat. They are a uni-party for all intents and purposes, e.g., not one Wall Street bankster prosecuted by Obama admin/Hillary's Goldman Sachs payments, Trump, well, enough said.]
1
Separation of Church from State is part of the Constitution, and the imposition of any one religion's views upon the unwilling is enforceable only by excluding the unwilling from membership.
It would seem the State can intrude upon the group at least to the extent of insisting that membership must be voluntary, and that the group's actions must not be forced upon non-members.
The authors haven't been entirely clear upon the way they wish the State to intrude. They refer to Islamic extremism, but are they suggesting the State intrude into Islam to force a division into extremist and non-extremist sects? Then the authors could choose to belong to the non-extremist group? Such a forced religious division exceeds the State's grasp. All the State can do is suggest withdrawal if membership is untenable,
Or are the authors suggesting that minors are being abused and the State should intervene to prevent that abuse? That raises the larger issue of where the State can intervene into a religion's practice among its own membership.
To what extent can the State dictate sexual attitudes and practices within a religion? To what extent can the State claim religious brainwashing of its citizenry by a religion fostering superstitious attitudes is harming the greater society as a whole?
What do the authors want? Apparently the committee was not attuned to such questions, and never asked them.
It would seem the State can intrude upon the group at least to the extent of insisting that membership must be voluntary, and that the group's actions must not be forced upon non-members.
The authors haven't been entirely clear upon the way they wish the State to intrude. They refer to Islamic extremism, but are they suggesting the State intrude into Islam to force a division into extremist and non-extremist sects? Then the authors could choose to belong to the non-extremist group? Such a forced religious division exceeds the State's grasp. All the State can do is suggest withdrawal if membership is untenable,
Or are the authors suggesting that minors are being abused and the State should intervene to prevent that abuse? That raises the larger issue of where the State can intervene into a religion's practice among its own membership.
To what extent can the State dictate sexual attitudes and practices within a religion? To what extent can the State claim religious brainwashing of its citizenry by a religion fostering superstitious attitudes is harming the greater society as a whole?
What do the authors want? Apparently the committee was not attuned to such questions, and never asked them.
18
I believe think (perhaps) this is over-thinking a much more simple (and obvious) situation.
5
Bulldinky. These women are speaking about abhorrent archaic religious practices that are CLEARLY against US law. Practitioners who choose to live in this country DO NOT have the right to mutilate women or force them into slavery (child marriage).
If those barbaric practices are more important to anyone than following the Law of the Land, then he should return to countries where they ARE legal and sanctioned.
If those barbaric practices are more important to anyone than following the Law of the Land, then he should return to countries where they ARE legal and sanctioned.
3
First of all, honor killings and forced marriage are not "extreme" in certain Muslim nations, but are quite common and, in some cases, legal. And they don't have the choice to just leave Islam whenever they feel like it; it's a lot more complicated than that.
You wrote "this brings up the larger question of where the state can intervene into a religion's practices". I can answer that -- if a religion's practices are infringing upon basic human rights, the state should intervene. Period. And to simply pose this question and refuse to address it is, as the author wrote, "extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity".
What the authors "want" is for responses like yours to stop. They want to take steps to build outside pressure on these countries to stop their practices. But as this hearing shows, as does your comment, their foot isn't even in the door. Their struggle is met with silence, or with tired rhetoric of moral relativism, with no urgency to help the women suffering in these countries. They're not asking for the US to come in on a white horse and liberate Muslim women; they're asking that their stories be heard, that people in the US learn about the perils women in these countries face, and that the proper sense of urgency to help them is felt by the US government and the entire US population. We can't talk about what specifically needs to be done to make change until people realize that it needs to happen, which clearly is a long way away.
You wrote "this brings up the larger question of where the state can intervene into a religion's practices". I can answer that -- if a religion's practices are infringing upon basic human rights, the state should intervene. Period. And to simply pose this question and refuse to address it is, as the author wrote, "extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity".
What the authors "want" is for responses like yours to stop. They want to take steps to build outside pressure on these countries to stop their practices. But as this hearing shows, as does your comment, their foot isn't even in the door. Their struggle is met with silence, or with tired rhetoric of moral relativism, with no urgency to help the women suffering in these countries. They're not asking for the US to come in on a white horse and liberate Muslim women; they're asking that their stories be heard, that people in the US learn about the perils women in these countries face, and that the proper sense of urgency to help them is felt by the US government and the entire US population. We can't talk about what specifically needs to be done to make change until people realize that it needs to happen, which clearly is a long way away.
4
I regard these two women with utmost respect. I have read reviews of Ayaan Hirsi's writings in the New York Review of Books and other publications, and she does not present as extreme: She criticizes her religion and encourages it to follow a more moderate path. If she, as a Muslim woman, can not criticize Islam, who can? As a feminist, I criticize aspects of Christianity, particularly the virgin birth. I get to, I'm also Christian.
The senators did not need to agree with these women, but they did need to be exposed to the views they represent. To shut down those views is every bit as narrow as the intolerance they rail against.
I am less familiar with Asra Nomani, but disagreement with her is not silence, but intensive questioning. The senators played to their political bases
The senators did not need to agree with these women, but they did need to be exposed to the views they represent. To shut down those views is every bit as narrow as the intolerance they rail against.
I am less familiar with Asra Nomani, but disagreement with her is not silence, but intensive questioning. The senators played to their political bases
39
Alternatively, the senators listened and were "exposed to the views (the witnesses) represent," as you suggest they should. I'm okay with their not joining the right wing chorus represented by Ron Johnson et al that would prohibit the practice of Islam of any kind in this land of the free.
8
Has the right generated generated carefully planned talking points that are promoting the falsehood that the Democratic Senators silenced these women?? What other rationale for the clearly wrong framing of what happened in this committee meeting? The women were NOT silenced, the women spoke and used that platform to create another, namely this one.
No one wants to ban islam
I am not a religious person and while I respect human beings I do not think beliefs should be protected. So long as no one is physically abused any person can and should believe what he or she chooses. It is when religious practice physically silences or in other ways impedes freedom of movement that the line of physical bondage is crossed.
Until I was two decades into my existence I was a devout Roman Catholic who accepted the tenets and followed the practices of the religion in which I was raised from birth. When I read the the whole of the Bible for the first time in college it became clear belief in a god of any sort was personally unacceptable and although it took a few more years to coalesce my thought I never again attended any religious service.
Women like men who are believers can change their minds and if so should never have to face any physical intimidation for that or any mental decision.
Religions are overwhelmingly controlled by men which certainly weighs the scale in their favor and if a woman differs with practices of that belief system she should be free to leave. Clearly there are consequences but unless they mitigate against her freedom of movement or others which deprive her of her children or rob her financial wealth there is no reason to stay with practices or even contest them.
People believe in many things, but until their belief crosses the line into practices which physically deprive another, no one woman or man is forced to follow.
Until I was two decades into my existence I was a devout Roman Catholic who accepted the tenets and followed the practices of the religion in which I was raised from birth. When I read the the whole of the Bible for the first time in college it became clear belief in a god of any sort was personally unacceptable and although it took a few more years to coalesce my thought I never again attended any religious service.
Women like men who are believers can change their minds and if so should never have to face any physical intimidation for that or any mental decision.
Religions are overwhelmingly controlled by men which certainly weighs the scale in their favor and if a woman differs with practices of that belief system she should be free to leave. Clearly there are consequences but unless they mitigate against her freedom of movement or others which deprive her of her children or rob her financial wealth there is no reason to stay with practices or even contest them.
People believe in many things, but until their belief crosses the line into practices which physically deprive another, no one woman or man is forced to follow.
15
The two authors were allowed to offer their testimony and speak their piece without interruption. How is not asking questions "silencing" them?
Not many people get the opportunity to speak directly to the country's top lawmakers in a very public setting with their opinions entered into the permanent congressional record. Claiming to have been somehow victimized in this circumstance does disservice to real violations (remember that all male hearing panel on women's birth control?) and undercuts the credibility of whatever policy recommendations (not clear what those were) that these two women might have been trying to make.
Not many people get the opportunity to speak directly to the country's top lawmakers in a very public setting with their opinions entered into the permanent congressional record. Claiming to have been somehow victimized in this circumstance does disservice to real violations (remember that all male hearing panel on women's birth control?) and undercuts the credibility of whatever policy recommendations (not clear what those were) that these two women might have been trying to make.
173
Ah, so now we're arguing the moral equivalency of canceling state funded birth control vs. stoning women to death for infidelity. I'd be careful with that.
2
Jennifer, I'm sure you are familiar with the logo "Silence = Death"? I can see another instance of a hypocritical double standard must be applying? Hirsi, whom I have read and heard, is exactly correct: the blindness to the oppression and mistreatment of Muslim women seems like an idea that somehow can't be breached by feminists. The irony is too great to not comment on.
3
"Allowed"? "Speak their peace"?
Are you kidding?
They were invited to testify.
Are you kidding?
They were invited to testify.
1
Senator Harris wasn't "silenced" - she was told to extend the normal courtesy of allowing someone to answer her questions before interrupting. Her interruptions were rather numerous, and totally out of line.
27
She kept interrupting Sessions because he was not answering the question that was asked. He was just blathering away pretending to answer. What is the point of a hearing if the person in front of a panel ignores questions posed and answers questions that were not asked? The one who was disrespectful was Sessions.
69
Sessions appeared to be stalling in his responses. Harris was under a 10 min. Limit for her questions.
6
And yet, when men on the panel interrupted or aggressively questioned the witness (I'm thinking Angus King, Ron Wyden e.g.) they were not interrupted. You can ignore the mountain of research about women's being "silenced" -- yes, silenced -- but women can't. We live its truth every day and we know it when we see it.
Does anyone know what the purpose of this hearing by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was in aid of? Is there specific legislation proposed that necessitated the testimony of these two women and perhaps other witnesses? I have a hard time judging this entire situation without any context, and the article does not supply any context. Was the hearing for purposes of informing senators for purposes of future action, or was it a show put on by and for the Republican majority's purposes? If the latter, I can understand why Democrats did not participate in the questioning. The suggestion that these women were somehow silenced by the fact of not being questioned by the three Democratic women members of the committee is also not supported by anything I read in the article. I have no idea why any of this is legitimate or important, as vital information about the entire event is simply missing from the article.
165
Two things can be true at the same time. I suspect that these Senators might think that the practices that the witnesses talked about are abhorrent. It may also be true that they realize that Islam is an enormous religion where not all engage in these activities just as, of course, all Muslims are not terrorists!
I applaud these Senators for not buying into a chance to inflame the American public even more about Islam by conflating these women's experiences as the Islamic norm.
I applaud these Senators for not buying into a chance to inflame the American public even more about Islam by conflating these women's experiences as the Islamic norm.
The heroic authors express confidence that their "deeply liberal" values are shared by the female Democratic senators who greeted their testimony about the oppression of women in the Islamic world with apparent indifference. I fear that in this they are wrong.
What is today called "progressive" is in fact deeply illiberal. That may be seen in the multiple instances around the country of "progressive" students shouting down -- or even attacking -- exponents of views that differ from their own. And although Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of a time when people would be judged by the "content of their character" rather than their ethnicity, for many progressives identity trumps all else, including basic decency and human rights.
So because Muslims are perceived as "people of color" (although many are Caucasians), and because Muslim-majority societies are located in the third world, many "progressives" seem to feel it would be racist to draw attention to human rights violations in those societies that they would unreservedly condemn if committed anywhere else. The left habitually sees its place as being with the wretched of the earth, however wretched some of its members may be.
Today, if one is looking for classically liberal values -- belief in free speech, a willingness to consider the views of others, and adherence to a single standard of morality applicable to everyone, regardless of identity -- one might be best advised to look among those now called conservatives.
What is today called "progressive" is in fact deeply illiberal. That may be seen in the multiple instances around the country of "progressive" students shouting down -- or even attacking -- exponents of views that differ from their own. And although Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of a time when people would be judged by the "content of their character" rather than their ethnicity, for many progressives identity trumps all else, including basic decency and human rights.
So because Muslims are perceived as "people of color" (although many are Caucasians), and because Muslim-majority societies are located in the third world, many "progressives" seem to feel it would be racist to draw attention to human rights violations in those societies that they would unreservedly condemn if committed anywhere else. The left habitually sees its place as being with the wretched of the earth, however wretched some of its members may be.
Today, if one is looking for classically liberal values -- belief in free speech, a willingness to consider the views of others, and adherence to a single standard of morality applicable to everyone, regardless of identity -- one might be best advised to look among those now called conservatives.
38
I agree with the complaint of so-called progressives denying free speech to those with whom they do not agree. I find it exceptionally ironic that so much of this happens in Berkeley, the ground zero of the free speech movement of the 1960s.
Having said that, I disagree with everything else you say. Conservatives have a tunnel-vision view of the world akin to imposing their own version of Judeo-Christian "sharia" law on the whole of the fountry. And the emphasis there is on the Christian component.
Attempting to impose Church teachings (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, creationism) on the entirety of the US population is as close to imposing Islamic law on our ation as legislating Sharia law. The First Amendment denies the country ( and the states via the 14th Amendment) from favoring any religion over another. That includes any branch of Jewish or Christian law as well as that of any other religion. Unfortunately, main stream Conservatism would impose such religious laes on all.
One last point. Muslims are not protected by progressives because they are people of color. Your disagreement with such treatment for them is wrll taken. Muslims are protected by that same First Amendment right preventing the government from favoring one religion over another, or denigrating one religion over another. The man who shot at Republican senators on the baseball field was Christian, but no one seems to make an issue of that.
Having said that, I disagree with everything else you say. Conservatives have a tunnel-vision view of the world akin to imposing their own version of Judeo-Christian "sharia" law on the whole of the fountry. And the emphasis there is on the Christian component.
Attempting to impose Church teachings (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, creationism) on the entirety of the US population is as close to imposing Islamic law on our ation as legislating Sharia law. The First Amendment denies the country ( and the states via the 14th Amendment) from favoring any religion over another. That includes any branch of Jewish or Christian law as well as that of any other religion. Unfortunately, main stream Conservatism would impose such religious laes on all.
One last point. Muslims are not protected by progressives because they are people of color. Your disagreement with such treatment for them is wrll taken. Muslims are protected by that same First Amendment right preventing the government from favoring one religion over another, or denigrating one religion over another. The man who shot at Republican senators on the baseball field was Christian, but no one seems to make an issue of that.
4
And don't forget that it was liberals who protested against Ayaan coming to their college to speak.
FYI the 1st amendment to the constitution is freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, truth has been put aside by conservatives for sensationalism to appeal to their supporters.
Perhaps the Senators felt that there was no more to add. The speakers may have expressed their opinions eloquently enough that questions to clarify for the record was not necessary.
Foolish of them to think that anything that they did or didn't do would not be spun for nefarious purposes.
Unfortunately, truth has been put aside by conservatives for sensationalism to appeal to their supporters.
Perhaps the Senators felt that there was no more to add. The speakers may have expressed their opinions eloquently enough that questions to clarify for the record was not necessary.
Foolish of them to think that anything that they did or didn't do would not be spun for nefarious purposes.
Like many experienced and critical readers of Op-Ed columns, I skimmed the article and then went to the bottom of the page to check the affiliations of the writers. That was one tell. The other tell was the mention that Johnson of Wisconsin had arranged the hearing. As Senator, Johnson seldom does anything unless it either advances one of his causes or undermines someone else's cause. I have listened to him on C-span too many times to have much faith in his knowledge or political motives. Someone mentioned that the authors of the op-ed were unwitting pawns of the Republicans. I think the opposite; the authors were in on the setup from before the hearing.
46
Excellent detective work! Bravo!
7
Yes, one of the writers is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a rightwing think tank, with one of its "popular stories" lauding Trump and his cabinet. As others have said, it's unclear what the purpose of this hearing was, but I see nothing wrong with doing more listening than talking.
7
So you didn't read the editorial, but only "skimmed" it. And you have judged it nonetheless? Typical. Liberal.
3
Interesting point of view, but it obscures the stated purpose of the Homeland Security Hearing on Ideology and Terror. What terror threats do Americans face in their daily lives? I am including the authors in this question.
Terror threats in American streets are overwhelming from mass shootings spawned by various homegrown ideologies (tax protest, sovereign nation, white supremacy, anti-abortion, etc). The position on Muslim women in some Muslim societies is an important topic, but this hearing was on ideology that led to terrorism in America. Senators Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan, and McCaskill were correct to listen respectfully to the personal experiences of two women that demonizes a particular religion, but the sources of our largest terror threats were not present in that hearing. When we actually hold hearings on the real threats, rather than on a show trial of one particular religion, I will expect those Senators to ask hard questions. I am just sorry that the authors choose to trivialize the problems women actually face by attempting to equate Sharia law and FGM in American streets with the pressing problem of knife attacks in trains, shootings in workplaces, and young girls walking on Virginia roads.
Terror threats in American streets are overwhelming from mass shootings spawned by various homegrown ideologies (tax protest, sovereign nation, white supremacy, anti-abortion, etc). The position on Muslim women in some Muslim societies is an important topic, but this hearing was on ideology that led to terrorism in America. Senators Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan, and McCaskill were correct to listen respectfully to the personal experiences of two women that demonizes a particular religion, but the sources of our largest terror threats were not present in that hearing. When we actually hold hearings on the real threats, rather than on a show trial of one particular religion, I will expect those Senators to ask hard questions. I am just sorry that the authors choose to trivialize the problems women actually face by attempting to equate Sharia law and FGM in American streets with the pressing problem of knife attacks in trains, shootings in workplaces, and young girls walking on Virginia roads.
23
An ideology that oppresses women can be considered one of the roots of terrorist ideology because it demeans an entire segment of the population. If Muslim men are enraged by the freedoms women experience in Western cultures, that certainly could fuel their terrorist actions.
Exactly!
Are you suggesting that the Muslim women these authors are advocating for "don't actually face" genital mutilation, polygamy, child marriage, rape and honor killings? And that these aren't somehow "pressing" issues? What absurd liberal tunnel vision. And the authors don't demonize Islam at all. Nor do they need to. The Islamic patriarchy does that quiet well on its own.
2
One quibble. The article insinuates that Asra Nomani is from India and had to defy sharia (just like Ayaan in Somalia). However, while Asra was born in India, she moved to US when she was 4 years old (according to Wiki). In other words, she "defied sharia" in US? Is the article seriously claiming that Sharia practice is common in US?
As an aside, India does not have uniform civil code - courtesy of British Raj; but it does have uniform criminal law . So, it's an exaggeration to claim that everyone in India follows sharia law either.
As an aside, India does not have uniform civil code - courtesy of British Raj; but it does have uniform criminal law . So, it's an exaggeration to claim that everyone in India follows sharia law either.
35
sharia can be enforced in the home, and in the wider community by general agreement and by social pressure or ostracism, or even by violence. In some Jewish communities, rabbinical courts handle many domestic and commercial matters. These rulings are typically not enforced by civil authorities, but can be if they comply with contractual civil law. In Israel, domestic matters like marriage are handled for the Jewish population by rabbinic law. It's all about whatever tradition or scripture a religious community subscribes to, and so yes, sharia can and no doubt is operating in the USA or in India alongside the civil and criminal codes that the larger community uses and enforces.
10
And the law that should prevail ought to be the civil law, as it is the law of the land.
2
Actually, "Sharia" rules are commonly enforced in the US, by families and communities.
Islam is a diverse religion just like Christianity or any other religion. Therefore, the degree of subjugation of women varies. As it does in Christianity. And yes, many denominations still subjugate women by preventing them from being ordained or holding any position of power over men.
While I agree that my senator, Ron Johnson, likely has an ulterior motive for sponsoring this hearing, the optics are bad for the women senators in this. Here's why: Violence Against Women! For that reason alone there should have been different response from them. For one thing they left themselves wide open to this charge. There could have been an acknowledgement of the violence which included the fact that violence against women is not a problem unique to Islam alone.
One poster mentioned that a woman who wears a hijab has a choice. Perhaps not, if her husband/father/brother is abusive!
In many predominately Muslim countries women ARE still subjected to honor killings, forced marriages, and FGM, regardless of whether any specific practice arises from Islam or tribal custom. The point is it is allowed and often state sanctioned.
But, there are also many, many Muslim families who do not practice those customs! Violence against women is a world wide-problem. The US has no reason to take a superior stance considering the availability of guns and how many women are murdered each year - by guns or other means.
While I agree that my senator, Ron Johnson, likely has an ulterior motive for sponsoring this hearing, the optics are bad for the women senators in this. Here's why: Violence Against Women! For that reason alone there should have been different response from them. For one thing they left themselves wide open to this charge. There could have been an acknowledgement of the violence which included the fact that violence against women is not a problem unique to Islam alone.
One poster mentioned that a woman who wears a hijab has a choice. Perhaps not, if her husband/father/brother is abusive!
In many predominately Muslim countries women ARE still subjected to honor killings, forced marriages, and FGM, regardless of whether any specific practice arises from Islam or tribal custom. The point is it is allowed and often state sanctioned.
But, there are also many, many Muslim families who do not practice those customs! Violence against women is a world wide-problem. The US has no reason to take a superior stance considering the availability of guns and how many women are murdered each year - by guns or other means.
9
What you say is true, of course, but none of it was the subject of this hearing. A Homeland Security Committee hearing purportedly dealing with the threat to our homeland security posed by religious radicalism would do well to call witnesses knowledgeable about radical Christianity rather than radical Islam. I congratulate these senators for declining to be used by Ron Johnson.
When members of Congress aren't interested in a topic before a committee, they simply don't attend -- surely we all have seen committee hearings with only one or two members present. These women attended and listened, something we might benefit from having our representatives in Congress do more often.
When members of Congress aren't interested in a topic before a committee, they simply don't attend -- surely we all have seen committee hearings with only one or two members present. These women attended and listened, something we might benefit from having our representatives in Congress do more often.
1
Listen to your reply! Just listen to yourself! Apples and oranges you talk about, all in order to avoid what Sharia law is about. You would write a ten page essay detailing all the horrible things that happen around the world - and in this country - all to avoid acknowledging the unique reality of Islamic extremism and its implications for women.
It is clear to me that you could have been on that panel and ignored these two women as well. Your response just detailed why.
It is clear to me that you could have been on that panel and ignored these two women as well. Your response just detailed why.
1
Your opening line, "Islam is a diverse religion," belies the problem with that "religion." Its mandatory cultural extremes and lack of tolerance with violent repercussions relieve it of any "religious" bearing.
1
As a white U.S. born man at age 82, there is still so much for ME to learn. I thank Ayaan and Asra for this essay, and I do hope Kamala and Claire will see and read it carefully, too. I still have HOPE.
38
I doubt that Senators Harris and McCaskill need to read this essay to know very well that there are lots of facets of Shariah that conflict with US laws. Most well informed women in the US would know that. It has been all over the news for years. Could it have been that the senators did not question Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani because they agreed with that each of the conflicts cited should be resolved in favor of universal human rights but the way to do so is not to ban a particular religion which seems to be the way these two writers are going?
3
I can't help but think this opinion piece is the product of a single, exceptional event (the referenced Senate hearing) being expanded into a poor generalization of the global left.
As evidenced in both drafts of the GOP healthcare law, as well as most of the GOP legislative activities dating back to the Obama years, the GOP in fact cares little about women's rights, especially those of immigrant women. Rather, they care about attacking non-western religiosity on behalf of their rabid Christian donors and voter base. The issue progressives take with debating Islamic fundamentalism in a politicized Republican-led Senatorial committee peopled on the GOP side by predominantly elder white men isn't a rejection or oversight of the oppression of women under fundamentalist Islamist regimes. It's a recognition that this the last forum where any woman will in fact gain any relief.
Progressives have always been focused on women's rights from a global perspective and the subjugation of women in the global South. In fact, once upon a time, twenty years ago, the wife of one of our presidents, on a visit to Asia, proclaimed "Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights."
As evidenced in both drafts of the GOP healthcare law, as well as most of the GOP legislative activities dating back to the Obama years, the GOP in fact cares little about women's rights, especially those of immigrant women. Rather, they care about attacking non-western religiosity on behalf of their rabid Christian donors and voter base. The issue progressives take with debating Islamic fundamentalism in a politicized Republican-led Senatorial committee peopled on the GOP side by predominantly elder white men isn't a rejection or oversight of the oppression of women under fundamentalist Islamist regimes. It's a recognition that this the last forum where any woman will in fact gain any relief.
Progressives have always been focused on women's rights from a global perspective and the subjugation of women in the global South. In fact, once upon a time, twenty years ago, the wife of one of our presidents, on a visit to Asia, proclaimed "Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights."
27
You are exactly right:"this opinion piece is the product of a single, exceptional event (the referenced Senate hearing) being expanded into a poor generalization of the global left.," except:
1) There is nothing exceptional about how Democrats ignore reality.
2) The global left is indeed poor in value, thought and tolerance.
1) There is nothing exceptional about how Democrats ignore reality.
2) The global left is indeed poor in value, thought and tolerance.
3
thank you for speaking so clearly.
Spot on op-ed. Many in the aid/development world see FGM as a cultural vs. a human rights issue. Others see it as a human rights issue, but are constrained by the political realities of the societies where they work. Still, progress can, and is being made, to effect change. Some organizations have effectively used videos of the agony girls go through to get men to oppose FGM.
While I am in agreement with the authors on the points they make, I am also troubled by what some may see as an unfair fixation on Islam versus other forms of religious based gender discrimination. What about the marginalization of women by the Catholic church and other religions?
While I am in agreement with the authors on the points they make, I am also troubled by what some may see as an unfair fixation on Islam versus other forms of religious based gender discrimination. What about the marginalization of women by the Catholic church and other religions?
20
Catholicism does indeed marginalize women, but it does not define them as chattel. There are degrees of oppression, and some is much worse than others.
Fundamentalism in every religion and ideology puts women and children last, as property or as people needing control. Fundamentalism is authoritarian and hierarchical and wants power and control. This is true in Islam and Christianity as well as totalitarianism. Fundamentalist do not represent all in a particular religion, but they seem to get the most press and are the most dangerous, when they seek to impose their belief/practice on everyone else. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the radical fundamentalists and the mainstream in both Islam and Christianity.
Other religions don't have honor killings or g enital mutilation or encourage wife beating. All of you progressives still don't get it and persist in keeping the blinders on. Stop thinking with emotions and get real.
For lefties and minorities, Islamic terrorism -- even against its own women -- has less real impact than the harassments and violence we experience here in our own homeland, by advocates of a "purer" racial or cultural nation. In a summer when we see exoneration after exoneration of cultural leaders who show strength with attacks on women, men of color, even working journalists, perhaps we can be excused for refusing to play along with this hysteria. I share the writers' outrage over the everyday violence against women in many Islamic households, even countries. But these cannot be changed by demonstrating to the world, again and again, that we, too, enjoy a cultural use of personal violence to maintain traditional hierarchies.
5
Shariah laws or Islamic laws or any other extreme religious views should not be treated as left or right issues. All such laws are social evils and unfair for all irrespective of gender, countries, parties and religions. There should not be political correctness here. If we cannot honestly call a spade a spade we will leave this world to be a dangerous place for future generation. We better realize that this generation has an unique opportunity to correct the environment given the current turmoil recognized by the world. Time is just ripe but the actions by leaders are wrong, wrong and wrong. is it that difficult to find the right path? No, if self interest and money influence is discarded. USA cannot be friend to Saudi because there is no commonality between these countries on any issues other than money and oil. Unless and until we realize this ISIS cannot be defeated - my conclusion.
12
Just another unfortunate example of so called progressives attempting to quiet someone with whom they either disagree or can tell a story which may challenge their ideological views. Whether on our campuses, statehouses or U.S. Congress, or any other public forum for that matter, we need more open and honest dialogue. Not less.
It’s no wonder so many of the important challenges facing this country remain unmet.
Kudos to the NYT for printing this piece.
It’s no wonder so many of the important challenges facing this country remain unmet.
Kudos to the NYT for printing this piece.
34
Progressives attempted to "quiet" them by listening to what they had to say at a public hearing in the seat of government in the capital of our country?
2
birdie,
They were not silenced by the Democratic senators; they just were not engaged by them. Right or wrong, that's for each of us to ascertain. But please don't throw out such Hnanity-isms as you just did.
They were not silenced by the Democratic senators; they just were not engaged by them. Right or wrong, that's for each of us to ascertain. But please don't throw out such Hnanity-isms as you just did.
I'm not certain if I understand the writers' opinion in this article. If the writers conclude that the women Senators on the Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were silent on serious issues that impact some Muslim women, I think the evidence provided does not agree with that position. While there is no doubt that some women experience religious and secular discrimination and threats to safety, it isn't exclusive to some Islamic traditions. Senator McCaskill's opinion conveyed the women's stand: "Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule."
Sharia Law is not central to terrorist activities - neither are mainstream Islamic traditions. The concern of the Senators appears to be a conflation of Islam with Jihadists that exploit Islam.
In Quebec City (Canada) six Muslim men were killed and fourteen injured by a man who decided he would enter a Mosque and start shooting people because they were Muslim. Such is the nature of our times.
The women Senators are well-informed of their duties and current events. The U.S. Constitution provides for separation of Church and State. The issues of religious dogma are not subject to Congressional hearings. The argument about Sharia law's abuse of women may be true and discriminatory, but the remedy is unclear from the writers' position: they did not provide a prescription to resolve the issues. Sharia law derived from conservative Islam is not uniformly accepted.
Sharia Law is not central to terrorist activities - neither are mainstream Islamic traditions. The concern of the Senators appears to be a conflation of Islam with Jihadists that exploit Islam.
In Quebec City (Canada) six Muslim men were killed and fourteen injured by a man who decided he would enter a Mosque and start shooting people because they were Muslim. Such is the nature of our times.
The women Senators are well-informed of their duties and current events. The U.S. Constitution provides for separation of Church and State. The issues of religious dogma are not subject to Congressional hearings. The argument about Sharia law's abuse of women may be true and discriminatory, but the remedy is unclear from the writers' position: they did not provide a prescription to resolve the issues. Sharia law derived from conservative Islam is not uniformly accepted.
60
You missed the point Ms Harris is hyper partisan and embedded in political correctness
1
Almost every one of your sentences is a blatant falsehood. Sharia law is very much at the root of terrorism. Ask any village that had ISIS move in and declare sharia law and everybody who violates it or was suspected of violating it be executed immediately. ISIS' hatred for other Muslims and their justification for killing them is precisely that they do not observe Sharia law the way ISIS sees fit.
2
" The issues of religious dogma are not subject to Congressional hearings"
So what remedy would you apply when religious dogma determines which laws are enacted by the US Congress?
So what remedy would you apply when religious dogma determines which laws are enacted by the US Congress?
Perhaps the hearing would have gone a bit differently if, instead of attending to "testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism", you had attended a hearing intended to address women's rights regardless of religion? My guess is that other commenters have it about right - you were used by Republicans to further demonize Islam. The irony seems to me that the more I see of the "ideology" of the radical right, especially as it pertains to inflicting its brand of religion on our government, the more it resembles the very ideology it espouses to hate. The sooner we get past religion and focus on ethics, right and wrong, the better off we'll all be.
151
How about silencing the Christians? The Christian message in America is one of superiority. Over other religions and women's rights.
When the playing field is equalized, perhaps America will be perceived as a moral voice.
America is considered a pariah nation. There is absolutely no getting around this.
When the playing field is equalized, perhaps America will be perceived as a moral voice.
America is considered a pariah nation. There is absolutely no getting around this.
24
As usual, another "call to silence" someone or something this citizen of the world finds troubling. If you prefer the "moral voice" of killing unborn babies at will, I prefer to not be part of your "religion".
1
Why hold a hearing on just "Islamist" extremism? And the witnesses? One is listed as an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that knows a lot about extremism). The other is an outspoken Trump supporter who shares the anti-Muslim view of her co-witness. This was a scripted, phony hearing couched as something about women's rights. Baloney. This was a political show put on by Johnson to give more PR the anti-Muslim view favored by Johnson, Trump, and perpetuated/spearheaded by these two "witnesses".
209
How dare you!!! Ayaan Hirsi Ali, had a portion of her genitals forcibly removed by religious zealot criminals, who didn't believe that a women was entitled to enjoy intercourse. She was forced to marry an older man who she didn't know. She was forced to flee her home in Holland because of death threats. Is it any wonder that she opposes the religious nuts who have treated her this way???This is a women who deserves to be heard and has earned respect.
3
Have you read Ayaan's life story? Perhaps better to check what she has suffered, first.
2
Why is it that religion is always the problem? Could it be that it's simply not based on factual evidence of a Supreme Being but a leap of faith?
7
I agree with Senator McCaskil that religion should not be a subject of examination by the Senate, or the House or any branch of the government. Senator Johnson's goal in calling for this hearing was to paint Islam as evil, shamefully using women issues as cover. If Senator Johnson and his Republican colleague really want to discusss abuses of women, call a hearing for that and let the discussion also involve other religion's abuses of women, for example, government take over for women's decision on their bodies, like the decision for contraception and termination of pregnancies.
233
Islam is a political ideology wrapped in a religion. Can't compare Islam with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.
3
When will Senator Johnson be calling the hearing about Republicans efforts to terrorize women by eliminating funds nationwide for Planned Parenthood?
It's all a big phoney diversion and waste of time!
It's all a big phoney diversion and waste of time!
2
The problem is that there is a clear political component to the religion that is fundamentally at odds with Western secular laws. It needs to be identified at the very least.
1
America is conflicted, we have Islamophobia from Trump supporters and fawning embrace of the Saudis from Trump, congress is chastising the Saudis while Trump is giving them two thumbs up. It has all become a circus since Trump's election, a dog chasing its own tail, there is no governance and American society is veering into dangerously polarized waters. Now is probably not the best time to worry the good senators with the issues of concern to Ayaan and Asra.
16
Harris was not "silenced"; she was simply following the Elizabeth Warren playbook. Interrupt and showboat until the chair asks that she show some respect for the witness and allow him to answer posed questions. Then trot out this tired business about being "silenced," and await the PR and campaign contributions. This cynical scheme works too well for Harris and Warren not to try it--and even for Chelsea Clinton to horn in on the "She Persisted" meme.
That these Democratic Senators had no interest in hearing anything about Islamism's absolute dedication to silencing, veiling, and closeting women is disgusting. It might make one think that "silencing" is only important when it can be directed towards personal political ends and ambitions.
That these Democratic Senators had no interest in hearing anything about Islamism's absolute dedication to silencing, veiling, and closeting women is disgusting. It might make one think that "silencing" is only important when it can be directed towards personal political ends and ambitions.
33
The top cop in America was telling her he was not going to answer the questions, even though he could not cite a policy. Would the attorney general direct his prosecutors to let anyone else in the country slide on that? Would you not press back in that situation? What she was saying is that he knew he was testifying, and being the AG of all people, he could have reviewed the policy; his excuses were outrageous. Remember, she was just the AG of CA, so why on earth would you expect her to sit back and let AG Sessions obstruct justice?
And why on earth is it not relevant to read the Coretta Scott King letter about the very topic of Sessions not being fit for AG due to his documented racism? Just because Sessions is in the Senate we can't have a confirmation hearing that deals with anything negative about him? Jeez.
And why on earth is it not relevant to read the Coretta Scott King letter about the very topic of Sessions not being fit for AG due to his documented racism? Just because Sessions is in the Senate we can't have a confirmation hearing that deals with anything negative about him? Jeez.
1
She was silenced - you simply do not see the men in Congress treated like Warren and Harris are
Please--Warren and Harris were silenced. For being uppity women that dared ask real questions in the middle of the scripted Republican performance. Ask a woman. Most of us have experienced the phenomenon and can describe it for you.
wow, how depressing. liberal women not trying to help oppressed women. in slight defense, more is impossible, the times they are a changing and most democrats are sitting shell shocked by a president and republican party that is creating a country that is getting worse and worse from a human perspective. all the problems you mention are important but there are so many and my guess is the politicians are deciding which few they might tackle. my suggestion is to move to a more decent country - Canada, parts of Europe. the USA is a far less interested country than before. the usa is moving in the direction of the third world dictatorships and "small" (meaning not rich) people are becoming far lessimportant.
Hear, hear. The American left usually tries to ignore the issues these women have raised; the hypocrisy is obvious to any impartial observer. We shouldn't tolerate for a moment the oppression of women by anyone, and that includes extremists within Islam. Kudos to the Times for publishing this.
Thank you for this article; the Senators who silenced you should be ashamed. The moral relativism of identity politics is an intellectually weak foundation that will prevent liberals from ever succeeding politically on a national level. For those who disagree, consider Linda Stackhouse's current oped on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her lifelong championing of equality between men and women. We cannot in one breath declare that women deserve dollar for dollar parity with men in the workplace while with the next defending the cultural imperatives that lead to women in burkhas and their genital mutilation---at least not without stunning hypocrisy and callousness.
19
Nobody "silenced" these two. They testified. The senators they are attacking just refrained from asking supportive questions because they didn't want to support an attack on a religion.
1
Stunning hypocrisy and callousness is central to the core of liberal beliefs.
NO ONE SILENCED THEM. They are complaining because two women Senators happened not to ask them questions AFTER they made their presentations.
1
If anything could make me support the Republicans, this would. I personally know young Muslim women who were pressured by their families to wear the hijab or to enter into an arranged marriage. Female genital mutilation is practiced in the US. There are American mosques preaching Islamism. And what about Muslim dissidents outside the US? What about secular bloggers assassinated, women harassed by the morality police in Iran and denied basic rights in Saudi Arabia, religious minorities persecuted throughout the Middle East? Read the harrowing article in the NYT magazine about child soldiers conscripted by Boko Haram - an Islamist organization. And the brave women who are speaking out against this are denied a voice in the Senate? And why - because it helps "demonizing Islam"? Clearly Islam is doing a pretty good job of self-demonization. I am withdrawing all donations to any California Democrat as long as this travesty continues. These women should be invited back and asked to testify in public hearings, aided by refugees and prisoners of conscience from Muslim countries.
34
So how were these women silenced by the Senate? They had opportunity in opening statements to make their case. And what about the Republicans on the panel? Did they not ask any questions? I saw nothing in this one sided op-ed that says other wise. As for religious "freedom" laws being pushed now by Republicans wouldn't that mean that "all" religious belief is okay? Or is it just certain select Christian sects that count? People, men in particular, have used their interpretation of religion for centuries in order to control others and particularly women.
6
No religion has clean hands when it comes to misogyny. Read the recent article by Nicholas Kristoff about Christian child brides in the USA. 12 and 13 year olds are being married off to grown men, often church elders, so the men can avoid a charge of statutory rape. Again, that's happening right here in the saintly USA. And how about our devout vice-president whose wife is a second class citizen because he believes in complentarianism. When it comes to self-demonization, Christianity can stand shoulder to shoulder with Islam. A discussion about misogyny in religion, all religions, is a good idea. Singling out Islam is disingenuous at best and islamophobic at worst.
1
How are the religious freedom laws relevant to the subject? I oppose theocracy - which is why I oppose both so-called "religious freedom laws" AND the silencing of Muslim dissidents. And it IS silencing - precisely by those who should be up front supporting Ali and women like her. Until I hear Democrats speak out against Islamism in the strongest possible terms, I am not going to donate to the DNC. Incidentally, while not a fan of fundamentalist Christianity, I reject the ignorant notion that "all religions are the same". Are all political parties the same? Christianity is not one religion and neither is Islam. There was a contemplative, poetic, mystical tradition in Islam that was brutally stamped out by fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Islam today is poison to the entire world, especially to the people who are unlucky enough to live under its control. Shame on those Western "liberals" who side with the victimizer rather than the victim!
1
It used to be easy to be a liberal. Just be tolerant of everyone.
But then came a tough question: should this tolerance extend even to those who preach intolerance?
The liberal jury is still out on this one, presumably hoping it will just go away ...
But then came a tough question: should this tolerance extend even to those who preach intolerance?
The liberal jury is still out on this one, presumably hoping it will just go away ...
7
if liberals want to claim that tolerance should not extent to those who preach intolerance, their first act will have to be to not tolerate themselves.
Name me a time in history when liberals were tolerant of everyone.
I think you know what I mean, Enzo11 !
It is also true that there is a depressing brand of so-called liberalism which finds value in insulting any opinion which does not perfectly coincide with their own. I really do not consider such people as liberals, although in the US they do call themselves liberals ... anyhow, that's not the group I had in mind ...
It is also true that there is a depressing brand of so-called liberalism which finds value in insulting any opinion which does not perfectly coincide with their own. I really do not consider such people as liberals, although in the US they do call themselves liberals ... anyhow, that's not the group I had in mind ...
There may be two different things happening here. I'm a liberal because I value justice and fairness above almost anything else, and I do think many progressives, especially on campuses, are inexplicably blind to the cruelty and injustice that is baked into Islam.
On the other hand, Republicans have never cared about anyone's rights except maybe the suffering of Wall Street bankers under Obama, and given the authors' alliances with right wing organizations, this sounds like a Republican stunt. But appearances become reality in politics, so I hope the Times will publish a response from those Democratic senators. This is an important discussion that touches on moral weak spot in today's liberalism.
On the other hand, Republicans have never cared about anyone's rights except maybe the suffering of Wall Street bankers under Obama, and given the authors' alliances with right wing organizations, this sounds like a Republican stunt. But appearances become reality in politics, so I hope the Times will publish a response from those Democratic senators. This is an important discussion that touches on moral weak spot in today's liberalism.
94
You claim you are liberal because you value justice and fairness, and then go on to claim that conservatives are not.
So much for your brand of fairness.
So much for your brand of fairness.
2
Agree... having the journalistic platform does allow for the opportunity to use it in tbis manner by the authors. Its a myopic view of what may be happening. As I see it the female Senators are not silencing the authors. In my view they do not wish to engage inreligion bashing. I agree with other comment that instrad of using a hearing on religion to get at the atrocities the extreme Islamist sects apply to women such as genital mutilation, have a hearing on specifically that crime or crimes against Islamic women.
Speaking in absolutes can be hazardous to your objectivity.
Thank you for publishing this. Let's remember that religions are a set of ideas. Some of these ideas are good, some evil. Ideas should be subject to criticism without accusations of bigotry.
31
I am shocked. I voted for Mrs. Harris and I expected her to be more vocal about these issues. Then, it occured to me that she must think (or know) that the ''conservative'' muslims who couldn't care less about women's rights represent a bigger electoral pool than the progressive one. There you have it. It comes down to who will keep you in power, not what is the right thing to do.
On the other hand Republicans will go to any length to ostracize muslims progressive or otherwise and will use your cause to make their point. After all, their base hardly includes many muslims.
A no win situation?
On the other hand Republicans will go to any length to ostracize muslims progressive or otherwise and will use your cause to make their point. After all, their base hardly includes many muslims.
A no win situation?
3
I am not sure on what basis you infer Sen. Harris's not asking questions at a committee hearing designed by Republicans not to help women oppressed by extremist Islam, but rather to fan the flames of islamophobia in this country.
3
Conservatives will go to any lengths to ostracise Muslim progressives????
Then why is it that it is almost only conservatives that actually support and promote Muslim progressives????
Then why is it that it is almost only conservatives that actually support and promote Muslim progressives????
1
Please read some of the other replies written after your comment for insights that make sense of what otherwise appears inexplicable.
2
100% agree. Liberals were up in arms when the burkini was banned in Italy, but quiet when women who don't wear Islamic clothing in Somalia are jailed and stoned. It's a false equivalence and if we turn a blind eye to how religion can truly oppress women in the worst of ways, talking about women's rights will always be simply "lip service".
17
What liberals were silent when Somali women weres toned?
And what about our fearless leader dancing and partying with the Saudis and other repressive states. What are we to make of that?
This hearing was a charade scripted by Republicans for their own purposes.
And what about our fearless leader dancing and partying with the Saudis and other repressive states. What are we to make of that?
This hearing was a charade scripted by Republicans for their own purposes.
2
When ONE woman or man is oppressed, we ALLare oppressed. No relativism there! Yes the left is too absorbed in ITSELF as is the right! There is such a lack of cosmopolitanism and compassion supported by knowledge! I agree with the author! I would not want to see my hearty representatives deal with R rated information such as truth such that they will all soil themselves!
Congress shall make no law... When I began my apostasy, I knew that, in this country, government could not help. Organize within the Umma.
5
According to Ali, "There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism."
The discomfort stems from an unwillingness to vilify an entire religion, which is what Mr. Trump wants to do, because of the twisted views of its extremist fringe.
The discomfort stems from an unwillingness to vilify an entire religion, which is what Mr. Trump wants to do, because of the twisted views of its extremist fringe.
52
The entire religion is also being "vilified" by many of it's strongest mainstream followers.
Funny how calling out it's rather obvious problems is now somehow "vilifying" it.
Funny how calling out it's rather obvious problems is now somehow "vilifying" it.
2
Let's take an easy one: the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death.
Compare and contrast with religious freedom.
Compare and contrast with religious freedom.
1
seems like the 4th amendment's right for freedom from oppression is the conversation, not new legislative protections.
2
Sorry this is totally absurd!
Equating the actual silencing of Sen. Harris while Sessions just smirked like a little passive aggressive bully who pulled the wool over everyone in playing victim, with your experience is disingenuous.
Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani have a valid 'cause' but to accuse Sen. Harris of 'silencing' them renders their stake to their cause completely questionable.
It is just not true.
They were not silenced. This kind of crying foul where there was no foul is the trait of those with no moral-standing whatsoever, relative nor not.
Equating the actual silencing of Sen. Harris while Sessions just smirked like a little passive aggressive bully who pulled the wool over everyone in playing victim, with your experience is disingenuous.
Ms. Ali and Ms. Nomani have a valid 'cause' but to accuse Sen. Harris of 'silencing' them renders their stake to their cause completely questionable.
It is just not true.
They were not silenced. This kind of crying foul where there was no foul is the trait of those with no moral-standing whatsoever, relative nor not.
112
Agree 1000%. Also, did anyone else notice that the headline of this article changed from "Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us" to "Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don't Be Silent on Women's Rights." I wonder if it's because the first headline was misleading at best, a lie at worst.
4
Agree!!!
2
This was a sad and moving piece. Liberals, like conservatives, have strong feelings about good and evil. There is a hierarchy of evil, and cultural insensitivity does not trump abuse. I think we liberals have confused our sense of moral outrage by embracing too dearly the political motivation of inclusion. It is evil to mutilate women. Plain and simple. If we can not even stand proudly for that principle, what do we stand for?
7
Reading the comments, it seems that many disagree with the Ms. Ali's and Ms. Nomani's characterizations of their own views. These appear to be valid points. So why didn't the democratic senators raise these same issues during the hearing? Why were they silent?
10
It's a good thing they were silent. I imagine any words they might have spoken would also have been misconstrued in order to achieve the ultimate goal of this hit piece, which is to convey liberals as hypocrites regarding women's rights. They knew they were targets.
2
She was "silenced" because she is a grandstanding loudmouth not unlike a number of other members on both sides male and female. C'mon...she loves this attention as she prepares to run for a higher office.
8
You seem to confuse asking direct questions and expecting, as a member of the Senate, ANSWERS to those questions as grandstanding, being a loudmouth, attention-seeking. All the usual anti-female comments. No one made a complaint about the males who pursued answers from Sessions, for example. Good for Harris for calling him on his stonewalling and shame on her colleagues who sat there and giggled along with him while he lied or refused to answer.
4
The anti-Muslim policies of the Trump administration violate the principle of equality before the law, because those policies target an entire religious community, implicitly declaring its members guilty of hostility to Americans and our institutions. In like manner, many 19th-century Americans denounced Catholic immigrants as undemocratic, on the grounds that the church's doctrine required them to vote the way the pope and their bishops dictated.
In both cases, some members of each immigrant group confirmed these suspicions by adhering to laws or doctrines that did in fact contradict this country's values and legal system. Liberals who ignore the reality of honor killings and genital mutilation, along with other practices that subordinate some Muslim women, fail to uphold the principles that protect all of us from private tyranny, including the vast majority of Muslims who do not practice such abuses.
Muslims deserve protection from the discriminatory policies of the Trump administration, not because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to treat their co-religionaries any way they please. Rather, like the adherents of other faiths, the Constitution ensures their right to worship as they please, so long as they don't violate the principles embodied in that document and our laws.
Both Trump and some liberals judge an entire religious community as a unit, instead of evaluating the behavior of the individuals who comprise the group.
In both cases, some members of each immigrant group confirmed these suspicions by adhering to laws or doctrines that did in fact contradict this country's values and legal system. Liberals who ignore the reality of honor killings and genital mutilation, along with other practices that subordinate some Muslim women, fail to uphold the principles that protect all of us from private tyranny, including the vast majority of Muslims who do not practice such abuses.
Muslims deserve protection from the discriminatory policies of the Trump administration, not because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to treat their co-religionaries any way they please. Rather, like the adherents of other faiths, the Constitution ensures their right to worship as they please, so long as they don't violate the principles embodied in that document and our laws.
Both Trump and some liberals judge an entire religious community as a unit, instead of evaluating the behavior of the individuals who comprise the group.
6
These two women are very smart, very thoughtful and very sophisticated. They should therefore understand that Harris didn't ask questions because there weren't cameras to play to. Harris is gutless; she attacked Sessions because that is popular with her constituency; she disregards these noble women because no one in her constituency cares about their issues. So of course Harris is not a feminist; she is an opportunist.
Also, Harris wasn't interrupted because she was female. She was interrupted because she failed to understand -- or maybe intentionally misunderstood -- that Senators don't question witnesses as if they are criminals on the stand. A senate hearing is not an inquisition.
Electing more women to these positions was, they said, going to upgrade these institutions. It turns out, these women are merely introducing new forms of self-serving, self-promoting misconduct that is different than the way men do it. That is hardly progress.
Also, Harris wasn't interrupted because she was female. She was interrupted because she failed to understand -- or maybe intentionally misunderstood -- that Senators don't question witnesses as if they are criminals on the stand. A senate hearing is not an inquisition.
Electing more women to these positions was, they said, going to upgrade these institutions. It turns out, these women are merely introducing new forms of self-serving, self-promoting misconduct that is different than the way men do it. That is hardly progress.
8
Wow, listen to YOU. How dare those women do things differently from the old men in the Senate? How dare they ask direct questions (rather than beating around the bush and ignoring stonewalling) and push back when witnesses stonewall? And it is the women who are showboating, not the men who proceed through their scripted deference to the lying Attorney General?
BTW, there were cameras.
BTW, there were cameras.
4
You are displaying the exact type of chavinism the men in Republican Senate did- towards Senstor Harris. Such a shame that white men are still aftaid of powerful, intelligent women.
4
Both of these ladies are known to be part of an Islamophobic industry making money selling hate. Google 'Fear Inc.', an extensive report on manufactured hate by Center for American Progress. Hirsi is an atheist and has a questionable past. Asra has displayed an angry trait, not a logical approach to her contentions. Senators not wanting to waste their time listening or arguing with these two ladies is understandable - they, we can be assured had done background check and on the history of the two. We can add the two names to the list of Muslim bashing team of Gorka, Bannon, Gingrich and others in the Republican party. As a Republican, I feel sorry for my party to entertain bigotry and phantom threats of sharia. If the two really care, they should return to their respective countries and fight for women's rights where the tribal practices happen and let our lawmakers work on pressing issues in our country.
17
Hirsi is an apostate, which large portion of the Muslim world considers a death sentence. You want her to return to the belly of the beast that is actively trying to assassinate her?
2
In the interests of full disclosure it should be pointed out that Asra Nomani admittedly voted for Donald Trump and supported Trump's Muslim ban. Ayaana Hirsi Ali has been associated with conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institution and the Heritage foundation. They paint themselves as feminist Muslim women of color, who are upset that the democratic women senators didn't respond to their attacks on the misogyny of Islam. They fail to mention their association with Republican institutions and the fact that their column could be interpreted as a partisan hit piece on the Democratic women senators. They disingenuously seem to imply that the Senators are engaging in "progressive"hypocrisy, by favoring feminist legislation in Congress, yet not publicly criticizing the misogynistic practices of Islam. I would remind Nomani and Ali that the job of a U.S. Senator is passing legislation, and overseeing a secular government, not criticizing the sectarian practices of Islam, however abhorrent.
46
Yes. I too was stunned to see the association with the Hoover Institute.
5
It is a partisan hit piece and the hearing was a partisan effort to fan the flames of Islamophobia, with little or no real regard for the rights of women. Look around to see if the Republican men in that room ever express concern about women's rights in any other context. It's a form of virtue signaling, and these two writers should be ashamed for their complicity.
2
Thank you for speaking out so forcefully and with such clarity. Progressives/liberals - take heed. We "politicize" issues (brand them liberal or conservative) at our peril. In this country, we all need to stop the simple, superficial process of dualizing in our heads and just LISTEN to each other with open minds and hearts. We have to learn how to have deep conversation again. This is the only way to learn, think and solve problems together. It's one thing to respect Muslim women's rights who choose to wear a hijab; this is not inconsistent with fighting demeaning and psychologically/physically dangerous practices of extreme Shariah law. Fundamentalist extremism, in any religion, is deeply dangerous and off the mark of what religion is about. Women and other vulnerable groups are always scapegoated - and should be liberated from their oppressors.
5
The problem is not sharia. It is all religions. Progressive ideas are the enemy of all religions. Progressive living needs spirituality and not obedience to, or observance of, ancient rites and customs. Shed the chains. Think independently.
6
Hypocrisy of politicians, in this case female, "liberal" and "progressive". How surprising.
I hope that this op-ed becomes viral. To do my part, I shared it on FB.
I hope that this op-ed becomes viral. To do my part, I shared it on FB.
11
Great writing, and a needed reality check.
Islamism (and any form of religious coercion) is a danger to civilization and the full realization of human potential.
As a Dem and liberal, I apologize to these two women for the insult done by this 'silencing'. Ending political correctness may be the starting point where conservatives and liberals can work together.
Islamism (and any form of religious coercion) is a danger to civilization and the full realization of human potential.
As a Dem and liberal, I apologize to these two women for the insult done by this 'silencing'. Ending political correctness may be the starting point where conservatives and liberals can work together.
8
This issue is far more nuanced that this Op Ed makes it out to be. The title is misleading. Kamala was silent isn't the same as she silenced them.
22
Kamala Harris was posturing. And she continues to posture.
Depends on whom is doing the interrupting .....
Depends on whom is doing the interrupting .....
6
It is ironic that some of the most intelligent, successful and powerful women in America are so willfully blind to the plight of so many subjugated women throughout the world. They have apparently bought into the widely promoted excuse that horror stories such as yours are the exception to the rule. It's a shame they are such champions of what they label the 'War on Women' here at home, yet ignore the much larger war on women that promotes genital mutilation, child forced marriage, prohibitions on education, honor killings and other such atrocities. I commend you for your bravery, hopefully not at the expense of a serious or fatal attack upon your persons as has been the case so many times before when brave women such as yourselves have had the audacity to hope.
9
Yes, your concern for the women of the world is heartening. Odd that you only raise it in the context of extreme Islam.
2
Both Hirsi Ali and Nomani are American women, who were born into Muslim families. Hirsi Ali is no longer Muslim; Nomani is still Muslim and sees herself as a progressive Muslim, a true reformer. Hirsi Ali is indeed a survivor of female genital mutilation, however, FGM is practiced at essentially the same rate by Muslims and non-Muslims in Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt (essentially same rate for Coptic Egyptians) - as has been widely documented, this practice is regional and cultural and pre-dates Islam (it is fair to criticize Islamic clerics who condone this brutal practice instead on condemning it) and not practiced by most Muslims. Her forced marriage (unusual in Somalia) story was at least challenged in the Netherlands, where her lying about her refugee status was also exposed. Nomani is a US citizen, so how exactly did she defy Shariah by having a baby while unmarried? I know Fox News, Brietbart et al. want to us to think Shariah is in the America, but the fact is that it is not. I guess they need to enhance their personal oppression by Islam credentials. Still, I am sure they were indeed oppressed. I understand and even agree with much of their criticism of Islam (don't agree with their alliance with extreme right-wing groups or wholesale, simplistic Islam is evil charge). In no way should they be silenced - its; outrageous that they face death threats. Both of them deny Islamaphobia even exists - a lot of American Muslim and non-Muslim women and men would strongly disagree.
9
Add this to the defaults of soi-disant progressive Democrats: the failure to understand the crucial feminist message Aayan Hirsi Ali and her co-writer here , Asra Q. Nomani, are bringing to us.
And in their stead, we have had the blinkered elevation of such lamentable speakers as Linda Sarsour at The Women's March on Washington.
As feminists, we ignore both the experience and the wisdom of Aayan Hirsi Ali at our peril.
And in their stead, we have had the blinkered elevation of such lamentable speakers as Linda Sarsour at The Women's March on Washington.
As feminists, we ignore both the experience and the wisdom of Aayan Hirsi Ali at our peril.
9
Although I am glad the authors wrote, the article is filled with horizontal aggression. Harris is said to have sat in front of the scholars, not the otehr way around. Hierarchy is not rejected here, only reversed. Feminism should be for everyone, including Harris, a woman and a woman of color. Is her experience of marginalization now moot because she's now part of a most patriarchal institution? It's universally true that "the evil lying in the handle of the sword is transmitted to the point," as writes Simone Weil. Those of us who have been marginalized tend to marginalize others. But it's still a bad title choice by NY Times editors, The same patriarchal system that silenced Harris is responsible for silencing the authors--if being invited to speak and being listened to without interruption is commensurate silencing. Of course, the Times distinguished itself in 2016 in printing sexist titles. Trump wins a primary while Clinton is pushed by minorities to victory, etc. This title pits woman against woman instead of highlighting the real nefarious power.
6
As I read this article, I felt outrage at the atrocities. Yet the op-ed seems to arise more from the Republican shibboleth of ''Islamic Extremism'' than of the plight of women in some cultures. I wondered what the authors' purposes were in their writing it.
I'm male; non-Muslim; a non-scholar of Islam. My exposure to Islam is living in the K of SA for 3 years. While there, I asked a friend, an imam, to teach me about Islam. He agreed. I read the Koran, fasted for a week of Ramadan (very tough), was invited on Hajj, small nightly eids, etc.
I learned: (highly condensed version). 1. Nothing about Wahhabism - the term never came up. 2. My imam teacher could not / did not distinguish between Islam and culture. E.g., women's dress, a burka v. an abaya, a hijab v niqab or a shawl draped over the head or shoulders or no head / hair covering at all. The Koran enjoins modest dress. That's it - as defined by local custom and one's role in society.
That last is key: Islam is not ok with genital mutilation. If local custom is ok with it, that custom is an atrocity - but it is NOT Islam. Same for all the atrocities cited as the offspring of Islam. They are not Islamic, rather the offspring of societies in which men opt to treat women in degrading, cruel ways. It happens here in Christian, fundamentalist America yet is no more 'Christian' than it is 'Islamic'.
I'm male; non-Muslim; a non-scholar of Islam. My exposure to Islam is living in the K of SA for 3 years. While there, I asked a friend, an imam, to teach me about Islam. He agreed. I read the Koran, fasted for a week of Ramadan (very tough), was invited on Hajj, small nightly eids, etc.
I learned: (highly condensed version). 1. Nothing about Wahhabism - the term never came up. 2. My imam teacher could not / did not distinguish between Islam and culture. E.g., women's dress, a burka v. an abaya, a hijab v niqab or a shawl draped over the head or shoulders or no head / hair covering at all. The Koran enjoins modest dress. That's it - as defined by local custom and one's role in society.
That last is key: Islam is not ok with genital mutilation. If local custom is ok with it, that custom is an atrocity - but it is NOT Islam. Same for all the atrocities cited as the offspring of Islam. They are not Islamic, rather the offspring of societies in which men opt to treat women in degrading, cruel ways. It happens here in Christian, fundamentalist America yet is no more 'Christian' than it is 'Islamic'.
11
Wow. Senator Harris "silenced" these authors by not asking them a question? Maybe their cause is not gaining traction because of their flagrant abuse of hyperbole. And if they "are still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation," maybe they should just organize it themselves.
18
"Defending universal principles against Islamist ideology… is… the first step in a fight whose natural leaders… should be women like… Harris and… McCaskill" But the universal principle they are defending is the separation between Church and State. If you need Congress to defend America against the foreign laws that oppressed you, it will. If you need it to defend America against Islam, it won't.
Frankly, you were being used, cynically, by Senator Johnson, to try Islam, the religion, in the US Senate, and not, more properly, the laws in your home countries that oppressed you. What is the likelihood that Johnson would use female Mormon victims of polygamy to similarly try Mormonism in the court of public opinion? Zero. American's wouldn't stand for it, as we don't approve of government officials who 'take sides' on religion. We don't see that as the business of government. Neither should you.
But I'm not surprised that would be the opinion of the Hoover Institute...
Frankly, you were being used, cynically, by Senator Johnson, to try Islam, the religion, in the US Senate, and not, more properly, the laws in your home countries that oppressed you. What is the likelihood that Johnson would use female Mormon victims of polygamy to similarly try Mormonism in the court of public opinion? Zero. American's wouldn't stand for it, as we don't approve of government officials who 'take sides' on religion. We don't see that as the business of government. Neither should you.
But I'm not surprised that would be the opinion of the Hoover Institute...
17
There is a flourishing Islamophobic industry in America that seeks to demonize Muslims and their religion. It is funded by donors who seek to promote a clash of civilizations. Websites such as Breitbart and Gateway Pundit promote conspiracy theories against Muslims that are similar to the sort of conspiracy theories that Jews in Europe were exposed to in the early 20th century (the debunked Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an example).
Ali is an atheist who has made a lucrative career giving anti Islam lectures and writing books that condemn all Muslims. She blames her personal history with her abusive family on the faith of Islam and seeks to besmirch all Muslims. Congress should not call her as an expert witness. That is like having an atheist American woman who was a victim of child abuse complain that Christianity was the root cause of her abuse.
Ali is an atheist who has made a lucrative career giving anti Islam lectures and writing books that condemn all Muslims. She blames her personal history with her abusive family on the faith of Islam and seeks to besmirch all Muslims. Congress should not call her as an expert witness. That is like having an atheist American woman who was a victim of child abuse complain that Christianity was the root cause of her abuse.
1
I applaud the NY Times for publishing this piece. Very powerful! I completely agree with its point of view. The biggest "war on women" is being conducted by Islamic jihadists. Why can't the Democrats realize this?
15
The authors here were not silenced as the headline suggests. Quite the contrary, as their voices were heard in an official government hearing and now again in the NYT. They were free to say whatever they felt they needed to say.
12
Sharia law is completely opposed to any concept of representative democracy, and hostile to our Constitution. There is no room in our scheme of government for such an ideology to take root, whether at the local or state level, much less the federal level.
7
And there's no credible effort by anyone to impose Sharia law in this country. Red herring.
3
It is unfortunate that there were not more questions in response to the authors' testimony. It sounds like they may have had useful information about how to discourage Muslims from turning to extremism and terrorism.
Who, really, do we think cares about women in Islamist countries? The U.S.'s own religious extremists who think a woman getting pregnant from rape must not really have been raped? (McCaskill beat that guy, and was elected to the senate.) You know who has been supportive of women's rights in Islamist countries? Many people who have been (falsely) accused of being afraid to say "Islamist extremists" for some sort of PC reason. The authors make a lot of assumptions about why the senators were silent during their testimony, without much evidence to back up those assumptions. How about this for a reason: was the testimony to argue for sanctions against such countries? No. It was to argue for curtailing of freedom of speech, an important right in this country. Where fighting terrorism intersects with basic freedoms, people who are not extremists are rightly circumspect.
Who, really, do we think cares about women in Islamist countries? The U.S.'s own religious extremists who think a woman getting pregnant from rape must not really have been raped? (McCaskill beat that guy, and was elected to the senate.) You know who has been supportive of women's rights in Islamist countries? Many people who have been (falsely) accused of being afraid to say "Islamist extremists" for some sort of PC reason. The authors make a lot of assumptions about why the senators were silent during their testimony, without much evidence to back up those assumptions. How about this for a reason: was the testimony to argue for sanctions against such countries? No. It was to argue for curtailing of freedom of speech, an important right in this country. Where fighting terrorism intersects with basic freedoms, people who are not extremists are rightly circumspect.
4
Islamic extremists encompass an extremely small percentage of the members of this tradition. They are "fundamentalists," a category found in all religions. Scholars have written many fine tomes on this phenomenon. I find the willingness of Christian fundamentalists here to attack all of Islam for its fundamentalism ironic. We have our own problems with right-wing fundamentalist Christians who would love to keep women and minorities from their just place in society.
9
Dennis:
So one fundamentalism is no different from another?
Are you really blind to the difference between a fundamentalism that holds that marriage is made for a man and a women and a fundamentalism that justifies honor killings, child marriage, female genital mutilation, not to mention grossly unfair divorce laws?
So one fundamentalism is no different from another?
Are you really blind to the difference between a fundamentalism that holds that marriage is made for a man and a women and a fundamentalism that justifies honor killings, child marriage, female genital mutilation, not to mention grossly unfair divorce laws?
6
False equivalency. Christian Fundamentalists, with rare exceptions, don't commit murder, rape, or violate the rule of law. They tend to take their stands at the ballot box, not the point of a knife or exploding vest.
8
Ummm, Mrs. Ming. That depends on what society they (Christian fundamentalists) happen to be living in. In Ireland, where Catholics are predominant, women die when an abortion would save their lives. We're starting to see something similar in the South, where women's reproductive health is attacked because of Christian fundamentalists. (See, e.g., maternal mortality rates in Texas). And of course if we hadn't had the (secular) Enlightenment, Christians would still be happily burning heretics at the stake. Oh, and have you noticed murders of doctors at abortion clinics? I'm guessing they aren't atheists.
An argument that depends entirely upon the belief in separation of Church from State, a tenet of the Constitution. No religion actually supports this separation, but some reluctantly accept it as a way to limit out and out violence. Others continually attempt to subvert this principle to impose their religion's restrictions upon all of us as the "right" way to live.
So the authors are endorsing a fundamental tenet of the Constitution, and the failure of Congress to support them vigorously is one more indication of the collapse of American democracy.
So the authors are endorsing a fundamental tenet of the Constitution, and the failure of Congress to support them vigorously is one more indication of the collapse of American democracy.
13
Please do not conflate progressives with the actions or lack thereof of two female senators.
5
It's an old story: whether a society is going to be governed by religious law (any religion, including Christianity either Catholic or Protestant versions, Islam either Sunni or Shia, Judaism either Orthodox or mainstream, etc.), or by secular law (independent of religion, encapsulated in the principle of separation of church from state). Remove religion from politics. Not an easy task, as human beings generally need some form of religion to understand why we exist. This is where the Enlightenment in Europe and in particular the United States constitution became so crucial for the establishment of secular rule of law government.
My favorite compendium on this basic question is Christopher Hitchen's book, God is Not Great, which holds no punches on any religion-inspired tyrannies.
My favorite compendium on this basic question is Christopher Hitchen's book, God is Not Great, which holds no punches on any religion-inspired tyrannies.
38
Ms. Ali, in particular, is known for her attacks on Islam as a whole. She has shown very little subtlety and made very few distinctions in her words and actions, between Islamic extremism and Islam in general. This is problematic, especially since many "ordinary" Muslims in the Western world are fighting against violence and discrimination. I think that the problem exists here on both sides. Ms. Ali mentions FGM, for example, a practice that has nothing to do with Islam, per se, but which is a tribal custom that has been given religious sanction in deeply conservative societies. Islam is the dominant religion in many societies that are very conservative and, relatedly, are also often teetering on the brink of collapse. The association between Islam and society in these places is not necessarily rooted in the religion but in the social/economic conditions of the country in question. By contrast, the form of Islam that has begun to develop in the West is much more secular and much more influenced by Western cultural norms. In the West, a woman who chooses to wear a hijab really does have a choice that she may not have in many Islamic countries. Islam is not a monolith; applying ideas and experiences from one part of the world to Islam in the West may not only be inappropriate, it may also contribute to an alienation that makes the situation worse.
89
The arguments here are in fact nuanced--refuting the commentator's claim that Ali "attacks" religion. Even if she did, however, she and anyone else--since Voltaire--has the constitutionally-protected right to critique religion. Any religion. As any nonbiased reader can plainly see, Ali is criticizing a political movement here (Islamism) that distorts religious faith for purposes of power, including over women and vulnerable members of the community. Nevertheless, if she or anyone wanted to critique any element of any religious belief system, it would be their right to do so in a democracy. Hence, this response and its logic is undemocratic and contemptuous of basic liberal values.
9
Islam is not on the brink of collapse in Saudi Arabia, and it is a country steeped in FGM; our government does not talk about this for obvious reasons. The developing "form of Islam" as you refer, is in your imagination. The majority of Muslims, in the world, and in the US., are considered moderate but moderate in Islam is similar to a fundamentalist within Christianity. Whatever religious form of fundamentalism one follows, it cannot easily be extricated from daily life, and Islam is no exception. It has taken Christianity centuries to become less violent "progressive"; secular society is in for a long haul.
5
In her other work, Ali is not nuanced or subtle at all. That is what I am referring to and is the context in which she appeared before the Senate. Of course it is her right to criticize religion - that is not at issue at all. I don't even know where you get that from. The question is whether or not the Senators were obligated to enable her in what they -not without cause - apparently assumed was her continuing effort to malign an entire religion.
2
I did not see this hearing. However, in most hearings I have seen, the witnesses are allowed to make statements. If that was the case in this hearing, then these 2 women were allowed to say what they wanted and put forth their point of view. Not asking them questions is quite different than silencing them. In fact, I doubt that they would have been given this platform in the NYTimes if they were not complaining that they weren't asked questions. This is probably reaching many more people than the hearing, which, as they point out, would have been buried (if reported at all) due to the story of the shooting at the Republican baseball practice.
But, one must acknowledge that the Democrat Senators were well aware that this hearing was not so much about practices against Muslim women, but a hearing to make excuses about why the US should ban Muslims from coming into the country. If the Republicans were truly concerned about the way Muslim women are treated in their countries, they would be opening up this country to them. If they were concerned about the way certain religious practices affect women's rights, they would also be looking at practices of both conservative Christian groups and orthodox Jewish groups.
But, one must acknowledge that the Democrat Senators were well aware that this hearing was not so much about practices against Muslim women, but a hearing to make excuses about why the US should ban Muslims from coming into the country. If the Republicans were truly concerned about the way Muslim women are treated in their countries, they would be opening up this country to them. If they were concerned about the way certain religious practices affect women's rights, they would also be looking at practices of both conservative Christian groups and orthodox Jewish groups.
31
Completely agree with this comment, and I find the title of this op-ed piece totally misleading. The women were allowed to speak, but they were not asked any questions. They were not silenced. Ignored, maybe, but it is not the same. Not remotely the same. The NYT should take note and intervene on the headings in these cases.
Am I understanding correctly, Harris was actively shushed by male senators in one case and in the other simply didn't ask any questions. She did not actually try to silence or limit the speech of the witnesses?
I think this may be a case of false equivalence.
I think this may be a case of false equivalence.
497
Missed the whole point of the article there, didja? Point is, in this case, liberals are extreme hypocrites.
7
Harris was told by the CHAIR of the committee to allow the questionee to answer her questions.
In a court, as Ms. Harris would be quite aware , the judge decides which arguments are sound and if one of the interrogators is badgering the questionee.
This is elementary, fundamental 101 of law and civility and courtesy. Being a women does not mean that you get a pass from being courteous or following rules and regulations which have been put in place for a reason.
In a court, as Ms. Harris would be quite aware , the judge decides which arguments are sound and if one of the interrogators is badgering the questionee.
This is elementary, fundamental 101 of law and civility and courtesy. Being a women does not mean that you get a pass from being courteous or following rules and regulations which have been put in place for a reason.
My mother was a devout Christian. She believed that the man of the family should be in charge because it's in the Bible, a belief that had profound effects on her two daughters. Should we have hearings about Christianity's role in encouraging male dominance and misogyny?
268
There should hearings on ANY religion that promotes violation of civil and universal rights. If you read the piece with an open mind, surely you would see the false equivalence.
42
Those are hardly the equivalent of sex slavery, genital mutilation and forced child marriage. I am betting no one would have threatened your mom's life if she deviated from that belief?
10
Really? Have you not heard of domestic abuse?
You leave out another factor in the left's hesitance to call out women's issues related to Islamic extremism - the American right-wing use of women's issues, including conservative readings of the Koran, to condemn Islam altogether. The right-wing makes no divisions within Islam, but claims it to be an oppressive, woman-hating philosophy (many on the right deny that it is even a religion). Things like the veil, the Saudi refusal to let women drive, child marriage, and FGM are then used to justify banning Muslims. The right will claim that it is "protecting women."
217
As well it should! We do not need more people in this country who want Shariah law. What is your solution? Let them all in so you can burnish your liberal credentials in the name of open-minded goodness and suffer the consequences as they are now doing in the EU?
10
Love how Anne rolls:"another factor in the Left's hesitance to call out..." is the "right-wing use of women's issues"...Instead of staying with the main idea, you won't hesitate to take up our time to find the shiny thing OVER THERE. And it always turns out to be another burr in her Lefty saddle.
4
I do wish that people would understand that Shariah is simply the religious law of Islam just as the Torah is for the Jews and a part of that (the Ten Commandments) is for Christianity. The vast majority of Muslims do not want Shariah to be the law of the land any more than most Jews want Torah to be.
The Hoover Institution (Ms Ali) and Wall Street Journal (Ms Nomani) -both extremely Right Wing Biased organizations might have something to do with it. The discussion of religion in the context of Government is another- America was founded as a secular nation.
This is a hit piece against Senator Harris and I expect better of this paper to which I subscribe.
This is a hit piece against Senator Harris and I expect better of this paper to which I subscribe.
634
Op-Eds are not hit pieces, but are supposed to reflect ideas across the whole spectrum.
12
i strongly agree. Why was Senator Harris named in the title of the article when she was one of four female senators? I don't think you can describe a lack of questioning as silencing. Very biased article.
19
I disagree this is a hit piece. If you are invited to Congress you should not be invited just to hear Congress speak at you. I appreciate Senator Harris. But she should have validated the presence of these two women. It's her job.
8
I am saddened that everyone keeps talking about the problem and there are no solutions put forth. Back when Bush the Son was in power, I kept telling people that the nations of the world were wasting their money going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather the money should be spent on educating Muslim women. In the Western world the emancipation of women is directly tied to the increase in their education. If Ms Ali and Ms Nomani were not educated would they be featured in a Times editorial. I base this conclusion on Quebec, a French speaking province of Canada. Quebec women were the last women in Canada to obtain the right to vote provincially. The year was 1940. Why had it taken so long? The Roman Catholic Church (Church) controlled Quebec. It was the Church's view that women should vote like their husbands. Women should reflect their husband's position, effectively be submissive to their husband. Sounds similar to the current teachings of Islam: a woman's opinion is worth half of that of a man. Similar principals. Another strange thing happened in Quebec in the 1940's. Prior to this date, Quebec law did not provide for universal education. Education was optional. So a lot of woman did not go to school. Their husbands would provide for them. With these two changes, by 1960, Quebec women had learned that they were not baby factories. And that education would lead to their emancipation. And that is what has happened. Educate Muslim women equals freedom
290
THE QUESTION Of the limits of Shari'a law versus US laws is complex and fraught. There are other religious groups that adopt so-called "religious" practices that conflict with our national laws. That quagmire notwithstanding, Kamala Harris silenced the two experts brought before the Senate committee for what reason? Religion used as a weapon to control, oppress and punish is, across the board, a fraught question. How to distinguish Islamism from Islam is less difficult, however. Because Islamists believe in eliminationist persecution of those whom they deem to not follow their extreme, punitive interpretation of Shari'a law. Eliminationist meaning doling out such barbaric punishments as beheading or stoning. Or deeming those not born into Islam as unworthy of living. I'd be interested to know why Harris did not invite the two expert witnesses to speak. She tripped up Jeff Sessions during her questioning. So she is capable of effective use of her position of influence. I'd like to hear her explanation.
42
Excellent. My thoughts exactly, particularly w the behaviour of the women lawmakers. What were they thinking? Are they not acquainted with the Natural Law provisions of the Bill of Rights--their links to the Universal Bill of Human Rights? Sure they are, yet did nothing.
14
The Democratic Senators did not silence these women, and the Republican chair of the Committee controlled whether or not they spoke, which they did. Your entire premise is flawed.
1
They spoke their piece. How were they silenced. Is it possible that the female Senators heard what they needed to without asking questions? Do the same people who are criticizing these Senators for their silence make the same criticisms of the very right wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who is notorious for never asking questions?
We have to remember that there's a difference between Islam and cultural Islam. Genital mutilation is an abomination but it's a cultural practice not a religious requirement. Not all Muslims practice FGM and in some regions even Christians mutilate their daughters to protect their purity. We need to attack the practice not tie it to a specific religion.
Shariah law is tricky for the same reason. The countries that embrace it vary on how they apply it. A lot of how shariah law is practiced depends on the culture who is embracing it. Women in Iran have a lot of freedom compared to women in Saudi Arabia. The US can condemn the practice but if the citizens support the practice we can only do so much.
Women's rights are a constant struggle. Look at how long we've been fighting for our rights here in the US. Susan B Anthony was born almost 200 years ago. I suspect that she thought that we would be a lot further ahead on equality than we actually are. These are battles that must come from within a culture in order for change to be permanent. Education certainly helps make progress and that should be our focus.
Shariah law is tricky for the same reason. The countries that embrace it vary on how they apply it. A lot of how shariah law is practiced depends on the culture who is embracing it. Women in Iran have a lot of freedom compared to women in Saudi Arabia. The US can condemn the practice but if the citizens support the practice we can only do so much.
Women's rights are a constant struggle. Look at how long we've been fighting for our rights here in the US. Susan B Anthony was born almost 200 years ago. I suspect that she thought that we would be a lot further ahead on equality than we actually are. These are battles that must come from within a culture in order for change to be permanent. Education certainly helps make progress and that should be our focus.
98
" Women in Iran have a lot of freedom compared to women in Saudi Arabia." Talk about damning with faint praise! That isn't saying much, and Iranian women are unfree by any measure.
And the argument that we can't criticiize Islam as long as the US isn't Sweden, is stale and reeks more of some religious obsession with purity than rational argument.
The equality of women isn't an either-or situation, but a scale.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the modern West is a 8-9, Wahhabism is a 1, conservative islam general is a 2, conservative Christianity is around 5-6, etc.
Refusing to condemn a 1 or 2 because we aren't uniformly a 10 is a copout.
And the argument that we can't criticiize Islam as long as the US isn't Sweden, is stale and reeks more of some religious obsession with purity than rational argument.
The equality of women isn't an either-or situation, but a scale.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the modern West is a 8-9, Wahhabism is a 1, conservative islam general is a 2, conservative Christianity is around 5-6, etc.
Refusing to condemn a 1 or 2 because we aren't uniformly a 10 is a copout.
6
Hirsi Ali has been very critical of Saudi Arabia in the past (I agree with her fully on this point). She wrote an an article for Fox News prior to Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, where is was once again highly critical of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism - both in terms of terrorism and exporting its toxic version of Islam giving rise to groups like Boko Haram (no such group existed in Nigeria before the Wahhabi poison was introduced there), and that she expected Trump to take on Saudi fanaticism directly and to extract reforms for our support. Instead we got sword dance, gold medal, glowing orb and not even daring to utter "Radical Islam," but we did get $110 billion arms sale with the help of Crown Prince Jared. Silence from Hirsi Ali since then. Hirsi Ali supports Trump's Muslim/Refugee ban even though she got to the Netherlands as a refugee (even though she was not a refugee). Nomani once tried to organize boycott Saudi Arabia, but now as ardent Trump supporter told Breitbart that Trump's trip to Middle East was genius. I think I will stick with Democratic Senators Harris, Heitkamp, Hassan, and McCaskill who all actually have a record of improving women's rights.
574
Asra voted for Trump because she though HRC acceptance of Saudi money for her foundation was unacceptable. Asra has since expressed no support for Trump or his policies.
3
And what exactly are United States Senators, regardless of their gender or political affiliation, supposed to do about the effects of Shariah law on women? That's the question the authors of this article somehow never actually answer. If their purpose is to give political cover to Trump's Muslim ban then there's good reason why the Democratic senators refused to hear them.
But I don't disagree with the author's point about moral relativism. We liberal Westerners are so occupied with atoning for our sins of oppression and colonialism that we have rejected the idea that our Enlightenment values are worth upholding, instead opting for a kind of deconstructionist attitude that everything is equally good, different strokes for different folks. We forget that there are literally billions of people that crave Western freedoms and are looking to us to uphold them to provide a safe space for those who seek to flee the oppression of misogynist theocracies. The last thing they want is to struggle to come to the US just to find that we're "tolerant" of the brutality they're trying to escape.
Instead of giving up on the idea of Western values, we should be working to uphold them the right way for the right reasons. It's not the ideas that are bad - it's that we've been hypocritical about them. We need them now more than ever, because we owe it to the people we've historically repressed to give them a chance to live their lives with the freedoms we take for granted.
But I don't disagree with the author's point about moral relativism. We liberal Westerners are so occupied with atoning for our sins of oppression and colonialism that we have rejected the idea that our Enlightenment values are worth upholding, instead opting for a kind of deconstructionist attitude that everything is equally good, different strokes for different folks. We forget that there are literally billions of people that crave Western freedoms and are looking to us to uphold them to provide a safe space for those who seek to flee the oppression of misogynist theocracies. The last thing they want is to struggle to come to the US just to find that we're "tolerant" of the brutality they're trying to escape.
Instead of giving up on the idea of Western values, we should be working to uphold them the right way for the right reasons. It's not the ideas that are bad - it's that we've been hypocritical about them. We need them now more than ever, because we owe it to the people we've historically repressed to give them a chance to live their lives with the freedoms we take for granted.
209
While there are certainly examples of moral relativism, I believe it is wrong to say that people on the left do not speak out against child marriage or genital mutilation. These are issues I learned about from people on the left speaking out against them. In NJ there was a law passed regarding child marriage, but that was vetoed by Gov. Christie. One of the biggest opponents of the bill making the minimum age for marriage 18 are anti-choice groups, who believe that if a girl cannot get married, she will be more likely to have an abortion. Most of the anti-abortion people I know are not liberals supporting moral relativism.
22
Mr. Jacobs
replying specifically to your first paragraph;
I believe the authors are merely asking for representatives of a progressive political party to live up to its ideals and call out an entire culture, not just a faith. ( If a far-right Christian of Jewish sect called for some of the violent missions, the progressives would issue a condemnation against ""Radical Judeo-Christianity" before the ink is dry on the next NYT.
This is not mutually contradictory to the idea that Trumpicans and their travel ban are espousing an equally un-American value.
Women of Islam need to be given a greater voice throughout the world. One only needs to see the source countries/regions of the worst twisting of Islam and see that perverted men ( weaponized by us and the Soviets) are the source.
replying specifically to your first paragraph;
I believe the authors are merely asking for representatives of a progressive political party to live up to its ideals and call out an entire culture, not just a faith. ( If a far-right Christian of Jewish sect called for some of the violent missions, the progressives would issue a condemnation against ""Radical Judeo-Christianity" before the ink is dry on the next NYT.
This is not mutually contradictory to the idea that Trumpicans and their travel ban are espousing an equally un-American value.
Women of Islam need to be given a greater voice throughout the world. One only needs to see the source countries/regions of the worst twisting of Islam and see that perverted men ( weaponized by us and the Soviets) are the source.
5
Aayan and Asra have legitimate complaints but do not seem to realize they are being used by Repubs to demonize Islam. The Repubs' agenda is to justify discrimination against muslims in this country, not to protect the rights of muslim women living abroad. I suspect this is why Dems refused to play into the hand of the Repubs who called the hearing. Despite this experience, Aayan and Asra should realize they have a much better chance of getting support for their concerns from the progressives they criticize here than from the Republican anti-Islam contingent who seek to use them. They just need to avoid letting themselves be used as pawns in the current cultural wars.
810
Is there anything in their testimony that is untrue? If yes, would you care pointing it out? If not, how is this "demonization" of Islam? Why should not the American Senate be a forum in which victims of persecution speak out? As for American Muslims - they should be the first to testify against the atrocities daily perpetrated against secular and cultural Muslims all over the Islamic world.
24
Not only do they realize it they get paid to do it.
1
Malcom,
Of all the comments so far, yours makes the most sense. This piece and it's responses are at an intellectual level that the GOP never rises to. Republicans will use these abuses (and they are awful) to condemn the Islamic world. They keep it simple. As Progressives, we fail over and over again by presenting our case in a logical, compassionate overly detailed manner (think Al Gore).
We need to break through to the average voter - not the intellectual elite. The GOP would use any tool in it's kit to demonize "others". We need to learn. We need to simply explain that they are the demons. Selfish, bigoted, Earth destroying demons. We are too nice.
Of all the comments so far, yours makes the most sense. This piece and it's responses are at an intellectual level that the GOP never rises to. Republicans will use these abuses (and they are awful) to condemn the Islamic world. They keep it simple. As Progressives, we fail over and over again by presenting our case in a logical, compassionate overly detailed manner (think Al Gore).
We need to break through to the average voter - not the intellectual elite. The GOP would use any tool in it's kit to demonize "others". We need to learn. We need to simply explain that they are the demons. Selfish, bigoted, Earth destroying demons. We are too nice.
6
I as a Muslim have high respect for Ayaan and Asra. Only with such courageous women the status of women in the Muslim world will change. The Sharia law which equates the testimony of one man to two women is degrading for all of us Muslims. Only the interpretation of Koran through historical context can save us. In general all religions were spread by prophets and not prophetess. Therefore it is not surprising that they were not fair to women.
256
All people living in the United States must obey the laws of the USA, no matter what religion they practice. This should guarantee basic women's rights for these two women. Our elected representatives are charged to uphold laws that protect our citizens but they have no power to change the way other nations treat their citizens.
68
What about the mother of Jesus? A far more successful person than any fantasized prophet of Islam. Some religions become increasingly disgusting, some are led by Popes who follow the light.
As far as I know sharia law does not apply to Americans?
2
RWNJ's used to use this tactic during the Cold War ("if you're so opposed to nukes, why aren't you protesting Russian ones?") Now, it seems, it's being revived both as a way to deflect attention from how Kamala got interrupted twice by her colleagues--"but what about US?!?!" and as a way to put the women's movement on the defensive, as if it ignores international issues BTW, it doesn't ignore them--see this for one example: http://now.org/now-foundation/global-feminism/
Also, I don't know any feminists who aren't in favor of women's rights at home and abroad, or who are afraid to say so. I do know some feminists who are careful about not letting RWNJs hijack women's rights as an issue simply for the purpose of bashing all of Islam--and that seems like a good idea to me TYVM.
And I would have thought that defending women's rights against those who would oppose them--who include many fundamental Christians--was the first step. I could just as easily ask the question of those on your side of the political aisle: will the decent Republicans (of whom I still hope there are some) find their voices and join us in opposing misogyny wherever it manifests itself?