Of course, we have examples of “honor killings,” such as those of Amina and Sarah Said, murdered for, among other things, not wearing the hijab, and many other killings of Muslim girls for being “too Westernized,” which includes, of course, not wearing the hijab. And Mogahed’s phrase about wearing a hijab “if a family member requires it” is deliberately too strong, for a family member may have strongly advised it, may have applied great pressure on a girl to wear it, but not literally “required” it. These are different things.
Furthermore, girls need not have been forced to wear a hijab only by a family member; there are other possibilities — the immense pressure of a close-knit Muslim community, of neighbors, friends, clerics — that can explain why a girl might wear a hijab “out of piety.” Does that pressure, if no family member is involved, not matter? And if such widespread pressure should be taken into account, can we still pretend that a girl’s wearing of the hijab is a matter of free choice?
Rather than pity, Muslim American women need respect even when their choices don’t conform to the dominant culture’s idea of what liberation is supposed to look like.
Does Dalia Mogahed respect those 60 percent of Muslim American women who do not wear the hijab? Why do I suspect she doesn’t, but considers them sellouts “to the dominant culture”? And why do Muslim American women “need respect” from Infidels if they have made the islamically correct decision to wear the hijab? Why should they care what Infidels — “the most vile of creatures” (Qur’an 98.6) — think of Muslims, who are the “best of peoples” (3.110)? Dalia Mogahed surely knows those verses. Doesn’t she believe them? Isn’t she a good Muslim?
Writing their dissenting opinion in the travel ban case, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg maintained that “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” They also said the decision turns “a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”
The majority of the Supreme Court, that upheld the President’s Proclamation, were not “reasonable observers” in the view of Sotomayor and Ginsburg, because that majority failed to understand that anti-Muslim animus must have motivated the Proclamation. The five justices who did not think that anti-Islam animus was behind the Proclamation were willing to respect, unlike their colleagues in the minority, the government’s stated reason for its “travel ban” — that in those seven countries covered by the ban, the governments had provided insufficient information about their citizens to the American government, information it needed for security purposes. In some cases, apparently, they failed to provide it because they lacked such information themselves. Two of the seven countries, Venezuela and North Korea, are both non-Muslim. And if this measure, about withholding or granting visas, was supposedly prompted by anti-Muslim animus, why were less than 5% of the world’s Muslims included in the ban? Why did Trump include only five of the 57 members of the O.I.C.?
And many of those suffering [from the Proclamation, and thus unable to obtain visas for America] are women — women actually in need of saving.
This is confusing. Why would women be “suffering” from the Proclamation any more than men? Could it be because they have a more difficult time in Muslim countries than men, and seek the equality, in both law and custom, that America offers? If Islam is not “misogynistic,” but, according to Mogahed, only “allegedly” so, why will those Muslim women who are prevented from getting a visa by Trump’s Proclamation, “actually [be] in need of saving”? This is a “saving” made possible by granting them a visa that allows them into America. Why would they need “saving” if they are living in Islamic countries, where they can wear the hijab or niqab, and be Muslim women to their heart’s content? Where there is no “misogyny” but only “allegedly” misogyny, and where no “white woman” will comment condescendingly on their wearing the hijab? Please, Dalia Mogahed, explain to us why Muslim women might have a particularly hard time of it, in Islamic countries, and need to be “saved” by being allowed into the United States? And tell us, again, why Muslim women “need the respect” of those the Qur’an teaches them to despise?
Kilauea says
Respect? A steaming pile of dog poo deserves more respect. At least it won’t try to rape or kill.
mortimer says
Why should I respect believers in a BRONZE-AGE, MISOGYNISTIC DEATH CULT who HATE me ‘for the sake of Allah’, want to ENSLAVE me, ROB ME and turn my children into SEX SLAVES and CASTRATOS?
What is there in Islam that is worthy of respect? Name one thing?
THERE ARE MANY things in Islam that NO ONE can respect …
1 No Golden Rule 2 No free speech 3 No democracy 4 Jihad – holy war of supremacism 5 Honour killings 6 Taqiyya – sacred lying 7 Taqlid – group think 8 Circular reasoning 9 Misogyny – repression of women 10 Rape of kafirs as jihad prizes 11 Genocide 12 Ethnic cleansing 13 Al-Walaa wal-Baraa – Islamic apartheid 14 Torture 15 Plundering 16 Cruel and unusual punishments 16 Backwardness – stagnation 17 Violence against women 18 Slavery 19 Discriminatory Sharia law 20 Hatred of the arts 21 No music 22 Pedophilia disguised as child marriage 23 Fifty generations of cousin marriage and genetic defects 24 Cruelty to animals 25 Extortion tax to humiliate disbelievers 26 No historic basis 27 Anti-intellectual obscurantism 28 FGM 29 Arab racism 30 Theocratic totalitarianism 31 Vigilantism 32 Amoral, opportunistic character of Mohammed that all Muslims must imitate 33 Hatred of non-Muslims as an essential doctrine 34 History of Islam includes the genocidal murders of 270 million non-Muslims in Islamic holy wars, terrorism, persecutions and enslavement directed against non-Muslims. 35. Holy books of Islam contain more calls for violence than all other foundational religious texts.
mortimer says
Dalia wants to help Muslim women ESCAPE from SHARIA BERZERKISTAN … but then she wants to turn the US into a SHARIA BERKISTAN like the ones they are escaping !!!
DALIA! MAKE UP YOUR MIND !!!
WHICH ONE IS IT THAT YOU WANT?
Kay says
Those who are abused do “choose” to stay with an abuser for a period of time and for various reasons– their own safety or the safety of those they love, fear of losing contact with those they love, fear of abandonment by their community, inability to envision a life they have not experienced . . . .
Hopefully, eventurally they find a way.
While still with the abuser, they need freedom, they need compassion, and they need respect (but probably for reasons that are hard for an outsider to know.)
Once they are free, they still need compassion and respect. It is a hard row to walk a new way of life.
God is calling us all to freedom. Hence the Red Sea. Hence baptism.
Yet how easily we again take on the yoke of slavery, being so accustomed to it, we don’t even recognize that we are once again bound.
Kay says
We can’t even imagine the pressure Islamic women face. I worked with a woman once– a lovely woman who always came to work and did a good job. But when I took my team to a restaurant for a celebratory lunch, she ducked down and hid in the car, afraid someone might see her . . . lmight see her going to a restaurant to eat.
mortimer says
Yes, Kay, she did not want to be observed TAKING KAFIRS AS HER FRIENDS which the Koran PROHIBITS 14 different times.
Muslims are supposed to HATE KAFIRS ‘for the sake of Allah’.
The Koran says that Muslims who take Jews and Christians as friends are ONE OF THEM.
The Koran calls Jews and Christians ‘THE WORST OF BEASTS’ … they are worse than cockroaches and other vermin, in other words.
You co-worker did not wish to be seen to be your friend.
AL WALAA WAL BARAA is the MOTIVE of Islam. Anyone who does not MASTER this doctrine will NEVER understand Islam.
Wellington says
She’s an enabler for the worst religion of all time and I will state again that when I see a woman wearing an hijab I might as well be looking at a woman wearing a swastika armband. After all, Islam and Nazism have so much in common. The one preaches a a master faith and the other preached a master race. They are also both mortal enemies of freedom and equality under the law wherever they have dominated. Fortunately, Nazism didn’t last very long. Unfortunately, Islam has.
Ed says
It is well known the esteem in which Adolf Hitler held Islam, and luminaries such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Although there were efforts to adapt Christianity to Nazism, Hitler was clear sighted enough to see that National Socialism and Islam had so much in common, while Nazism only cohered with the most selective reading of the Christian Faith.
mortimer says
Agree: “an enabler”. Islamic Tokyo Rose. Sugar-coating the misogynistic death cult.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Wellington and Mortimer.
abad says
If Moslems insist on being that critical about America then maybe, just maybe, they need to stop coming here.
mortimer says
Abad, US Muslims daily have cognitive dissonance. On one hand they love their freedom from Sharia law and on the other hand they feel guilty that they don’t miss Sharia, but they feel they SHOULD want it.
PRCS says
Too bad those two Muslim sisters in New York weren’t saved from Islam–in time.
mortimer says
Americans basically want to find out whether a person is LOYAL to the Constitution and to the country. If they are not, Americans want to know why those traitors are even in the country!
Muslims are loyal to Sharia law … that is their constitution.
PRCS says
Huh?
Anjuli Pandavar says
So… Dalia Mogahed is proud to display to the world that her husband has the right to beat her, which makes her feel empowered.
Run that by me again…
Benedict says
Some women and men and societies need to be saved from Islam and Islamism and some women and men and societies need to be saved from libertinism. The question is who or what is the salvific agent?
Mirren10 says
What a peculiar comment.
What, exactly, is ‘islamism’ ? As for ‘libertinism’, I take it you mean by this men and women daring to decide for themselves their own moral compass ? Salvation ? Those of a religious bent would apply this to God, others of the agnostic/atheist persuasion, such as myself, would be more likely to liken it to saved by their own moral compass.
gravenimage says
+1
Benedict says
Miriam-Webster, Islamism: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. ……
“saved by their own moral compass”? Yours or Hitler’s? …
https://youtu.be/yrcQ_PTkVD4
gravenimage says
The implication that the civilized Mirren10’s moral compass is no different from Hitler’s is utter calumny. Citations, place.
Dennis Prager *himself*–a strong critic of secularism and whose video Benedict links to–says no such thing. In fact, at about 1:45, he notes that there are many moral Atheists.
One may or may not agree with Prager’s main point about God and moral certainty, but he never says that secularists cannot be moral people.
Mirren10 says
”Miriam-Webster, Islamism: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. ……”
Which *is* islam. No more, no less.
As for your silly reference to Hitler, says a lot about you, chumbawumba. 🙂
Benedict says
You should send your suggestion about Islam and Islamism to Merriam-Webster, Mirren. ….
Each man left to himself with his own moral compass is a recipe for disaster, M, whether it be your respectable compass or Hitler’s repulsive one. It’s called moral relativism.
mortimer says
NEED is a word Dalia Mogahed uses to create a FICTIOUS URGENCY that is not there in order to SUPPRESS OUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and permit Islam to escape all critical analysis.
Dalia Mogahed is APPLYING SHARIA BLASPHEMY LAW BY OTHER MEANS.
gravenimage says
Benedict wrote:
Some women and men and societies need to be saved from Islam and Islamism and some women and men and societies need to be saved from libertinism. The question is who or what is the salvific agent?
………………….
Over the past week or so, Benedict has been advocating the veiling of Western women–claiming that those who are not veiled are “naked”. Really, this is just appalling.
And while he mentions women and men above, he has never said that men need to be immured in Burqas–only women and even little girls.
It is not at this point possible to link to all of his comment calling for the veiling of Western women–there are too many of them–but he has done so on the following threads:
Israeli “Freedom is basic” ad featuring model taking off niqab ripped as “Islamophobic,” is withdrawn
Hugh Fitzgerald: Mind The Gap, Or Signs of Sanity in France
[this is about child veiling–GI]
There have been several other threads, as well–including the ones I link to below.
I will just cite two of these posts:
“…I will delight in seeing Muslim women wearing niqab and will even defend their right to do so and also encourage other women to wear niqab.”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/un-human-rights-committee-says-france-violated-human-rights-of-two-muslimas-by-fining-them-for-wearing-niqab#comment-2004234
And the Burqa:
“I fully sympathizes with a fight against the burqa and niqab in the Muslim world. In the West, however, I suggest they are a justified “divine design” or nemesis designed to expose the hypocrisy in condemning a full-body cloak for women while promoting and allowing vulgar, public nudity for both sexes…”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/algeria-mp-calls-burqa-ban-in-public-sector-a-declared-war-on-islam#comment-2004807
During this entire period, I can’t recall Benedict saying anything critical about Jihad or Shari’ah–instead, he just wants to impose Shari’ah on Western women.
And he has ignored the fact that veiling is not about modesty, in any case–it tells Muslims that they have the right to rape unveiled women. Despite this being pointed out to Benedict several times, he has said nothing critical of Muslim men raping unveiled women.
gravenimage says
Dalia Mogahed: “They don’t need you to save them from Islam. They need your respect.” (Part Three)
…………………
Why should we respect this savagery?
Benedict says
Agree! And to this we could also add lies and misrepresentations.
Mirren10 says
What ‘lies and misrepresentations’ are you referring to ?
mortimer says
HUGH FITZGERALD exposed the DOUBLE STANDARD of Dalia Mogahed.
ON THE ONE HAND Dalia wants to HELP WOMEN escape OPPRESSIVE, MISOGYNISTIC Sharia law… but on the OTHER HAND, Dalia wants to IMPOSE SHARIA BLASPHEMY LAW and other OPPRESSIVE LAWS in the US.
OK, Dalia … MAKE UP YOUR MIND !!! If SHARIA LAW IS ‘GOOD’, why are MUSLIM WOMEN FLEEING FROM SHARIA LAW??
(… sounds of heads exploding from cognitive dissonance as Muslim women realize they DON’T actually want Sharia law … )
Doug Bristow says
Those who torture, rape and murder, want me and my family dead and who want to overthrow our country deserve no respect. Not now, not ever .Only God can give them what they truly deserve and that is eternal damnation in the everlasting lake of fire where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.