Courage? The State Department?
If the U.S. government is truly serious about honoring those who want reform in the Muslim world, why is it not honoring those people who are sticking their necks out in stating their love for America and peace for Israel?
America has been pursuing a policy ever since 9/11 to honor what it perceives as moderate Muslims.
This policy, at present failed, would make sense if such moderate Muslims were pro-Western freedoms, pro-peace with Israel, anti-Sharia, or would stand up to Islamic jihad. Regrettably, Muslims and former Muslims who do stand up to Islamism have been ignored; those embraced by the West are almost always anti-American and anti-Jew, and even make excuses for jihad and terrorism.
The most recent instance is Samira Ibrahim, an Egyptian national, nominated -- and then withdrawn -- by the U.S. State Department for its prestigious "International Women of Courage Award." In its pursuit to appease Muslims, regardless of ideology, the US ignored Ibrahim's extreme hatred of the U.S. and Israel, and her celebration of 9/11 and terrorism. Yes, Ibrahim was courageous for filing a lawsuit against the Egyptian military for undergoing a virginity test, but that so called courage should be viewed in the right context.
After the revolution, Egypt was extremely embarrassed by an international uproar over the virginity test of about 21 young women who were demonstrating in Tahrir Square. That came in the wake of the brutal sexual assault there of the CBS reporter Lara Logan. Egyptian government officials, many of whom are consumed with appearing democratic and civilized before the West, initially denied the story but then admitted it. That embarrassment was what encouraged some female victims to file a lawsuit, which the government allowed them to win in order to save face and prove to the West it had achieved a democracy after the revolution. Ms. Ibrahim was somewhat courageous for winning a lawsuit against the Egyptian military; however, that lawsuit should never have risen to the level of becoming an icon to be honored by the U.S .State Department. Officials in the State Department, thinking no one was looking into her background, perhaps including them, ignored who Ms. Ibrahim really was.
Ms. Ibrahim's views are no breakthroughs of courage against the real problems of the Muslim world: her head covering remains a symbol of her defense of Sharia. She has never demonstrated against the forced virginity checks that occur daily in Egypt at almost all weddings to make sure the bride is a virgin. As a child in Egypt, I attended weddings where the bride's virginity blood was on display on a white handkerchief while guns were shot to celebrate the blessed event proving the family's pride in their daughter's virginity. Neither did Ibrahim lead a movement in Egypt against female genital mutilation or the Egyptian marriage contract, which asks the bride to sign a paper before the marriage stating she is a virgin.
There is also no feminist movement in Egypt lead by Ibrahim, against the barbaric honor killings of girls found not to be virgins; that is perhaps because all are either dead or have undergone reconstructive virginity surgery, a popular procedure for girls who must save their necks.
While many Muslims today are starting to speak against the brutality of Sharia laws which cause "virginity tests" in the first place, Ibrahim never speaks ill of Sharia, or condemns its laws against women and non-Muslims. Ibrahim is, however, a very vocal anti-American, who celebrated the anniversary of 9/11 as well as violence and terror against Israelis. What courage is it if the majority of Egyptians shares her feelings? What courage did our State Department think it was celebrating?
After failing to receive the Award, Ibrahim blamed the Zionist lobby in America; her "logic" is popular in Egypt, where people blame all ills on Jews. It is a sad fact that Ibrahim's views actually do represent the majority of the so-called moderate Muslims everywhere. Such moderate Muslims, who are demonstrating today against the Mursi government, are no less anti-American than the radicals. As a matter of fact many of them wish to resume hostilities against Israel and believe that Mursi caved to the American pressure; they are now accusing him of being a puppet of the U.S. just like his predecessor. The sad truth is that most so-called "moderate" Muslims could be as anti-American and anti-Semitic as Al Qaeda. That is why the US should be vastly more cautious and realistic in taking sides at all in the Middle East.
Before we rush into giving awards of courage, the U.S. should develop its own courage and give its awards to those Egyptian women who fled the oppression of Sharia and are living in the West under a death warrant because they have openly spoken against terrorism, jihad, Al-Qaeda, and discrimination against Jews and Christians under Islam.
It is also hypocritical for the U.S. to honor those who are demonstrating against the Mursi government; the U.S. was instrumental in bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power. In doing that, the U.S. is simply participating in a game with the Egyptian government to make it look good.
If the U.S. government is truly serious about honoring those who want reform in the Muslim world, why is it not honoring those people who are sticking their necks out in stating their love for America and peace with Israel? Why is it not honoring someone like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- or Dr. Zuhdi Jasser or Tawfiq Hamid, who still call themselves Muslims and are trying to reform Islam?
I do not think the US State Department will nominate any of these truly courageous in the near future: that would require courage.
Nonie Darwish Author "The Devil We Don't Know" and President of Former Muslims United.
Reader comments on this item
|Bless you [16 words]||Bart Benschop||Mar 14, 2013 02:24|
|Not really a matter of courage... [127 words]||Phil Slepian||Mar 13, 2013 09:56|
|↔ Bravo [115 words]||Frumious Falafel||Mar 15, 2013 10:50|
|Need for eternal vigilance [75 words]||Jagdish N. Singh||Mar 13, 2013 08:36|
|Muslim Reformers [235 words]||Joseph Maloney||Mar 13, 2013 05:27|
Comment on this item
by Bassam Tawil
What is sad is that the Gazans have not yet been able to free themselves from the yoke of Hamas.
The world seems not to understand that Hamas, like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, does not exist in a vacuum. It is one cog in the radical Islamist wheel that threatens the Arab and Muslim world and the major cities of Europe.
The Western world also seems not to understand that it has to incapacitate or totally neutralize the countries funding terrorism, such as Iran, Qatar and Turkey, for whom the Palestinian problem is only a pretext on the way to destroying the Western world as we know it and replacing it with only Islam.
by Burak Bekdil
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri said: "All Israelis are legitimate targets." What would the Palestinian death toll have been if Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman declared all Palestinians as legitimate targets?
Underdog-nation romanticism tells us Israel should not respond when under rocket attack because it is capable of intercepting the rockets.
That there are fewer Israeli casualties does not mean Hamas does not want to kill; it just means, for the moment, Hamas cannot kill.
by Soeren Kern
Austria figures prominently in a map produced by the IS that outlines the group's five-year plan for expanding its caliphate into Europe, and has emerged as a central hub for jihadists seeking to fight in Syria.
"The spectrum of recruits for the conflict in Syria is ethnically diverse. The motivation, however, appears to be uniformly jihadist." — Austrian intelligence agency BVT.
"Allah also gives you the opportunity to wage jihad in Austria." — Austrian jihadist Firas Houidi.
"We are proud that Allah has chosen us. We feel like lions." — Austrian jihadist Abu Hamza al-Austria.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
What Khaled Mashaal forgot to mention was that Hamas and the Islamic State do have at least one thing in common: they both carry out extrajudicial executions as a means of terrorizing and intimidating those who stand in their way or who dare to challenge their terrorism.
According to Hamas's logic, all members of the Palestinian Authority government are "traitors" who should be dragged to public squares to be shot by firing squads. According to the same logic, Mahmoud Abbas himself should be executed for maintaining security coordination with and talking to Israelis.
As for the two executed women, the sources said that their only fault was that they had been observed asking too many questions about Palestinians who were killed in airstrikes.
by Stephen Blank and Peter Huessy
It now appears that the plan was for these terrorists to shoot down a Russian passenger flight over the Ukraine in order to create a casus belli [cause for war].
Putin repeatedly claims that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as a "de-escalatory measure" even against non-nuclear states.
The evidence that this war was preplanned is overwhelming. The planning for this Ukrainian operation started in 2006, when Putin offered to "guarantee Crimea's territory."
The forces fighting in Kiev consist not mainly of "separatists" or rebels, but of trained Russian army, intelligence and paramilitary officers, as well as Russian and some Ukrainian "volunteers" recruited by Moscow.
Putin would incite disturbances in Crimea, then graciously offer to take over Crimea to solve the problems.
For the Russians, and particularly for Putin, Ukraine can have no future other than as a Russian colony. This is indeed a phased invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. did not accept Russian aggression before; it should not accept it now.