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The most recent instance is Samira Ibrahim, an Egyptian national, nominated -- and then withdrawn -- by the U.S. State Department for its prestigious "International Women of Courage Award."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 Soeren Kern
Hamas would likely resort to violence to thwart any attempts to disarm the group. It is therefore highly unlikely the Europeans would confront Hamas in any meaningful way.
Spanish intelligence agents met secretly with Hezbollah operatives, who agreed to provide "escorts" to protect Spanish UNIFIL patrols. The quid pro quo was that Spanish troops would look the other way while Hezbollah was allowed to rearm for its next war with Israel. Hezbollah's message to Spain was: mind your own business.
If the European experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is any indication, not only will Hamas not be disarmed, it will be rearmed as European monitors look on and do nothing.
What is clear is that European leaders have never been committed to honoring either the letter or the spirit of UN Resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701, all of which were aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming.
by Debalina Ghoshal
According to former Bush administration official Stephen Rademaker, for the United States to respond to Russian violations of the treaty by pulling out of it would be "welcome in Moscow," which is "wrestling with the question of how they terminate [the treaty]" and thus, the United States should not make it easier for the Russians to leave.
by Guy Millière
Belgian security services have estimated that the number of European jihadists in Syria may be over 4000.
European leaders have directed their nastiest comments against the Jewish state, none of them has asked why Palestinian organizations in Gaza put their stockpiles of weapons in hospitals, homes, schools and mosques, or their command and control centers at the bottom of large apartment buildings or underneath hospitals. None of them has even said that Hamas is a terrorist organization despite its genocidal charter.
The majority of them are wedded to the idea of redistribution. Their policies are anti-growth, do not afford people any economic opportunity, and are what caused these economic crises in Europe in the first place. The United States seems to be following these thoroughly failed policies as well.
"Europe could not stay the same with a different population in it." — Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.
by Raymond Ibrahim
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah... There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell." — Abubakar Shekau, leader of Boko Haram.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization.
In Malaysia -- regularly portrayed in the West as a moderate Muslim nation -- any attempt to promote religions other than Islam is illegal.
"The reason they want to kill me is very clear -- it is because of being a convert to Christianity." — Hassan Muwanguzi, Uganda.
by Dexter Van Zile
Rev. Hanna Massad does not mention that perhaps Hamas actually wants the blockade to end so it can bring in more weapons and cement to build attack-tunnels so it can "finish the job."
Hamas does not just admit to using human shields, it brags about using human shields. Why does Massad have to inject an air of uncertainty about Hamas's use of human shields when no such uncertainty exists?
The problem is that any self-respecting journalist would confront Massad with a follow-up question about Hamas's ideology and violence, but not the folks at Christianity Today.