irshaddering thoughts

Summer reading (for you) and writing (for me)

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Announcements on Aug 04, 2010

Friends and foes:

I’m taking a break from blogging so I can complete the first draft of my next book. What’s the new book about? Click here.

Meanwhile, you can read — for free — a chunk of my previous book, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith. An online project called “Our Inner Lives” is featuring the introduction and first chapter.

If you like what you read in that extract, I predict you’ll love my next book. If you hate what you read in that extract, take heart: You’re not alone, as both Islam-supremacists and Islam-bashers prove with their daily blasts to me.

Wish to stay informed of the mission for Muslim reform and moral courage? Subscribe to my newsletter. I don’t bombard recipients; 3 or 4 dispatches per year is what you can expect. Here’s my latest newsletter.

Enjoy the summer sunshine for me, as I’ll be buried in writing. Good thing I was born with a tan.

Warmly,

How Mel Gibson might educate my feminist friends

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 22, 2010

By now, we all know about Mel Gibson’s vulgar and vicious tirades against his former girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva. In one of the recordings, released by RadarOnline.com, Mel claims to “own” Oksana. Disgusting.

Nearly as revolting, though, is how some of my feminist friends have been using this story. They’ve effectively told me, “See? Muslim women aren’t the only ones who face heinous male behavior. It’s a global phenomenon.”

Violence against women is, indeed, a global phenomenon. But — and this is what many of my fellow feminists don’t own up to — Mel’s aggression is almost universally condemned. The same can’t be said of the “honor crimes” so often experienced by Arab and South Asian women.

That’s not splitting hairs. Fact is, the communal validation that honor crimes receive allow them to continue with very little debate among Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.  And if those communities won’t raise these issues, no wonder Western feminists rarely do. But feminists should.  As long as we aren’t pounding away at honor crimes, how can we expect media coverage by network TV or punishment by law enforcement?

I’ve blogged my brains out about this problem. So let me turn to a new voice: Aruna Papp. She’s a Canadian social worker of South Asian heritage. Ms. Papp has just written a ground-breaking report called Culturally Driven Violence Against Women. She hammers home the point that the deadly self-censorship enveloping honor-based violence needs to end.

Highlights from her report:

* “[C]ulturally driven violence… is condoned and even facilitated by kinship groups and the community.”

* Regarding Aqsa Parvez, the Muslim-Canadian teen strangled by her father and brother to ‘cleanse’ their family’s honor, “the 12 adults living in the house condoned the abuse of this girl… After killing her, the father told his wife, ‘My community will say that you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult. She is making me naked.’”

* “South Asian culture glorifies self-sacrifice in girls and women and puts a premium on their chastity. In addition, tensions around dowry expectations, the idolization of males and arranged or forced marriages — traditions that run directly counter to Canadian values — all play a role in creating a favourable climate for the abuse of girls and women.”

* “[T]he most insurmountable obstacle of all: a community-wide conspiracy of silence… Community leaders point to cultural traditions, religious values and norms in defending their way of life. Thus, they consciously exploit multiculturalism-inspired fears of appearing racist or of perpetuating cultural stereotypes” — fears, that is, among members of wider society, from feminists to journalists to police officers to judges. For example:

* “[T]here are more than a few cases in Canada of crimes committed in the name of cultural values where judges imposed lesser penalties on the perpetrator in deference to his cultural motivation.”

In one such instance, “Judge Monique Dubreuil sentenced two men convicted of sexual assault to 18-month conditional sentences and 100 hours of community service each, stating, ‘The absence of regret of the two accused seems to be related more to the cultural context, particularly with regards to relations with women, than a veritable problem of a sexual nature.”

Given their ‘cultural conditioning,’ so to speak, Judge Dubreuil handed the men lenient sentences. Writes Ms. Papp, that’s how “abused women are forced to remain silent while the abuses continue even into the second and third generation.”

Already, Mel Gibson is fleeing the United States for an isolated ranch in the Australian outback. He knows he’s in trouble. He’s perfectly aware of his outcast status. The Mel Gibson Haters Club has officially launched.

When will good-hearted, broad-minded Westerners begin pushing Arab and South Asian communities in North America to react with remotely the same intensity toward their Mel Gibsons? Or do Extra and Entertainment Tonight need to show political progressives the way forward?

Adios World Cup; there’s a new way to be a world citizen

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 12, 2010

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has became the symbol of a hideous practice that the Iranian government inflicts on its people: death by stoning.

In a 21st-century version of burning heretics at the stake, stoning victims are draped in pristine white sheets, lowered into freshly dug dirt pits and attacked with fist-sized rocks. The rocks are hurled hard enough to cause pain, but not hard enough to kill quickly. As Amnesty International puts it, stoning is “specifically designed to increase the suffering of its victims.”

A group of entrepreneurs, authors and artists have come together to win the fight against death by stoning. We’ve launched a website — freesakineh.org — that allows citizens of every country to send a crystal-clear message to Iranian authorities: “We’re watching and we won’t let you off the hook.”

Already, Iran’s regime has reacted to the worldwide citizens’ campaign by promising that Ms. Ashtiani will not be stoned. However, she remains subject to execution. The regime hasn’t yet clarified by what means.

None of us should take comfort from this response. Fact is, Iran’s regime lies about stoning. At the World Economic Forum in 2005, I publicly confronted Iranian vice-president Masoumeh Ebtekar about it. She assured me that Iran had proclaimed a “moratorium” on the hideous practice.

Yet since then, human rights watchdogs have documented it at least six times. On top that, Iranian anti-stoning activists have had to intervene and rescue several more targets. Today, 12 women and one man face death by stoning in Iran.

Stoning cases themselves tend to be built on a pile of indignities. Consider the allegation against Ms. Ashtiani: adultery. The charge is manifestly trumped up and the investigation has been stacked from the get-go — so much so that a loophole had to be invoked to convict her. That loophole lets judges claim special “knowledge” for which there’s no evidence. How convenient.

In any event, Ms. Ashtiani had already submitted herself to lashings — 99 of them. Why, then, the indescribably gratuitous threat to pulverize the life out of her too? Why any kind of execution for her? And even if her life is spared because of the international spotlight, what will happen to the other women and men who still face the stoning sentence?

This fight isn’t over as long as you sign the petition at freesakineh.org.

How could your signature help eradicate stoning? For starters, the petition is being sent not just to Iranian officials, but also to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The UN is Iran’s cherished playground. Shaming the regime there could go far to tipping the scales.

Some will scoff that Sharia (Islamic) law won’t be influenced by secular cries for human rights. But Iran subscribes to Shia Islam, which was born of dissent. As minorities in a Sunni-dominated Muslim world, shia clerics and thinkers don’t always reject the idea that human interpretations of divine will are exactly that — human. If exposed by more international outrage, Iranian arbiters could use Shia tradition to ban stoning altogether.

Others might argue that Western involvement will be spun as interference, complicating the work of campaigners on the ground in Iran. It’s true that  outcries from the outside sometimes hurt causes. But in Iran, activists say that global pressure works. Indeed, the Iranian human-rights icon and Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has urged us “to make as much noise as possible.”

Clearly, worldwide concern about Sakineh Ashtiani has made a difference. Remarkably, Iran’s regime felt the need to react. Still, let’s not be duped by the Kafka-esque content of its reaction. A public-relations victory for the regime isn’t our goal. Sustained respect for human dignity is.

That’s the simple message of your signature to help save Sakineh. After signing, please circulate the link far and wide. We’re now translating the site into multiple languages, so don’t hesitate to get friends and family involved, wherever they live.

In Afghanistan, “culture eats strategy for breakfast”

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 03, 2010

Credit: faratarazmarzha.org

While discussing Afghanistan — the “graveyard of empires” — a friend of mine blurted something that I’ve never hard before, but that I think should be tattooed on the forehead of General David Petraeus so he sees it every morning when he peers into the mirror.

What my friend said is simple: in Afghanistan, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”

Translation: You can craft the savviest military strategy ever. But unless God intervenes, deep-seated culture will surely defeat your tactical smarts.

The tribal culture of “honor” has already trumped democracy in Afghanistan. Despite being suave and sophisticated, President Hamid Karzai rarely defends individual rights, a cornerstone of democracy. Instead, he quietly condones punishments inflicted in the name of tribal honor, from widespread gang-rapes of women to acid attacks on schoolgirls.

Why would a Muslim, routinely described as a “moderate,” hand so much power to feudal warlords? For years, military strategists have told me it’s because Karzai has to avoid carnage at all costs.

But does violating innocents to pre-empt further violence make sense?

Sadly, yes, and that’s where the power of culture enters Afghanistan’s grim picture. In societies influenced by Arab culture, a massive motivator of action is asabiyya or tribal solidarity.

This analysis originated with the Muslim intellectual Ibn Khaldun, sometimes known as the father of sociology. He studied how Muslim peoples evolve, especially in environments that are arid, remote, or, in the case of Afghanistan, mountainous. Wherever the land is harsh, there’s virtually no division of labor. Human survival depends on bonds of kinship, and those bonds can easily degenerate into feelings of group superiority.

Now what happens when tribes compete for superiority? You get a cycle of vendetta and counter-vendetta. In the end, warlords could be more legitimate than any democratically elected parliament — more legitimate because they’re more authentic to the Afghan experience.

No wonder a moderate president serially submits to thugs. No wonder military might has been a feeble backwater to the tide of history. No wonder I’ve got the sinking suspicion that Barack Obama’s decision to deploy more troops can’t adequately help the good people of Afghanistan.

Soldiers can restore stability to the neighborhood. But when “stability” means “cyclical violence,” what does it really mean to win?

Stopping the rot in multiculturalism

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jun 23, 2010

Good ideas, like good fruit, can ripen until they rot. The question is, how do you keep ideas fresh?

You can pickle them, but that’s the illusion of freshness. In fact, you’re preserving only the shell. Little by little, the vitamins inside disappear.

Multiculturalism was an idea rich with flavor and juice 40 years ago. Since then, its vitamin content has been sapped by the lax attitude that my teachers passed on to my generation, and that we’ve bequeathed to today’s teens and twenty-somethings.

“All cultures deserve respect,” I relentlessly hear from students. Anything else isn’t just racism; it’s unthinkable. Therein lies the rot.

We’ve stopped thinking. And, in the process, we’ve stopped feeling for those who tell us that they need to escape their cultural caves, or risk death.

That’s what happened to 16-year-old Canadian Muslim, Aqsa Parvez. A few days ago, her control-freak father and cowardly brother pleaded guilty to strangling the young woman in the name of tribal “honor” — the kind of honor widely observed in their homeland of Pakistan.

This week, I mustered the emotional gumption to read through the “statement of facts” about Aqsa’s case. So many pathetic details leaped out at me. But one has been gnawing away at me: A month before her murder in late 2007, Aqsa “confided to her closest friends that her father had sworn to her on the Koran that if she ran away again, he would kill her. Her friends tried to assure her that her father could not be serious” [emphasis mine].

Her friends were dead wrong.

Teenagers tend to be shrewd. Many are downright clever. And some are bloody smart. Not in this case. I can’t claim it’s all because multiculturalism has pulverized their legendary suspicion of parental power.

What I can claim is that gooey sentiments about colorful cultures, developed over two generations, have helped make it inconceivable that a brown-skinned tyrant who lords it over his entire family might very well mean what he says.

In the hands of today’s students, multiculturalism is a fruit that has over-ripened. The fact that all human beings are born equal has thoughtlessly become confused with the myth that all cultures are born equal. Truth is, cultures aren’t born. They’re constructed by people, and people are fallible.

Which means there’s nothing blasphemous about taking seriously the horrifying aspects of any culture. To do something about the terror that power-holders can inflict under the banner of tradition, we must first acknowledge that tradition isn’t sacred. It doesn’t give you a pass to terrorize.

In my NYU course, Public Leadership and Moral Courage, I devote a session to the perils of cultural relativism. But with each case like Aqsa’s, I’m inclined to ratchet up the amount of time I spend teaching my students to distinguish between culture and torture. Not just the kind of at torture at Abu Ghraib (which my students are more than happy to denounce). Torture, also, that immigrants like my family can experience at the hands of our own.

All to say: Friends don’t let friends under-react. The next time a Muslim girl tells you that she’s petrified to go home, listen. If you’re truly a fan of multiculturalism, you’ll treat her like an individual who “represents” because, after all, she has experiences that you don’t.

Let’s call it “Aqsa’s Law” of keeping it real — and stopping the rot.

Technology, like religion, needs humility

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jun 14, 2010

Right before the first anniversary of the rigged elections in Iran, an eerie calm descended.  Not just on streets once sprayed with the blood of protesters who demanded to know what happened to their votes.

Calm — or is it humility? — also lined the otherwise euphoric alleyways of Twitternation. I’m referring to the God-knows-how-many daily users of Twitter (like me). But unlike me, some of my fellow Twitizens swear that micro-blogging is the best friend of a revolutionary. I know a few these types. They outta get out more.

Then again, if Mohammad doesn’t go to the mountain, you can count on the mountain coming to Mohammad. What I mean is, even if Twitizens don’t grab an actual life, a reality check has already come to them: The UK’s Guardian newspaper splashes cold water on techo-triumphalists by pointing out that the role of Twitter in Iran’s Green Movement has been highly exaggerated.

The Guardian went easier on Facebook, where more than 140 characters can be shared at once. Therefore, substantive exchanges are possible.  I know this because I regularly ask my Facebook community questions about the ethical dimension of current affairs — be it the Gaza flotilla mess, Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, or deepening polarization in U.S. politics.

All, and more, have inspired (ok, incited!) heated debates that nonetheless show how civility and honesty can co-exist.  As moderator of these discussions, my not-so-secret hope is that by keeping expectations high and defenses low, the participants will develop real-world habits of excellence — listening for nuances, breathing even while emoting, and acknowledging where they have more to learn — that can make face-to-face dialogues more constructive, too.

Approached with humility, Facebook is a tool for every educator; one that teaches the educator about how (not what) to communicate as much as the educator wants to teach others about how (not what) to think.

By harnessing Facebook with the values of servant-leadership — leading, that is, by serving — something else has happened. Although only a “virtual” community, my Facebook forum has helped effect “real” change.

Last year, during the heyday of pro-democracy protests in Iran, I told my Facebook fans about “Ali,” my informant in Tehran. (You can understand that I have to use a pseudonym for him.) I informed the Facebookers that Iran’s street-level paramilitary, the Basij, bludgeoned Ali. Not only did he wind up hospitalized but, his sister confided to me, Ali felt utterly demoralized to have been yanked from the action.

His sister asked me to send words of encouragement that she would then pass on to Ali. While I embraced her idea, I went further: I asked my Facebook participants to come up with heartfelt statements about why they love their freedom. Many did and I, in turn, passed their testimonials on to Ali’s sister.

Days later, I followed up with my Facebookers to say that according to Ali’s sister, he conveyed these words to other convalescing  patients in the hospital room through a code that they’d previously crafted. Not a bad collaboration.

In another unexpected opportunity, I invited my Facebook forum to send greetings and prayers to Iranian journalist Jila Baniyaghoob. She’d won a courage award from the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) in October 2009. Precisely because Iran’s regime kept Jila from attending, at the ceremony I introduced her story with a depth of detail that she might have voiced.

Those details moved me — and fed my creative juices. Knowing I could transmit messages to Jila through the IWMF, I gave my Facebook community the chance to tell her that people on the other side of the world care for her immediate security.

For me, among the advantages of a vibrant Facebook family is that we can experiment with varied ways to support flesh-and-blood activist. Obviously, sharing in the struggle for human dignity isn’t a given with social networking sites. It’s the values we bring to them that matter. You can be a violent jihadi and leverage Facebook for mayhem, destruction and death. Or you can be a servant-leader and maximize your i-community’s talents for constructive compassion that translates “on the ground.” Your own humility makes the difference.

Technology, like religion, is at its best not only when we stay humble about its claims, but also when we — its devotees — use it to be of service to others. That’s worth going to the firewall for.

More examples of servant-leadership can be found at cyberdissidents.org.  In particular, I urge you to check out jailed Iranian blogger Ali Behzadian Nejad’s  Ten Rules for Being Human.

Staying informed

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Announcements on Jun 07, 2010

A few days ago, my latest electronic newsletter went out.  In it, I included news that many of my subscribers have responded to with eagerness. That news involves Faith Without Fear. Here’s what I reported:

“Recently, an Arab media expert informed me that my PBS documentary, Faith Without Fear, is being spliced and watched widely in the Muslim underground.

He suggested that I produce a discussion guide to the film and post it on my site. He, in turn, will recruit his vast network of dissidents to distribute the guide throughout the Middle East and Iran. 

How can I resist? (Get it? “Resist”? A little dissident humor for you.)”

The Faith Without Fear guide should be online by the time I send out my next e-newsletter.  If you haven’t already subscribed, you can do so here. It’s free and confidential.

And if you want to read the above newsletter in full, voila.

A different Islam at Ground Zero?

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on May 30, 2010

Should a mosque — or, less provocatively, a “Muslim community center” — be built near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

That proposal, officially named “Cordoba House,” as just won approval from New York authorities. But not everyone is applauding. Forget Tea Party leaders; some American Muslims question whether a “Ground Zero mosque” ought to see the light of day.

One such skeptic is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He recently wrote a commentary making the following points:

“To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and ‘our good side’ and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies… Are we Americans who happen to be Muslim or Muslims blindly demanding to be American?

American Muslims will be better served if this project is built further away from Ground Zero and focuses on leading a reform effort. If we help build anything at the WTC site itself, it should be timeless memorials to all those who lost their lives on 9/11 — memorials to blind to faith, race, creed, or national origin…

We need to focus our efforts more transparently on teaching Muslim youth that the American concepts of liberty and freedom are preferable to sharia and the Islamic state. American Muslims represent the best opportunity to fight Islamist radicalization not because we understand Islam but because we have experienced and understood what American liberty provides to the Muslim experience.“

The issue cries out for a healthy debate.

That’s precisely what my Facebook community has produced. As moderator, I’ve stipulated one rule beyond civility: Don’t vote from gut reaction or pure emotion. Instead, I’ve recommended that my Facebookers read Dr. Jasser’s commentary, explain what they agree or disagree with, and only then pronounce their vote on Cordoba House.

The results surprised me. Some highlights:

* “I agree with [Zuhdi Jasser] that Ground Zero is not the place to build a mosque or Muslim center. If we Muslims truly want to make a contribution, I think the Imam behind this project (who I greatly admire for promoting tolerance and interfaith relations) should build a place aimed at healing for all who are suffering physically, emotionally and spiritually since 9/11. Putting a mosque at Ground Zero is going to feel like salt rubbed in the wounds of too many people who have been forever wounded by what happened there.” - Ann Karima

* “If there is going to be a center, then it should be dedicated to the reform and de-politicization of Islam. Considering the amount of funding involved, it’s probably going to be the opposite. This is evidenced by Imam Rauf’s denial that the people who attacked on 9/11 were even Muslim. They were …

[But] the rest of the world could learn from one thing from this center: that mosques can and probably should transcend being simply religious spaces and become community ones - although it won’t be a useful lesson if it’s a Muslim-only space.” - Mehdi

* “I shared this article with my FB friends and here is what I posted as my comment: ‘Just as [Zuhdi Jasser], a Muslim, speaks out against political Islam, so as a Christian I will speak out against the religious right who want America to be an officially Christian nation. Jasser states: ‘We need to focus our efforts more transparently on teaching Muslim youth that the American concepts of liberty and freedom are preferable to sharia and the Islamic state.’ I believe that only in a truly secular democracy will we have the actual liberty to practice our faiths or none at all.” - Jan

* “Well, if the guys who are creating the center/mosque bought the building itself, then they should be able to build whatever they like. Given America’s love of property rights, that would be a truly ‘American’ approach. But first and foremost, the memorial should serve trade. That would send a clear message: ‘You don’t like our way of life? Screw you. We don’t accept violence as an argument.’ The site is located in the financial district, after all.” - Michal

* “If it were up to me, there would be no sectarian buildings around Ground Zero. But we also have the rule of law and the Constitution. If government intervened to stop or refuse construction, what would it be saying about the American values of liberty and freedom of religion? Is it legitimate for the state to compel certain values and outcomes? Can we force people to be sensitive souls? To be caring Americans? That is my dilemma.” - Rafael

* “The hubris, bad manners and God knows what else that lies behind the presumption that a massive mosque can be built just blocks away from Ground Zero is staggering… The irony is that if the mosque gets built, it won’t be typically Islamic but tragically American in what it says about our unwillingness to see things are they are.” - Bob

* “I think it’s ok to build the center. If it were only a mosque, I would feel less certain. A center would presumably be open to all. It’s the American way, the American dream - freedom of religion, freedom of expression. What place is better suited to promote reflection and dialogue about Islam and others faiths than Ground Zero? To try and expunge references to Islam is fundamentally un-American. I have a real problem with the on-going conflation terrorism with Islam, which informs Zuhdi Jasser’s article. I refuse to believe that Islam motivates violence. If it does, then as with the terrorists in Northern Ireland, it ceases to be about faith.” - David

* “I am neither for nor against that building. But what I care about are the reactions of the people who oppose the mosque. It is really strange. You are accusing Islam of attacking the World Trade Center. That is just not true. The attackers were blinded criminals. If tomorrow a Christian attacks a school and kills children, saying that his Christian belief led him to this because the school is teaching Darwinism, would you oppose any church near the school? You should, following the logic of opposing a mosque near Ground Zero.” - Raik

* “While there are Christian and other fanatics who would kill for their faith, the difference between them and the Muslim community is that the popular sanctioning doesn’t seem so widespread. There are no crowds applauding those crazies in Michigan who planned to kill police officers.

And Christians are not looking to build a right-wing evangelical pro-Tim McVey church at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. In fact, most Christians are downright embarrassed about the misuse of their religion, as in the recent abuse scandal of the Catholic Church. It was in the Pope’s homeland of southern Germany that people complained about the Vatican’s inaction, and American Catholics sharing their feelings, audibly. Even Ireland, a devout Catholic country, saw protests and calls for justice.

Until the Muslim community admits it has a problem, or should I say a number of problems, and begins to act responsibly toward fellow citizens, will people begin to act responsibly toward us. It should not be the USA that leads a war against radical Islam. It should be Muslims in the vanguard of that struggle, taking back our faith from those who would dare to hijack it.” - Ismail

The debate continues. Feel free to participate by joining me on Facebook. And let it never be overlooked that there’s one reason we can have such honest conversations. It’s called secularism.

Empire state of mind, Muslim-style

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on May 19, 2010

“New York!/Concrete jungle where dreams are made of/There’s nothing you can’t do/Now you’re in New York…” Alicia Keys and Jay-Z belt out these lyrics in the massively popular tune, “Empire  State of Mind.”

Their words echo something that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg uttered at a press conference about the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect. In cautioning the public not to lash out at Muslim- or Pakistani-Americans, Mayor Bloomberg invoked the mythology of New York as Freedom Central: “It’s the city where you can be in charge of your own destiny and we’re going to keep it that way.“

That’s when I thought about Ann, a reader of mine from Queen’s, New York.  A few years ago, Ann sent me this message:

“A close neighbor  has just retired as the chief trauma nurse for a major hospital in New York. She held that position for over 20 years and told me that she never saw so much violence toward women as she has in the last 5 years, mostly among Muslim women, generally from Pakistan. She is still upset by the savage beatings at the hands of their husbands and other male relatives.

It was her responsibility to inform these women of their legal rights and counsel them to press charges to pull themselves out of the cycle of violence. Time and again, this help was refused, often accompanied with the words, ‘You don’t understand, this is part of our culture. Our men have this right.’“

Call it an empire state of mind, Muslim-style. With imperialist flair, the tribal culture of honor has colonized the faith of Islam. So much so that even in a cosmopolitan entrepot like New York, Muslim men can operate with an empire state of mind. And Muslim women too often buy in.

Just ask “Miriam,” a Muslim teenager whom I met the other day after she emailed an anguished message to me. Miriam grew up in New York and now goes to a local college. “I’m a lesbian,” she writes.

“I’ve always hated myself for it and asked forgiveness  from Allah… My parents are very closed-minded people and religious and strict. I want to tell them but they would probably do an honor killing on me or force me to marry someone that I barely know. You would think that I have a little freedom because I live in New York. But no.“

Ah, you say, but we’re talking about recent immigrants. Have patience, princess. It always takes time to adjust.

How much time? How long before the Miriams of New York can be their God-given selves — with fear of being ostracized by their parents but without fear of being murdered by them?

By no means am I suggesting that all Muslim women and girls in New York suffer at the fists of their fathers and the complicity of their mothers. Rima Fakih, the just-crowned Miss USA, moved from Lebanon to New York with her family in 1993. She attended a Catholic school there. Every indication is that she enjoyed a vibrantly tolerant upbringing in America, being allowed to shake her booty for TV cameras later on.

Ideal behavior? Not as far as I’m concerned. But Rima isn’t answerable to me. She’s answerable to her conscience and her Creator. And she can only take responsibility for her choices by having choices in the first place.

Choices: That’s what the battered Pakistani women in New York will die without. That’s what Miriam, an emblem of the next generation, shouldn’t be dying for.

How long before Jay-Z and Alicia Keys can sincerely sing to her, “Now you’re in New York!/These streets will make you feel brand new/The lights will inspire you/Let’s hear it for New York, New York, York…“

Discussing what makes a terrorist tick on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS”

Posted in Video, Media Coverage, Irshaddering Thoughts on May 11, 2010

For video, click on image above. Discussion starts at 20:45

Pages (22): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next ... Last »