Today I decided to address a trending topic on Facebook to show the world that I’m paying attention to what’s important. 🙂
A NY Post article that exposes Hillary Clinton as someone who is going to bring the
dangers of Islam into the white house. Now how does the article do this? By pointing out that her possible future chief of staff and campaign aide Human Abedin has ties to radical Islam because she was an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, and because her mother is still editor-in-chief of that publication. The NY Post claims is a radical Islamic publication, because of the content of what it publishes and because the journal was founded by the Muslim World League and then refers to a radical article posted in the journal from 1996 (yes 1996) by one of the top members in that organization.
This radical article says all sorts of nasty Muslim things that I guess imply that should Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin be in the Whitehouse, radical Islamic values will be forced onto the American People.
The article represents all sorts of fun stuff for conspiracy theorists and people who love to play the game 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Forget the fact that the journal is an academic one, and they misunderstand what an editor actually does. Also let’s ignore the fact that an important part of every academic field is discord, debate, and even in opinion. Editors don’t usually censor opinion provided that it is clear that it is opinion, and would rather leave it up for debate in the community. The NY Post also says that this radical article destroys Hillary Clinton’s progressive feminist views because this article is very anti-feminist. So even if this unconstitutional forcing of Sharia Law on everybody were to come to pass in the post apocalyptic vision that is being painted of a Clinton presidency, it all rests on the idea that this Journal actually produces material that represents radical Islam, which the NY Post doesn’t really go to prove other than quoting passages from this 1996 article. So therefore I decided to look at this article which I was able to find through my University Library. I couldn’t find it free on-line, but I will quote passages here and reference it at the end of this article. So let’s look at what the NY Post says about this article:
Headlined “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)
“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.
The NY Post goes on to quote plenty of opinions by Huma Abedin’s mother such as:
““Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”
Now I was not able to find her mother’s 31 page treatise report in the NY Post because they did not name that article, but given the selective quoting they did for the first article they talk about, I have no doubt there is a much large message that was being discussed than what they are trying to portray.
Let’s also remember the context. American progressive values are not going to transform Islam instantly. If Islam is going to become more moderate and enlightened such things happen in stages. So despite some disturbing things that are quoted out of context some of views are going to remain conservative and not very progressive at all. Also as to why the daughter, who clearly has a career and has entered the labor market, would have the same views as her mother is not clear either. Ronald Reagan has a son who is an outspoken atheist.
To quote some of the article entitled “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights” here are some other quotes which are quote progressive:
“We need not only to provide more opportunities for women but we need to increase the involvement and responsibilities of men in family life. We should recall here that the Cairo Conference resoundingly endorsed the principle that the full participation and partnership of both men and women, including shared responsibilities for the care and nurturing of children and maintenance of household is essential. The burden of poverty on woman can be lightened not just by placing greater economic responsibilities on them that will ensue from their increased participation in the economic sector. Evidence indicates that this burden is intensified when men do not discharge their obligations towards their families.”
This is actually quite progressive as it is a call to men to be more active in family life and sharing responsibilities in the home. This point also appears before the quote about pushing women out into the labor market. Without men taking more of a responsibility in domestic duties this does put additional stress and strain on women. Hell we have that problem here. Our society proves that point. There are many articles by feminist who talk about this very thing. The article also says:
“…we feel that the declared objectives of equality, development and peace can be achieved only by recognizing the inherent and inalienable dignity of women, by respecting the fundamental values and universal norms prevalent within each society and by accepting the importance of women’s presence and participation in all aspects of social life.”
“The Islamic package of women’s rights is, therefore, tailored to women’s specific needs, under which women enjoy all the basic rights that men are entitled to as members of the human race, plus additional privileges as mothers, wives, sisters and women. Islamic women’s rights recognize women’s specific needs and honor their special role in the family and society with a view to maintaining harmony and peace in society.
But look I’m not saying that there aren’t some issues with the Islamic view of women’s rights and I would like to see Islam be even more radical when it comes to women’s rights and become radically progressive, but that isn’t going to happen overnight. However what caught my eyes is how what is considered radically dangerous Islamic views by the author are so amazingly similar to the extreme views of the conservative Christian right.
- No family structure is valid but that of one man and one woman (in the U.S. this is referred to as traditional marriage)
- alternative lifestyles are harmful to children and therefore society
- A woman’s place is in the home to raise children. Much like he article they quote nothing forbids a woman working outside the home as long as she is doing her wifely and family duties first.
- Accusing the female victim for being to blame for the abuse. For example here, and here.
- Laying blame on women for their provocative clothing and the sexual violence enacted upon them.
Now I’m not saying that all these views represent mainstream Christianity today, but they were certainly more prevalent in 1996 and the fact that a conservative paper like the NY Post would criticize Hillary Clinton’s aide for views that are espoused by radical elements in the U.S. which you never see right leaning publications criticizing seemed very hypocritical. But that’s par for the course for fundamental Christian conservatives in the U.S.
The article fails to prove that Huma Abedin has any radical Islamic views, or even held them at one time. It fails to recognize that the article in question was an exerpt by an address to the U.N. not some biased academic research and was the opinion of the speaker. It’s pure fear mongering. Let’s worry about the radically conservative views against women by our current group of citizens before we worry about such an influence from a different religion. A fundamentalist Christian recently told me that if I didn’t like America I could go to the middle east with my liberal ways. I think that person might be confused on who should move.
- Women’s rights are Islamic rights. By: Ali, Ahmad Mohammad, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 13602004, Jul96, Vol. 16, Issue 2