Ayaan Hirsi Ali On Brandeis University's Withdrawal Of Their Offer To Give Her An Honorary Degree
The WSJ had this in their Notable & Quotable section:
From a statement issued Wednesday by writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali the day after Brandeis University withdrew its offer of an honorary degree:"Yesterday Brandeis University decided to withdraw an honorary degree they were to confer upon me next month during their Commencement exercises. I wish to dissociate myself from the university's statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision. On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me--just a few hours before issuing a public statement--to say that such a decision had been made.
When Brandeis approached me with the offer of an honorary degree, I accepted partly because of the institution's distinguished history; it was founded in 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, as a co-educational, nonsectarian university at a time when many American universities still imposed rigid admission quotas on Jewish students. I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called 'honor killings,' and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices. So I was not surprised when my usual critics, notably the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against my being honored in this way.
What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis. Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not "overlook certain of my past statements," which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation--lines from interviews taken out of context--designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.
What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The "spirit of free expression" referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much.
Not content with a public disavowal, Brandeis has invited me "to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues." Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece. I have no wish to "engage" in such one-sided dialogue. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck--and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.
I take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported me and my work on behalf of oppressed women and girls everywhere."
Robert Spencer offers more detail at FrontPageMag, and adds this:
The cancellation of Hirsi Ali at Brandeis demonstrates yet again that there is no one who opposes jihad terror who is acceptable to CAIR and its allies. A report on Islamophobia in the U.S. that CAIR produced in conjunction with the Center for Race & Gender at the University of California, Berkeley in 2011 stated:"It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Equally, it is not Islamophobic to denounce crimes committed by individual Muslims or those claiming Islam as a motivation for their actions. 'A critical study of Islam or Muslims is not Islamophobic,' former CAIR Research Director Mohamed Nimer wrote in 2007. 'Likewise, a disapproving analysis of American history and government is not anti-American... One can disagree with Islam or with what some Muslims do without having to be hateful.'"These were empty words. The report offered no examples of what it would consider to be acceptable and legitimate criticism of Islam and jihad, and neither CAIR nor the University of California Center for Race & Gender have ever done so anywhere else.
Here, from thereligionofpeace.com -- "A woman's place" under Islam -- are some of the things Hirsi Ali opposes:
To this day, it is absolutely forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, even though men are not under the same restriction as to their choice of marriage partners. This is is a consequence of the low status of a wife against that of her husband. A Muslim is not allowed to be subordinate to a non-Muslim, and a wife must be subordinate to her husband.
In her lifetime, a Muslim woman is never to be without the guardianship of a man, from her father to her husband to the male members of her family (in the event that she is widowed or divorced).
Many contemporary Muslims realize that traditional Islamic practice is painfully out of step with modern tastes. Thus have ensued very imaginative efforts to reinterpret the long held traditions of their religion, exaggerating both the negative treatment of Arab women prior to Muhammad and the reforms that he is said to have brought about.
Muhammad's blunt words on marriage are what they are. On top of this, he forbade women from traveling alone. Nor are they allowed to be alone with a non-relative male. Women must cover themselves, and, when there is sexual sin, they nearly always bear the responsibility of guilt, as it is assumed that they are under a higher standard of conduct.
Stonings, honor killings, floggings and even the mutilation of female genitalia are sporadically employed in the Muslim world to keep women in their place.
According to a recent fatwa on the Muslim Matters website, "a Muslim woman should keep her home as the focus of her attention and activities, and make it the base of her affairs." Women are allowed to leave the house under certain conditions, such as medical emergency and religious observance. Islam also permits them to get a job "if there is no mahrum man providing for them", but it should be limited to certain occupations that only involve other women, such as catering, teaching, fashion, beautician or a variety of domestic positions.
Yes, anyone opposed to such things must be quite the hater.
In other news, Iraq is poised to legalize marriage for girls as young as 9. (Boy, did we ever "liberate" 'em in Iraq.)
Seriously? Brandeis is caving in to Islam? Its founders must be spinning in their graves.
Rex Little at April 10, 2014 11:41 AM
If there is any Islamophobia in this story it is on the part of Brandeis. Why else would they cave?
Ray at April 10, 2014 12:32 PM
> Boy, did we ever "liberate" 'em in Iraq.
Amy, Saddam used to drop them into plastic shredders.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 10, 2014 3:32 PM
Yes and his people hated him for it.
Now their fucking RAPING children with government APPROVAL
lujlp at April 10, 2014 4:39 PM
"I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck--and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater."
Zing! Now this is how you insult pompous pseudo-intellectuals. And yes, I don't Ali a bit for not desiring to be the guest of honor at a witch hunt.
Cousin Dave at April 11, 2014 7:39 AM
Speaking of child marriages, did you hear about this?
"Nigerian Child Bride Kills Man She Was Forced To Marry, Along With Three Of His Friends"
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dmT53bQuwUaW0xMT6FHA5aY4ZR_LM&q=Wasilu+Umar&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pApIU4vlFfXMsQSt9YHACg&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA
(three articles, from TIME, the BBC, and the HuffPost)
She poisoned the food. I'd feel a bit sorry for her - but it seems she didn't make any real effort to avoid killing the relatively innocent guests. (She's 14.)
Last paragraphs, from the HuffPost:
"Child marriage is common in Nigeria, especially in the mainly Muslim impoverished north.
"Early and forced marriage is classified as modern-day slavery by the UN labour organisation, and Nigeria's Child Rights Act prohibits marriage before 18. But that federal law competes with Islamic Shariah law that holds in most northern states.
"The girl's father had forced her to marry the 35-year-old man, police said.
"The teenager is likely to be tried in a juvenile court, the BBC reported. The teenager is co-operating with police and likely will be charged with culpable homicide, according to Majia."
And:
"The BBC's Will Ross in Nigeria says Islamic police are trying to stop parents from forcing children into marriages against their will and the father could be charged."
lenona at April 11, 2014 8:36 AM
I had not heard about it, but it doesn't suprise me. In fact, the reason we don't hear about stuff like this is because Islam abusing women is so common that it's not newsworthy.
Cousin Dave at April 11, 2014 11:34 AM
The fourteen year old mind has a different sense of proportion.
They gathered specifically to honor the wedding - her rape and servitude.
They're not innocent when they're accomplices.
Michelle at April 11, 2014 12:44 PM
Lemme get this straight...women are so helpless that they need to be shepherded by a man at all times, but are always solely responsible for any sexual misconduct?
Sosij at April 11, 2014 2:19 PM
> Boy, did we ever "liberate" 'em in Iraq.
Amy, Saddam used to drop them into plastic shredders.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 10, 2014 3:32 PM
In order to believe that we didnt need to go into Iraq, we have to pretend that things were just hunky dory when Saddam was in charge. He therefore could not have gassed the Kurds, did not have chemical weapons, and he was not dropping his political opponents head first into wood chippers.
You bringing this up Crid, is just rude, and pretty damn inconvenent.
Isab at April 11, 2014 3:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/04/10/ayaan_hirsi_ali.html#comment-4477928">comment from IsabSaddam was a terrible guy. But there are a lot of terrible guys around the planet. (We are not, for example, invading North Korea.) What we've done in Iraq is simply change the management, not export democracy.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2014 4:48 PM
Saddam was a terrible guy. But there are a lot of terrible guys around the planet. (We are not, for example, invading North Korea.) What we've done in Iraq is simply change the management, not export democracy.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 11, 2014 4:48 PM
When you change the management long term, you start getting results.
If people think you are not going to hang around, they start looking for a way to survive under the next regime, because they know, there is always going to be one.
We already fought the Korean War, and saved millions of Koreans in South Korea. Not a perfect result, but by any measurement better than it would have been, if we had ignored it all together. Doing something about North Korea, would require a proxy war with China. A pretty good potential for opening up World War III.
Isab at April 11, 2014 5:17 PM
Saddam was a terrible guy. But there are a lot of terrible guys around the planet. (We are not, for example, invading North Korea.) What we've done in Iraq is simply change the management, not export democracy.
*
Back in 1997, Bill Maher posed this question to NY Times correspondent Damien Cave, who was in Baghdad at the time: "If Saddam Hussein were alive and running for president right now, and he used the old Reagan line, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago," do you think that would attract voters?"
Cave replied: "Well, I mean, I have to say that there's a lot of people who do believe that their lives were better under Saddam Hussein. But to think that they would want Saddam Hussein back is I would say probably incorrect. I mean, what they're trying to say when they say that is that "We don't want to be part of an occupation. At least he was one of us, and at least then we knew what the rules were." I mean, in this situation, walking down the street could get you killed for reasons that have nothing to do with anything but your name. Under Saddam Hussein it was a little more organized, and for a lot of people, that's what they'd like to return to. But the idea that Iraqis want a dictatorship is, you know, is something that's, I, I just find hard to believe.
Now, of course, that's one person's opinion. I'm not sure there's been any definitive poll of Iraqis on the question of whether or not they wish the overthrow of Saddam had never happened. Maybe the majority really do wish that it had never happened...who knows?
Here's an interesting piece (also from 2007) by Nir Rosen in the Washington Post: What Bremer Got Wrong in Iraq
JD at April 12, 2014 10:42 AM
Here's an interesting counterpoint I just found on the situation:
Why Ayaan Hirsi Ali Gets A Conservative Media Spotlight
The author, Michelle Leung, writes:
JD at April 12, 2014 10:52 AM
Leave a comment