The liberal world is, again, crying for Muslim women.
No, not for those who have been killed by the millions thanks to the post-9/11 War on Terror, but for the little Muslim girls who might never be able to discover gender fluidity.
The link between feminism and liberal imperialism is well-attested. Take Joseph Massad’s Islam in Liberalism. Massad does a whole study on liberalism’s historical enmity toward Islam, and the second chapter is all about feminism.
Take also Christine Delphy, an influential French feminist, once a comrade to the late Simone de Beauvoir, the main figure of modern feminism in Europe, who also criticizes the weaponization of feminism for the War on Terror.
One of the main points of this feminist narrative against Islam has been girls’ education. Consider a recent article published in the Wall Street Journal by two “eminent” female writers with Muslim names: Amina Mohammed, deputy secretary-general of the UN, from Nigeria, and Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, the UAE’s permanent representative to the UN.
They wrote this article about girls’ education following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan on the 15th of August.
Of course, such takes on Afghanistan are inherently hypocritical in nature, but let’s analyse their discourse. We will see that it is not so much about girls’ education (obviously), but more about how education can be used as an instrument for the demonization of Islam and the promotion of liberalism.
Girls have an intrinsic right to education. This simple truth should be abiding and nonnegotiable. Yet reactionary forces, warping Islamic teaching, too often limit or deny girls their education. This is cruel and defies the core tenets of the world’s second-largest religion.
“Abiding and nonnegotiable” sounds like something one would hear in a declaration of war, while “reactionary forces” is an odd word choice, as it reminds one of the socialist-communist revolutionary terminology against the “bourgeoisie.” This sets the tone.
Educating girls enables them to realize their aspirations and fulfill their potential to society. United Nations reports consistently show that societies in which women are full, equal and meaningful partners are safer, better run and more productive. Every year, they also tell us that societies that deny women agency over their private and public lives are more likely to regress into violence, instability and poverty.
The UN is obviously one of the main supranational organizations safeguarding the liberal international order that promotes, even through coercion, liberal norms and feminist dogmas. There’s a lot of literature on the subject of liberalism and the UN’s “New World Order.” So, whenever someone summons the UN as a sort of authority, it should be seen as a red herring. In this case, both authors are directly involved with the UN, so no surprise.
The authors call women to be “full, equal and meaningful partners” so societies are “safer, better and more productive.” This fetish for “productivism” betrays a materialistic approach to societal life. Who says productivity is the end all, be all for society? Maybe productive societies are sick societies? What about other health indicators for society, such as ethics, morality, high character, strong family, and other Islamic norms?
Should we ignore how the West itself is a laboratory for feminist machinations, making women full, equal, and meaningful (?) partners, but that leading to an epidemic of female misery? Should we ignore the “full” and “meaningful” experience of Western women and their “empowering” jobs leading them to a miserable and lonely life of infertility and depression?
We have repeatedly witnessed extremists who, when they gain a modicum of power, immediately target women and girls. Education is often the first target. They violently attack students and terrorize teachers, parents and communities to shut down schools and libraries. This is a deliberate, precise and defensive tactic born out of their fear of “a girl with a book,” as Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai said. Extremists know that one educated girl is an obstacle to their warped intentions, and generation of girls is an impenetrable wall.
No one knows what “extremists” means here, and the whole rant about “education” being their “first target” (?), the “terrorizing” (?) of teachers and so on sounds like an Orientalist trope, a fantasy with no real factual grounding.
As for Malala, she’s a well-known Western puppet, not some Islamic authority to be taken seriously.
The starting point must be that the right to a full, equal and high-quality education is nonnegotiable. The international community must hold everyone, including the Taliban, to account for denying or limiting girls’ education. Donor countries should marshal resources to ensure that all girls everywhere have access to a classroom, and they should consider making aid conditional on the protection of local voices speaking out against attacks on women and girls.
This is the most interesting part, as it reveals the psychotic nature of feminist frenzy. Afghanistan is going through what the UN itself calls possibly the worst humanitarian crisis ever seen, with nearly the whole of the country going into extreme poverty and enduring famine, mainly due to the tolerant West freezing the country’s assets.
And what do these “Muslims feminists” have to say about that? They say that any aid should be “conditional,” it should be conditioned on giving to the little girls of Afghanistan “full, equal, and high-quality education,” i.e., degenerate gender studies, LGBT, feminist programming. In case anyone has forgotten, the US government report says that some $787 million was mobilized for gender programs during the American-liberal occupation.
Isn’t liberal feminism so tolerant and peaceful? Muslims in Afghanistan –whether male or female — should be starved to death until they accept our feminist directives! Obey or die!