The Muslim Ban, Women’s Rights, and “Honor Killings”
President Trump has a history of using anti-Muslim stereotypes sounding in misogyny and oppression.
Last July, for instance, his attack against Gold Star mother Ghazala Khan sparked a firestorm of public controversy, bipartisan rebuke, and several direct responses from the assailed Muslim American woman who chose to remain silent next to her husband at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
The false assumption underlying Trump’s accusation that the grief-stricken Mrs. Khan “wasn’t allowed to have anything to say” as her husband delivered his powerful speech on her behalf highlights how stereotypes are weapons wielded against a subordinated group.
More recently, on January 27, Trump unsheathed that sword when he signed the original Muslim Ban, stating: “In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred …including “honor” killings [or] other forms of violence against women…”
Most recently, on March 6, Trump replaced the original ban with a new one that not only excludes immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, but also requires the government to collect data surrounding the frequency of “honor killings” in the United States. Again, this Administration employs a stereotype to further marginalize an already marginalized minority.
Still, this International Women’s Day, Trump’s concern with Muslim women’s experiences confronting bigotry, hatred, and violence is a welcome opportunity to educate and engage in dialogue.
In both the United States and the European Union, Muslim women observing hijab are vulnerable to verbal and physical attacks. And, while so-called “honor killings” are seen as undermining women’s rights, such hate crimes are generally viewed through the lens of religion alone.
In other words, when victimized by co-religionists in a so-called honor crime, a Muslim woman is in fact a woman who enjoys the full protection of the international human rights legal regime. She is often stripped of that status, however, when members of the majority or “in-group” visit violence on her. She is then Muslim.
In reality, Muslim women’s experiences with bigotry, hatred, and violence are influenced by multiple and intersecting aspects of their identity including religion, gender, race, ethnicity, immigration status, disability, etc. In fact, in the public sphere of hate crimes, the slurs used at the time of an attack on a Muslim woman evidence the perpetrator’s awareness of her unique status as a woman (arguably revealing the bias motive underlying the incident).
Below are a few representative examples highlighting the relationship between language and the victim’s intersecting identities:
- In 2008, a man murdered a pregnant Muslim woman in Dresden, Germany. Initially, the man saw the victim with her son at a playground where he called her a “slut,” [speaking to her gender] and an “Islamist terrorist” [speaking to her religious identity]. He also demanded she remove her headscarf. Later, when he was prosecuted in court, he lunged at his victim with a knife and stabbed her 18 times.
- In 2011, a prominent British journalist and political commentator who was awarded the European Muslim Woman of Influence Award was attacked on social media by a political activist who called her an “Arab whore” [speaking to her race and gender].
- In 2015, while riding a bus in London, a pregnant Muslim woman was verbally assaulted by another women who threatened to kick her in the stomach while repeatedly referring to her as an “ISIS b*tch,” “sand buckets,” and “sand rats” thus evidencing her awareness of the victim’s gender, religion, and race.
- In 2016, a male passenger on a New Jersey transit train attacked three Muslim American college women in hijab. Initially, he asked, “Why are you staring at me, ha? Why are you staring at me you f**king Muslim b*tch” [speaking to her religion and gender]. He then spit at one of the students.
While some argue that these women were attacked exclusively on account of religious identity, the language used at the time of the crimes suggests otherwise. This is an important consideration for women’s rights advocates and feminists to reflect upon.
Significantly, Muslim American women are often responding to bigotry, hatred, and violence with strength and courage.
Ilhan Omar, a black Muslim woman who observes hijab and loves politics, is illustrative.
In 2014, Omar was at a Minnesota Party Caucus, where she was working as an aide, when more than a half-dozen people physically attacked her. She suffered injuries including a concussion. Still, she remained undeterred in pursuing a career in politics. She was determined to help minority communities.
And, two years later, in 2016, Omar won public office, becoming the first Muslim female state legislator in Minnesota and the first Muslim East African woman to hold public office in the country. Ilhan Omar overcame bigotry, hatred, and violence, making American history.
It’s important to note, however, that Omar is also a refugee. She fled war-torn Somalia as a young child together with her family. Today, women and girls like her are barred from entering our country or realizing their potential because of who they are and what they believe. The Muslim Ban doesn’t just hurt them, it hurts us all—it hurts America.
And, this International Women’s Day, Ilahn Omar’s story reminds us of that fact.
Engy Abdelkader is research faculty at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. A senior fellow with the Bridge Initiative, a research project on Islamophobia, her work explores the intersection of law, religion and society. This essay was adapted from a presentation made at a race, gender, and intersectional inquiries conference at Notre Dame.
May 22By: Engy Abdelkader, JD, LL.M.The United Nations (UN) has long characterized the Rohingya as the world’s most persecuted population. Historically, the Burmese viewed the ethnic and religious minority as illegal immigrants permitted entry by their former British colonizers. Such historical context informs contemporary views of the group as “foreigners.” And that has helped justify decades-long persecution by both private and public actors culminating in the Rohingya’s legal exclusion as citizens and other discrimination codified as law. Despite the group’s pre-colonial ancestral ties to the land, messaging that Rohingya are “outsiders,” “Bengalis” and even, “terrorists,” has helped the government justify mass atrocity crimes. The current humanitarian and human rights crises also implicate national security.
May 1By: Shane Fischman, L’19It is a timely issue of resonance and consequence, the confluence of a class of committed students and an engaging Professor of unparalleled expertise. Our vigorous classroom discussions sounded more like policy debates and revolutionary cries than staid academic deliberation We represented a handful of different countries and states, a global array of religious, cultural, and economic backgrounds. More like a weekly conference than a class, we spent our two hours every Tuesday afternoon in friendly arguments— was it enough to have women at the table, or have people been ignoring a critical variable in the equation, having the right women at the table? And if that is the case, then how do we ensure women in the international community were prepared to lead? And is the top-down approach to securing women’s rights effective, or is that method only paying lip-service to the women living in rural villages who are legally barred from accessing capital to run a business and from attaining a passport without a male guardian’s permission?
March 27By: Kimberly Panian, L’18This year’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) proved to be a historic one where member states gathered to discuss the substantial progress made in favor of gender equality. While each country addressed areas still in need of work, each event of the CSW offered an inspirational promise of hope. The excitement was palpable whenever discussing the significant progress already made—how women’s voices have been amplified and legitimized through legal reform and political activism.