Many folk have dogpiled on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over her criticisms of knee-jerk American political support for the Israeli government, which has been interpreted by some as anti-Semitism (even though some of the biggest knee-jerking comes from people other than Jewish-Americans).
So, of course, in a discussion fraught with questions of religious intolerance, hatred and fear of the Other, and the conundrum of what it means to be pro- or anti-American in support of another nation, let’s pivot to … bashing Muslims!
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Saturday questioned whether Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) hijab is a symbol of loyalty to Sharia law, which she warned is “antithetical” to the U.S. Constitution. “Omar wears a hijab, which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” she said.
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” she asked.
Because, of course, only those crazy, evil, un-American Muslim types would ever dream of women covering their heads, right?
Strangely enough the Apostle Paul might disagree.
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[…] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
But I mean, even so, that was centuries ago. In this modern era, in America, can you imagine people covering their heads for religious reasons? Only dangerous fanatics would do that!
Oh, but those folk aren’t covering up because of “Sharia Law,” which to Judge Jeanine clearly makes all the difference. “Sharia Law” is bad, so anyone who follows it is, well, obviously evil (and probably hates American and Israel).
Not, I suspect, that Judge Jeanine has any idea of what “Sharia Law” is, let alone having any coherent argument as to why it is “antithetical to the United States Constitution,” any more than any other personal religious code of conduct.
(Here are three resources that might be of help in understanding what Sharia is.)
Of course, if someone is concerned about Rep. Omar and her “loyalty” to Sharia Law, maybe someone should ask her. Or, given the breadth and vagueness of what Sharia actually is, ask her about particular beliefs. Or even, if you want to be really lazy, compare popular conceptions about what Sharia means to her public policy statements.
Pirro argued that Omar’s alleged “anti-Israel sentiment” did not come from the Democratic Party. “Your party is not anti-Israel. She is,” Pirro said. “So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?”
Wait, wait, let me guess your answer, Jeanine! Could it be she gets it from Evil Muslim Sharia Law Secret Spy Anti-America radio broadcasts? Am I close? Because that’s the thing you seem to be implying.
It’s also interesting looking at an underlying argument here:
- Suggesting Jewish-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their support of Israel is pernicious and anti-Semitic.*
- Suggesting Musim-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their hatred of Israel is … well, the kind of rabble-rousing thing you can hear about on Fox News.
(* Omar didn’t actually say that, but she’s being characterized as having done so.)
The idea that the way to combat anti-Semitism is to drum up suspicion of Muslims as somehow being un-American is … well, frankly, it’s philosophically incoherent, as it evokes the same sort of paranoia about the Other that is exemplified in anti-Semitism itself. I’m not particularly surprised to find it coming from a talking head on Fox News, but it’s worth calling out even when it shows up there.
Do you want to know more? Judge Jeanine asks whether Omar’s hijab is ‘indicative’ of her loyalty to Sharia law | TheHill
Wow. Even Fox News is chiding Judge Jeanine on this one. Good on them.
You must have forgotten about being Catholic in the US. In the past, many Catholics were accused of being loyal to the Pope and not the US. That’s one of the reason’s the Kennedy’s need the Union support to win the White House. Just look at all the Catholic Judges and nominees that get killed by Democrat Senators about which law they will follow.
Just because of one woman’s inane comments doesn’t mean there is Islamicphobia in the US.
Do a little research on the Muslim’s and WWII and their support of the Nazi’s and what they were doing. Ms. Omar knows exactly what those terms meant and she knew what she was trying to accomplish.
But, isn’t it odd she’s very quite on all the evil in Somalia? I find it odd.
A professor was on a NPR show yesterday and she said that only Jews and Israelis get to determine what is or is not anti-Semitic.
Amusingly one of the other guests was a Israeli TV host who went on to prove Omar’s point in the last few minutes of the show.
Well, yes, I would assume that Jew and therefore, Israel, get to determine what they would consider anti-Semitic. Just like Blacks determine what is insulting to them or anti-black, just like Italians determine what they feel is insulting, etc…What’s your point, that Israel isn’t a perfect country? Well, yes, but if you had all those outside forces doing exactly what they know will get press/media attention to show how bad Israel is, then, yes, you’re correct. If you think that Israel DOESN’T want to live in peace with it’s neighbors, then you might be mistaken.
David’s points regarding coverings for one’s head in a religious sense does skew the lines between reality and what might be happening. David quotes St. Paul, but, fails to finish what the chapter he is referencing is teaching-It’s teaching the Corinthian’s about traditions. But, that chapter has a lot more to say than just what David quotes. He also shows pictures of yamakas, Catholic women and Nuns with head covering. FYI, Catholic women only wore the veils during mass, not outside, Nuns, generally wear their habits in a convent and same with Jews that attend temper.
Also, David seems to be fine in quoting the Bible when it fits his narrative, but when other Christians quote from the Bible for their narrative, they are wrong.
@Michael – My point was that religious dictates about what is proper garb are hardly unique to Islam, and Judge Jeanine making them out to be some sign that Rep. Omar is some freaky extremist is kind of silly.
(By extension, one might argue that much of what is considered proper dress, for men and women, has had religiously dictates behind it as to what is “decent” and “moral.”)
I wasn’t quoting Paul to as my authority as to what was correct as to sartorial traditions, just to note that the Bible makes such suggestions, just like the Quran does.
I quote the Bible for a variety of reasons, most often to note parts of it that seem to conflict with the actions taken by people who profess to be Christians and to be devout adherents of Scripture. I’m not any more selective about the parts of the Bible I consider to be worthy teaching than others, just in many cases more honest about it. I don’t think I ever quote it as an authority to shut down further argument or claim it to be the final word on anything. I’m also aware that different people have different interpretations of Scripture, though I don’t accept that all of them are equally coherent or consistent.
Maybe, but, you did use it for your narrative. If you and others, would take the WHOLE context of the chapter or what St. Paul was trying to relay to the Corinthians, you wouldn’t have used the paragraphs.
I don’t know if you are still a practicing Catholic, but two weeks ago, the Gospel was a beautiful one to set us up for Lent from St. Luke 6:39-45. How can you say to your brother,
‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’
when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye?
You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first;
then you will see clearly
to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.
Which is so true about myself and others. It reminds me that when one quotes or uses the Bible to justify their position, it’s just wrong. If you would have simple used the pictures and your story, you would have more credibility. I mean, do you believe in what the Bible teaches or just some parts?
But, here is a great article about Antisemitism: How can you say to your brother,
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/14/progressive-anti-semitism-europe/
Europe as a whole has had, and still has, an anti-Semitism problem, on the left and on the right.
That said, and even accepting the Federalist’s spin on some of the events on face value, it remains possible to criticize (a) Israel’s domestic policy, and (b) American foreign policy toward Israel without doing so with animus toward Jews as a people.