World Press on Capital Punishment for Rape, Amy Coney Barrett and Mercy on Iran: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
14 October
2020
• Contra Capital Punishment Even In This
‘Rapedemic’
By Ahrar Ahmad
• Iran’s Covid-19 Death Toll Is Rising. Show
Mercy, Mr. Trump.
New York Times
• Why Only Amy Coney Barrett Gets To Have It
All
By Katelyn Beaty
• Iran Wants a “Strategic Partnership” With
China
The Economist
-----
Contra Capital Punishment Even In This
‘Rapedemic’
By Ahrar Ahmad
October 14,
2020
The demand
was predictable. Given the outrage that has been generated by the vicious acts
of assault and dehumanisation that have been inflicted on women over some time,
it even appears justifiable. It is widely, perhaps passionately, believed that
life imprisonment for rapists is not enough, they must face the death penalty.
The arguments are fairly clear and obvious.
First,
anything less is considered to be disrespectful to the suffering of the women.
This is not a crime with merely physical and immediate consequences for the
victim. The trauma, the pain and the socially imposed guilt and shame that
women are forced to endure are long, deep and often debilitating. If murderers
are executed, so must rapists. This may help to bring some "closure",
and perhaps some relief, to the victim.
Second,
some sexism may be implicit in the selective use of capital punishment. In
Bangladesh, the death penalty is applicable for a whole range of crimes such as
kidnapping or drug possession (over 25 grams of heroin or cocaine, and over 200
grams of yaba), but not if a woman is assaulted so brutally. The highest
punishment for rape is life imprisonment, a penalty that can be cleverly
"managed" and loopholes can be found to secure early release for the
convicted.
Third, this
punishment would serve as a deterrent to people who become aware of the dire
consequences they would face if they are brought to justice. Such exemplary
action by the state would serve as a lesson and warning to the people, strike
fear into their hearts, and prevent such acts. The cogency and clarity of that
position has given this argument historical validity, religious sanction and
seductive appeal.
These are
all undoubtedly powerful arguments. However, some interrogation is possible and
necessary. Before one proceeds in that direction, it is essential to clarify
that opposition to the death penalty for rape does not suggest that one is
"soft" on rape, nor does it imply a patriarchal trivialisation of
this grievous offence (which is usually done by referring to the victim's
dress, her sexual history and her "risky" behaviour in typical
"slut-shaming" and victim-blaming efforts). It is important to state
categorically that rape is one of the vilest crimes that can be committed, and
that its punishment must be swift, sure and severe.
The first
argument has been questioned by Indian feminists, among others. Jahnavi Sen has
indicated that equating rape with murder is a disservice to the woman because
it rests on some patriarchal notion of "honour" that is
"intrinsically linked to her sexuality", which if "destroyed"
means that she has lost her place in society, her value, her agency, and is as
good as dead. Instead of helping her to cope and providing social, economic and
psychological support, all this does is reaffirm her tragedy, her helplessness
and her stigma.
The second
argument that compares crimes and punishments is misleading and, in this case,
totally unhelpful to the victim. Death penalty trials are typically longer,
costlier and more complex; may lead to reduced reporting because many (most)
perpetrators are known to the victims and there would be family pressures not
to pursue the case (against the uncle, the brother-in-law, the kinfolk etc.);
and may also provoke more murder of rape victims to ensure their silence.
The third
is located within an empirical frame of reference and is therefore easier to
analyse. There are less than 10 countries in the world which practice death
penalty for rape. Apart from North Korea and China, all the others are in the
Middle East. None of these countries can claim to be particularly sensitive to
women's rights and interests. Some of these countries practice female genital
mutilation, some engage in honour killings, and most impose a perverse dress
code that reveals the insecurities and misogyny of those heteropatriarchal
societies. The death penalty for rape is merely an extension of their reliance
on violence as a solution to all problems rather than an effort at establishing
retributive justice.
The issue
of deterrence provided by capital punishment may be examined from another
perspective. Capital punishment for murder is upheld by 55 countries; 106 have
banished it, 28 more have not practiced it. There is absolutely no evidence to
indicate that countries with death penalties have lower homicide rates.
Even within
the US, only 38 states have the death penalty. According to the American Civil
Liberties Union, states with capital punishment were 25 to 46 percent more
liable to have higher homicide rates than states without, and the Death Penalty
Information Center reported that southern states which had almost 80 percent of
the executions for murder over the last 10 years, actually had higher rates of
murder than the north-east states, which had less than one percent of the
executions. Thus, capital punishment may not be as efficacious in halting crime
as is popularly believed.
This issue
of rape is complex. First, and foremost, the problem is attitudinal,
behavioural and structural. It is inherent in a system of power—where women are
commodified, objectified and reduced to being a collection of body parts
(breasts, hips and vaginas) that robs them of their autonomy, their identity,
and their humanity; where women are taught to be meek, frail, sacrificial
(where good women quietly accept), while men are expected to be macho,
aggressive, entitled (where real men get what they want); where women are still
considered to be "property" and hence usable at will and disposable;
where women are viewed as temptresses who cause men to salivate; where women
are subject to the "male gaze" located in masturbatory instincts and
pornographic delusions; where women are forced to live in an environment of
fragile masculinities and emasculated egos in which weak and frustrated men
desperately seek to prove their power through dominating/hurting somebody; and
where women are compelled to negotiate their imposed vulnerabilities on a daily
and persistent basis. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for
meaningful progress to be made to secure women's rights (safety being foremost)
without radically transforming the landscape of devaluation and prejudice that
has been fashioned.
Sexual
violence is also rooted in the disregard, if not the contempt, for the rule of
law in the country. There are several aspects to this. First is the sheer
inefficiency and corruption in the dynamics of law enforcement in a country
where graft, extortion, torture and even extrajudicial killings have eroded
people's confidence in law. Women suffer additional burdens—they are not
believed, their cases often not recorded, and they have to submit to
humiliating questions and tests.
Second,
there are bahinis (gangs) of goons and thugs whose very swagger epitomises the
"culture of impunity" in the country. No bahini can grow in a vacuum.
There must be enabling conditions, protections and encouragements usually
provided by political leaders who use them as auxiliaries for their own
purposes (usually for elections but also for exerting local control). These
bahinis function beyond the authority of the police or, at times, in collusion
with them. If our political leaders cannot disown and dismantle these groups,
and our police forces cannot stand up to them, all their pious platitudes about
reducing sexual assault would appear to be hollow if not hypocritical.
Third, the
juridical environment within which rape cases are situated is woefully archaic
and biased. The definition of rape is still derived from Section 375 of the
Penal Code of 1860 with its narrow emphasis on penile penetration, and the line
of questioning about a woman's "character" and related issues is
admissible because it is based on Section 155(4) of the Evidence Act of 1872.
The
judicial system remains serpentine and sluggish. Only three percent of rape
cases end in prosecution, and as of March 2019, 1,64,551 cases for crimes against
women and children are still pending, with 38,000 dragging on for more than
five years. Many laws and even court directives are not even implemented. The
story is not particularly reassuring for women, or for justice.
In this
context, to push for the death penalty today would appear to be disingenuous.
It is more a distraction, a tokenist flourish which provides the appearance of
doing something, when little is being attempted and even less will be
accomplished.
Thus,
unless the nation addresses the difficult issues caused by economic inequality,
democratic deficits, endemic corruption, institutional inefficiency, moral
decay, and social dislocations (which often provoke intolerance, rudeness and
aggression), and unless fundamental changes are made in education, family life,
linguistic practices, notions of sexuality, the pervasiveness of drugs and
pornography, and a national malaise of despair, disdain and distrust—all of
which contribute to the culture of sexual violence—simply tinkering with
punishment regimes is nothing but a sleight of hand, a tromp l'oeil or, in the
language of T S Eliot (in The Hollow Men)—Shape without form, Shade without
colour, Paralysed force, Gesture without motion.
----
Ahrar Ahmad is Professor Emeritus, Black Hill
State University, USA.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/contra-capital-punishment-even-rapedemic-1977457
-----
Iran’s Covid-19 Death Toll Is Rising. Show
Mercy, Mr. Trump.
New York Times
Oct. 13,
2020
U.S.
efforts to cut Iran off from the rest of the world in the midst of the pandemic
are cruel. (Photo: NYT)
----
In 2003,
when an earthquake killed thousands in the Iranian city of Bam, President
George W. Bush set aside years of animosity and sent an airlift of rescuers and
medical supplies. He also temporarily eased some restrictions on sending money
and goods to the country. “American people care and we’ve got great compassion
for human suffering,” Mr. Bush told CNN in the aftermath of the quake. “It’s
right to take care of people when they hurt.”
This fall,
as the Covid-19 death toll continues to climb in Iran — the hardest-hit country
in the Middle East — the Trump administration has shown little mercy. The U.S.
government has voiced its opposition to Iran’s request, still unfulfilled, for
a $5 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to help combat the
coronavirus pandemic. As Iran surpasses half a million cases and more than
27,000 deaths, the administration is adding new sanctions on a country that was
already struggling to buy essential medicines?
Last week,
the Trump administration sanctioned 18 Iranian banks, which appear to have been
the last financial institutions with international ties left untouched by
Treasury Department sanctions. The announcement was the latest move in an effort
to hermetically seal the Iranian economy off from the rest of the world. Under
previous administrations, sanctions against Iranian banks were accompanied by
claims that they had helped facilitate terrorism or the development of nuclear
weapons.
Under the
Trump administration, being Iranian is crime enough. The list of new financial
pariahs includes Bank Maskan, which specializes in mortgages, and Bank
Keshavarzi Iran, which lends to farmers. This sweepingly broad application of
sanctions amounts to collective punishment for tens of millions of innocent
Iranians who are already suffering under a brutally repressive regime.
Barbara
Slavin, director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council,
calls the American “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran “sadism
masquerading as foreign policy.” In the past, sanctions on Iranian banks were
part of a broader strategy to get Iran to agree to limits on its nuclear
program, undertaken with the support of American allies in Europe, as well as
Russia and China. But the Trump administration walked away from the deal those
sanctions produced. Ever since, the United States has been virtually alone on
the United Nations Security Council in trying to ratchet up pressure on Iran.
The unilateral and extraterritorial nature of the sanctions — which threaten to
cut off not only Iran but also any company in the world that does business with
Iran — irks America’s closest allies.
The new
sanctions against these 18 banks are particularly cruel during a pandemic.
Trump administration officials insist the sanctions, which will take effect in
December, don’t apply to food and medicine. They also say they have taken pains
to provide waivers to companies that want to sell needed supplies to the
country. But the process of getting waivers approved is too cumbersome and
time-consuming to meet health needs during a pandemic. Even if companies get
waivers to sell needed medical supplies to Iran, Iran would still struggle to
pay for them. The country lacks hard currency because the Trump administration
has tried to stop other countries from buying Iranian products, especially oil,
and because American banking sanctions make it difficult for Iran to touch the
export revenue it earns.
There is
little doubt that this policy has crippled Iran’s economy and impoverished its
people with runaway inflation. But it has not achieved the ultimate goal of
forcing the Iranian government to capitulate to Washington. To the contrary, it
has strengthened hard-liners in Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps
controls what little hard currency exists in the country. Instead of
incentivizing Iran to be a more responsible and transparent actor, this blanket
of sanctions forces more of Iran’s economy into the arms of money launderers,
shadowy criminal enterprises and China. It is a policy that brings diminishing
returns over time. The more the United States throws its weight around, the
more appetite there will be around the world for establishing alternative
financial mechanisms that will ultimately deprive Washington of its global
clout. American officials would be wiser to stop piling sanctions on Iran
during this pandemic.
Iranian
officials, too, would be wise to show mercy to the large number of political
prisoners who are being held on trumped up charges and who are at risk of
contracting the coronavirus. The Iranian government announced the temporary
release of more than 85,000 prisoners since the pandemic began, but few
political prisoners have been set free. That could change. Last week, Iranian
officials took the positive step of releasing Narges Mohammadi, a prominent
human rights defender and anti-death penalty campaigner who has been in prison
since 2015. Ms. Mohammadi, who worked as a spokeswoman for the Defenders of
Human Rights Center, a group banned in Iran, reportedly had her 10-year prison
sentence commuted because of health concerns.
Many more
political prisoners in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison remain incarcerated and at
risk. Their plight has been highlighted by the recent hunger strike of the
Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, who refused food for nearly a
month to demand the compassionate release of scores of her fellow human rights
advocates and political dissidents. Ms. Sotoudeh, who is guilty of nothing more
than defending a group of women who took off their head scarves in public to
protest the law mandating head coverings, was sentenced to what would add up to
a 38-year prison term.
Although
Ms. Sotoudeh ended her hunger strike because of her weakening condition and a heart
problem, her life is still very much in danger. Her condition is said to be
rapidly deteriorating. After a brief stay in a hospital, where she did not
receive the required medical attention, she was returned to prison, where at
least six guards have been identified as having the coronavirus, according to
an email from Ms. Sotoudeh’s husband.
Because of
her inspiring struggle to preserve the rule of law in Iran, ordinary people
around the world are following the news to hear her fate. A new movie, “Nasrin,”
about her fight for women’s rights in Iran will ensure that she will not be
forgotten.
Ms.
Sotoudeh must be given medical attention and compassionate release. Letting her
and other political prisoners out would show the world that Iran’s leaders are capable
of mercy during a pandemic, and that Iran deserves mercy as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/iran-trump-sanctions-covid.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
------
Why Only Amy Coney Barrett Gets to Have It All
By Katelyn Beaty
Oct. 13,
2020
Amy
Coney Barrett: US supreme court nominee delivers opening statement
----
In the
Christian tradition, icons are meant to remind flawed humans of what they could
become. Paintings of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the saints remind the devout to
aspire to holiness and sacrifice in their daily lives. Meditating on an icon
can be a form of prayer: Lord, make me more like them.
Amy Coney
Barrett, whose Supreme Court confirmation hearing began Monday, is a living
icon for conservative Christian women. Judge Barrett has combined the dual
pathways of motherhood and career into one, showing that both can be holy
vocations.
Her
judicial record holds out the renewed possibility of a conservative Supreme
Court majority for decades; her role as a mother of seven, including two
adopted children and one with special needs, is a testament to the ways her
pro-life views bear out in her personal life.
Since
President Trump announced his plan to nominate Judge Barrett, many conservative
Christians have thrilled at the possibility of her symbolic power in the
culture wars. Anti-abortion groups such as Concerned Women for America and the
Susan B. Anthony List are campaigning on her behalf, while Senators Josh
Hawley, Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse have defended her faith against what they see
to be anti-Christian bias.
To her
champions, Judge Barrett represents a new form of feminine strength — living
proof that women are strong enough to have both a career and children, and that
abortion may in the end primarily serve to let both men (sexual partners) and
The Man (discriminatory workplaces) off the hook when it comes to pursuing true
gender equity.
So it’s
worth asking: If Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith and indisputable career
accomplishments make her such a young heroine of the Christian right, why
doesn’t the traditional Christianity to which she adheres encourage more women
to be like her?
To be
clear, few in even secular communities can be like Judge Barrett. Most
Americans do not enjoy the privileges of class and elite education that she has
had as a federal judge and legal scholar. A flexible workplace and supportive
spouse — things many men take for granted — remain elusive for many women.
But there’s
another reason few Christian women can simultaneously pursue career ambitions
and family life in the ways Judge Barrett has: In traditional Christian
communities, women are often asked to sacrifice the former at the altar of the
latter.
Research
for a book I wrote about the roles of Christian women suggests that Judge
Barrett is the exception, not the rule, to traditional Christian teachings on
women’s work and vocation. Most of the 125-plus women I interviewed over two
years said they had heard from a peer, pastor or professor that being a wife
and mother was, by God’s design, their highest calling — and that a career
would distract from that. As such, many Christian women with professional
ambitions feel less than Christian, or woman, if they follow those ambitions in
the way that Judge Barrett has followed her own.
If
second-wave feminism denigrated the work of caregiving, many Christian
communities over the past 50 years have responded by imbuing motherhood with a
holy glow. (Visit an evangelical church over Mother’s Day weekend and you might
be blinded by it.)
To be sure,
many of the women I interviewed did feel called to have children. But they also
felt called to start a nonprofit, go back to school, organize politically or
interview for the role of C.E.O. Yet only the call to pursuits outside the home
prompted shame.
That shame
is powerfully enforced from without. One young woman I interviewed excitedly
told her pastor that she had gotten into law school. The pastor responded that
she should consider that no Christian man would want to marry a lawyer. On her
first visit to a Seattle megachurch, a female advertising director heard the
pastor preach that he didn’t know any women who worked outside the home. An
older Christian woman told me at age 27 that if I continued to invest in my
career, I would lose the chance to marry and have children — and that I better
make my choice soon.
These
attitudes play into the notion that “good” Christian women can be only one
thing. (They also understandably raise questions about Judge Barrett’s own
faith community, the People of Praise, and its teachings on male headship.)
Traditional
Christians believe that God designed men to be leaders in the church and home,
and that women are to submit to male leadership in these spheres. This explains
why many Christians have a hard time encouraging women to take on jobs and
careers where they will wield authority over men. If a church teaches the
essence of femininity is godly submission, it is difficult to then, in turn,
encourage women who are called to lead and hold authority at work. In 2017, the
evangelical polling firm Barna Group found that of all Americans, evangelicals
were the group least likely to be comfortable with a workplace comprising more
women than men. They were also the group least likely to believe that women
face barriers at work.
Judge
Barrett herself shows that women can be many things at once: an accomplished
student, law professor, judge, mother, spiritual leader, wife and, in her
words, “room parent, car-pool driver and birthday party planner.” At a 2019
event, she said this wouldn’t be possible without a husband who is “a complete
all-in partner” in raising children and running a household. Elsewhere, she has
described an office and courtroom culture that has welcomed her children’s
presence.
Judge
Barrett is set to become the most visible conservative Christian woman in
public life since Sarah Palin, who once responded to questions over her
work-family balance with the following: “To any critics who say a woman can’t
think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I’d just like to escort that
Neanderthal back to the cave.” (I imagine Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would
have agreed.)
But if a
generation of girls is to follow in Judge Barrett’s footsteps, they will need
explicit support from religious leaders. As such, evangelical and traditional
Catholic communities must find ways to honor and affirm the ambitions of half
their members.
They could
do so by teaching the dignity of “secular” professional work at all levels; by
publicly advocating generous pro-family workplace policies; by confronting
sexism and sexual harassment outside the church as well as in; and by calling
men to champion their wives’ careers and to share family duties.
But while
many Christian leaders would affirm these as goals, it would take nothing less
than a reversal of church-based gender norms for a groundswell of Christian men
to put their wives’ careers first and to take a primary caregiver role in the
way that Judge Barrett’s husband has.
It’s been
disheartening to see so much religious illiteracy applied to Judge Barrett’s
personal life in recent weeks. We might hope for journalists to look beyond
dystopian novels to decipher what a “handmaid” is, for instance. But to set the
record straight, on handmaids and beyond, conservative Christians must do their
part to imagine a broader and more humanizing vision for women’s place in the
public square. Christianity has always contained a liberatory seed: one that
tells women that the human desire to work, create and shape institutions is as
important, even as holy, as their ability to bear children. If Christians don’t
like the handmaid stereotypes, now is the time to be clear on all that
Christian women can do and be.
-----
Katelyn Beaty is the author of “A Woman’s
Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the
World.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-motherhood.html
------
Iran Wants A “Strategic Partnership” With China
The Economist
Oct 10th
2020
China
commands a certain mystique in the Middle East. For politicians in Lebanon,
broke and on the brink of hyperinflation, it is an atm waiting to dispense
billions if they can only find the passcode. For the regime of Bashir al-Assad
in Syria it is a deus ex machina to rebuild a shattered country. Often
caricatured, the Middle East is prone to draw caricatures of its own.
On October
1st Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, declared a “major step” in Iran’s
relations with China. For months the two have been discussing plans for a
25-year “strategic partnership”. But the details remain vague.
Leaked
drafts call for big Chinese investment in everything from roads and ports to
telecoms and nuclear energy. The agreement would probably give China a stake in
Iran’s oil industry, guaranteeing a market for its crude and refined products.
Infrastructure projects would stitch Iran into the Belt and Road Initiative as
a transit point between Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Rumours flew in
Iran’s media that it might even cede control of Kish, an island that is a
free-trade zone in the Persian Gulf. The government says this is bunk. The
draft makes no mention of it.
China’s new
friendship has caused a measure of alarm in Washington. Mike Pompeo, America’s
secretary of state, warned that it would “destabilise the Middle East”. Like
much Chinese diplomacy in the Middle East, however, its proposed partnership
with Iran is long on ambition but short on detail. Rather than a comprehensive
road map, the proposal is more a sign of both Iran’s desperation and the limits
of China’s ambition.
Even
without covid-19 battering the world economy, Iran would be in dire straits.
Sanctions reimposed by America in 2018 have pushed Iran’s oil production to its
lowest levels since the 1980s. In July it pumped an estimated 1.9m barrels per
day (b/d), about half of what it was pulling from the ground in 2018. Most of
its output is being used for domestic consumption or diverted to storage.
Exports, depressed by sanctions and the pandemic, were probably well below
500,000b/d.
The sanctions
failed in their stated goal of compelling Iran to agree to more restrictions on
its nuclear programme and to roll back its meddling in the region. But they
have crippled its economy, which shrank by 7.6% last year after a 5.4%
contraction in 2018. Its currency, the rial, traded at 3,800 to the dollar when
Donald Trump took office in 2017. Now a dollar costs more than 29,500 rials. In
May parliament approved a plan to lop four zeroes off banknotes. The original
nuclear deal brought the promise of investment and trade from Western
countries. Mr Trump’s Iran policy has dashed such hope.
To judge by
the rhetoric in Tehran and Beijing, China should be rushing to fill the void.
During the previous round of sanctions, which culminated in the nuclear deal in
2015, it emerged as the buyer of last resort for Iranian oil. But the resulting
barter system was often derided as “trash for oil”. Consumers got cheap stuff,
but some of it was junk: in 2011 Iran banned the import of scores of shoddy
Chinese products.
It has not
been a saviour this time either. Last year bilateral trade between Iran and
China fell by about one-third. In the first eight months of this year China’s
imports from Iran decreased by 62%, from $10.1bn to $3.9bn. Exports have held
up better, dropping by just 7%: Iran still relies on Chinese-made goods, even
if China does not need so much of Iran’s oil.
The
circumstances have been unusual, of course. Oil demand in China has fallen
because of covid-19. But trade with other oil-producers has not been so
affected (see chart). Imports from Saudi Arabia, mostly oil and petrochemicals,
are down by a less awful 28%. Those from the United Arab Emirates are up by
11%.
Unlike
America, China is happy to cultivate ties with all sides in the Middle East.
But some of those relationships have limits. Talk of partnerships aside, China
cares more about America than about Iran. It backed out of a $5bn deal to
develop Iran’s South Pars gasfield rather than fall foul of American sanctions.
Common sense plays a role, too. As Lebanon tips into economic crisis, and with
its Arab and Western partners reluctant to help, some Lebanese politicians are
keen to “look east” and court Chinese aid. To date, though, there has been no
major Chinese investment in their country, and its endemic corruption will
probably keep China away. “Maybe they’ll build a power station or a highway.
But they’re not going to park $10bn in the central bank,” says a diplomat in
Beirut.
China’s
most valued relationships are with the rich, well-run Gulf States. They in turn
are willing to tolerate China’s diplomatic ties with Iran. In June, for
example, China voted against a resolution at the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the un’s watchdog, that urged Iran to let inspectors into two nuclear
facilities. The vote passed smoothly. A Chinese military base across the
Persian Gulf would, however, be another matter. So would big Chinese arms sales
to Iran, which are possible if a un embargo is not renewed this month.
China and
Iran will probably conclude an agreement within months. For Iran, it will seem
a vital lifeline—particularly if Mr Trump wins a second term. For China,
though, Iran will remain just one piece on a much larger chessboard. ■
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/10/10/iran-wants-a-strategic-partnership-with-china?utm
----
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism