Rudy Giuliani “isn’t sure” if waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique allegedly used by the United States armed forces in the war on terror - is torture. Waterboarding induces the feeling of imminent death - see also, mock execution - which is illegal under international law. Used during the Spanish Inquisition and in the Cambodian genocide, waterboarding was considered a war crime in WWII.

Giuliani alleges that the “liberal media” portrays the technique inaccurately, and says the line between what is torture and what isn’t is “very delicate and very difficult”. However, even a key player in his own party, Senator John McCain (who served in Vietnam and survived torture himself) sharply rebuked Giuliani’s statements:

“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak… people who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned. We are a better nation than that.”

Bottom line? Giuliani thinks torture is ok… sometimes. For instance, it’s ok when it is part of “aggressive questioning of Islamic terrorists”. Just Islamic terrorists, Rudy? I suppose I should appreciate that he can be sure about something.

To further open mouth and insert foot, he equated long hours on the campaign trail to sleep deprivation - another form of torture used in interrogation processes and condemned by the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Israel. He must have confused his penchant for luxury, waterfront hotels - which he reaches via private jet - with Guantanamo Bay.

With even experienced military men like John McCain not just condemning, but also questioning the efficacy of “methods” like waterboarding, Giuliani’s credibility takes a shot. But to put any sort of fuzzy conditions on torture? Reprehensible. I can hear Giuliani squirm as I say that he needs to take a page from Nancy Pelosi’s book. In her explicit condemnation of the Armenian genocide, she said:

“Some of what harms our troops relates to values - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture. Our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a country, and we declare it to the rest of the world.”

Rudy, torture is torture. And if you can’t stomach Pelosi’s principles, didn’t you once say that relying on God’s guidance is at the core of who you are? Surely spiritual reflection would guide one to the realization that there is never any condition which makes torture excusable.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (photo: Lisa Wiltse, The Sydney Morning Herald)

I gotta ask you, I hope you don’t mind: what is your reasoning for supporting Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

 - an email I received

A lot of people, particularly Muslims, have asked me why I support Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A fair question. Hirsi Ali isn’t exactly popular among mainstream Muslims. Then again, I’m not a mainstream Muslim. I’m not even a moderate one.

But I’ll give you more than that.

While I don’t agree with all of Hirsi Ali’s views on Islam, I understand that her interpretations of the faith come from her experiences within it. More than this, I respect her right to believe - and disbelieve - as she sees fit. Mostly, I am secure enough in my own faith to not be offended by someone’s choice to leave it.

Unlike some atheists, Hirsi Ali doesn’t take a “missionary” stance against religion. As a Muslim, and especially as a Muslim woman, I feel that Hirsi Ali not only respects my choice to remain faithful, but I believe that she, while not what I’d call a champion for Islam - is a champion for human rights. She stands up unconditionally for the rights of women in the Muslim world - something many faithful will not do, if standing against injustice means airing uncomfortable truths about Islam and Muslims.

One thing that solidifies Hirsi Ali’s integrity in my eyes is what she said to fellow dissident Irshad Manji, who asked Hirsi Ali if she was “naïve” for remaining a Muslim. Hirsi Ali’s response? “Don’t go. Islam needs you”. If Hirsi Ali were the person her critics make her out to be, she wouldn’t support Muslims in their journey to reconcile faith and freedom. Nor would she support those of us who observe Islam peacefully, and live Islam as it was meant to be lived - embracing critical thinking, empathy,  justice, and non-violence.

In the introduction to Infidel, Hirsi Ali says: “People ask me if I have some kind of death wish, to keep saying the things I do. The answer is no: I would like to keep living. However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice”.

Sister, I couldn’t agree more. May the realization that silence is not just an accomplice - but equal to the perpetration of injustice - be the defining ethos by which we lead our lives. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one atheist Muslims can certainly take a lesson from.

If that makes me an infidel - then so be it. I’ll take it as a compliment.

i dont appreciate how u have picturess with ur cleavage showing. this is haraaamm. while ur trying to promote islam u are also discouragin itt. pleasee delete them if u fear allah (subhanahu wa taala) and if u wear hijab CONSTANTLY it should never be taken off; so delete ur hair pics. im so sorry but im just trying to be a good muslim.. and if i dont have the guts to tell you then who will? im ean all these girls are commentin on ur pictures saying mashallah on ur CLEAVAGE? society has degrated. just tryina b a good muslim. al saalaamu aleikum, Reem

Raquel’s Response:

Assalamu Alaikum Reem,

First, please don’t apologize for your bluntness. Thank you for taking the time to write and for your good intentions. Bluntness, when it comes from a place of compassionate honesty, can be a truly healthy addition to communication. I sense from your line “just trying to be a good Muslim” that you are coming from what you believe to be a place of compassionate honesty. Thus, my willingness to respond. You apologized again in the latter half of your message- if you believe in your heart that what you are saying is your spiritual truth, then why apologize? For fear of offending me? Trust and believe, plenty of people have “the guts” to tell me what they think of my image!

However, sister, I must take issue with your demands that another person change her image based on your theological and spiritual assessment of what is and is not “good Islam”. I once believed that the hijab should be worn “all or nothing”- meaning worn absolutely all the time, or not at all. As I grew spiritually, I began to realize that this was based in cultural dogma and not a true relationship with God. Whether I veil or do not veil has become a conversation between my God and myself; not open to the expectations or demands of other people. It *is* ok to be a multifaceted woman. 

Further, Reem, the cultural specifications set up around hijab are not Qur’anically based. For example, Qur’an 24:31 leaves room for interpretation: “that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof”.  What must “ordinarily appear”? Does this vary based on the cultural norms of a particular geographical region or society? Saudi Arabia and Rio de Janeiro would, if we read this passage literally, have different measures of what “ordinarily appears” with regard to a woman’s body.

You say “society has degrated” - yes, society has done so with/to many things, but you didn’t say what you believe is degraded. Women? Yes. Women’s freedom to be at peace with their bodies, showing them when THEY wish? Yes- entirely degraded.

Long story short, Reem, I have no shame about my image, am completely at peace with my God (and I believe He smiles upon me, hijab or no hijab). To state that a photographic exploration of the feminine, and of the self, somehow “discourages Islam” is ludicrous. To be at peace with a pluralistic existence that is more deeply spiritual than any dogmatic, literalist life could be? I think that is the purest, bravest expression of faith.