Hirsi Ali

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Hirsi Ali begins by asking the reader a supposedly innocent question: “Will Saudi Arabia Free Its Women?” Implicit in the framing of the question is the notion that freedom is something granted not something fought for. For Hirsi Ali, the advent of freedom for Muslim women, whatever that might mean, would not be a transaction but instead a gift from those in power. Subtly undermining the agency of Muslim women, she continues by bluntly stating that “Saudi women do not have freedom of movement” pointing to the existing guardianship laws on the peninsula. (These laws prohibit adult women from Saudi Arabia from traveling, marrying, working, or accessing healthcare without obtaining permission from a male guardian.) This description refuses to engage with nuance in multiple ways. First, it presumes that Saudi identity only applies to women living within Saudi Arabia. Obviously, Saudi women live and exist transnationally, with

Notably, in Hirsi Ali’s political proposal, in which Muslim women are liberated from undoubtedly oppressive policies, agency is granted to nearly everyone but Muslim women themselves. Hirsi Ali begins by critiquing the organizers of the Women’s March for not raising their voices “on behalf of [Muslim] women with no recourse to protect their rights.” This short succinct phrase is loaded with a series of dangerous implications. First, by describing Muslim women as people with “no recourse” to protect or fight for their rights, Hirsi Ali strongly implies that Muslim women are helpless. Second, her call for western women to act “on behalf” of Muslim women, not only removes the agency of Muslim women, but implies that western-centric solutions are the only