Last year, the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement’s rejection of the hijab presented an ideological quandary: Is the hijab feminist or a tool of oppression? In the case of Iran, it’s not that simple.
Compassion in the face of violence is difficult. In America, where police brutality and violent punishment are deeply ingrained within the justice system, it...
In its continuing crackdown, the Islamic Republic is playing with fire, and its ideological foundation can hardly stand up to the force of the new generation.
To many Sudanese people around the world, these past seven months have felt like a nightmare: an unending series of loss, sadness, violence, grief, heartbreak, and sorrow. Over 10,000 people have been killed and more than 5 million people have been internally displaced.
To free ourselves from the shackles of this perpetual pain, we must change the way we talk about the conflict. We need to reckon with the reality that two things can be true at once.
The killing of civilians, whether in Israel, in Gaza, or anywhere else in the world is an unfathomable tragedy, an indefensible crime. In failing to acknowledge this entirely, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, and all who stood by their statement, showed a disregard for the most fundamental principles of human rights.
Nationalist efforts have traveled far from the Indian mainland from which they originated, extending their influence into diasporic communities. This trend can be discerned through the emergence of a term that has become increasingly recognizable in the United States — “Hinduphobia.”
On the morning of June 27, Nahel Merzouk, 17 years old, was killed by a police officer in the Parisian suburb of Nanterre. In the following weeks, France was burning. What went wrong?
