Why don't feminists fight for Muslim women?

Havana Moon said:
You're a very naive man, watch this video and see what the scale of the problem really is. These are young men in Jordan, which is generally not considered to be especially fundamentalist unlike Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

They aren't interested, Tom. They're only here to derail a thread that exposes their hypocrisy.
 
Havana Moon said:
That is a British Muslim woman railing against the evils of burqas and niqabs, didn't you read the Spectator article? She also castigated Western liberals for being useful idiots. You obviously didn't read Boris Johnson's speech, many of his critics didn't either, where he was saying that he was against a Danish type ban in the UK.

Can somebody, who is for the wearing of these oppressive garments, tell me why they are right whilst countries like Holland, Belgium, Italy, France, Austria and now Denmark are wrong? I can honestly say that I had never seen women in the UK wearing those garments until a few years ago, why is that? I

Taj Harvey, a leading British imam has gone much further than Boris on the subject!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...er-burka-comments_uk_5b6bf966e4b0530743c71456
Click to expand...

I not only read the article, I posted a quote from it. And I agree with this. "Literal interpretations of the veil, derived largely by Muslims ignorant of the true dictates of our own religion, are derived from cultural misogyny. Thus, with their bans on the niqab, neither France, nor Germany nor Denmark are impinging on religious freedom. Instead they are legislating anti-democratic cultural mores that do indeed repress women living within their societies."

I heard BJ's "pillarbox" comment. AFAIC fat and ugly Boris Johnson has no business criticizing any woman for her choice in clothing. That aside, the Huffpo article says "Boris Johnson Defended By Leading Imam Over Burka Comments." This imam and his fellow imams should work together to stop the "cultural misogyny" that's behind the burqa and the niqab. Why aren't they?

You and I aren't looking at this from the same perspective. IMO everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, needs to keep their mouths shut about what women should or shouldn't wear. I doubt Boris is crusading about the clothing of nuns, Indians, Buddhists or other religious orders. People like him are just hiding their fear or hatred of Muslims with a clothing excuse.

I myself wouldn't wear a burqa, niqab or nun garb. If women want to, it's their decision. Apparently BJ thinks every Muslim woman is against that clothing and is in silent rebellion. I don't.
 
christiefan915 said:
I not only read the article, I posted a quote from it. And I agree with this. "Literal interpretations of the veil, derived largely by Muslims ignorant of the true dictates of our own religion, are derived from cultural misogyny. Thus, with their bans on the niqab, neither France, nor Germany nor Denmark are impinging on religious freedom. Instead they are legislating anti-democratic cultural mores that do indeed repress women living within their societies."

I heard BJ's "pillarbox" comment. AFAIC fat and ugly Boris Johnson has no business criticizing any woman for her choice in clothing. That aside, the Huffpo article says "Boris Johnson Defended By Leading Imam Over Burka Comments." This imam and his fellow imams should work together to stop the "cultural misogyny" that's behind the burqa and the niqab. Why aren't they?

You and I aren't looking at this from the same perspective. IMO everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, needs to keep their mouths shut about what women should or shouldn't wear. I doubt Boris is crusading about the clothing of nuns, Indians, Buddhists or other religious orders. People like him are just hiding their fear or hatred of Muslims with a clothing excuse.

I myself wouldn't wear a burqa, niqab or nun garb. If women want to, it's their decision. Apparently BJ thinks every Muslim woman is against that clothing and is in silent rebellion. I don't.
Click to expand...

What seems to have been lost here is that Boris was actually defending their right to wear burqas and niqabs. I don't agree with you about cultural misogyny, in fact the opposite is true. It is Muslim men who force women to wear these oppressive garments that are the misogynists. This is a recent phenomenon in the West, it has absolutely no grounding in Islam, is entirely political and all about cocking a snook at Western values. Ask yourself why Denmark, one of the most liberal societies in the world, has banned the burqa? It's simple enough, they want to stop the ghettoisation of Muslim women and their children. They are 100% for integration into Danish society, and not being marginalised and cut off from the rest of society. I recommend you read this excellent article about the problems in Denmark, it is extremely insightful in my humble opinion.


Denmark has long been proud of its reputation as a liberal, tolerant nation. But the fact that it has been forced to introduce tough laws to accelerate integration of migrants shows such tolerance has its limits.

Inevitably, some say the new laws are ‘racist’. They include a burka ban from next month, with fines of up to £1,200 for repeat transgressors. In the inner-city ghettos — where last year two thirds of residents were non-Western immigrants — there will be double the normal penalties for those who commit crimes.

Police will be given the freedom to conduct more intense surveillance of residents in order to curb extremism and violence, while migrant parents who send older children on trips back to their home countries in the Middle East and Africa could face four-year jail sentences if suspected of radicalisation.

The centre-Right Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, says these new laws are necessary because the number of first and second-generation non-Western immigrants has grown from 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today — a sizeable proportion, in a country of only 5.7 million people. Rasmussen has said: ‘People with the same problems have clumped together. We have (until now) let it go, perhaps with the naive idea that integration would happen on its own over time ... but it hasn’t.’
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pite-one-Europes-proudly-liberal-nations.html
 
Last edited:
Jack said:
It's probably like Chinese women that love binding their feet. Or, like women loving to get female circumcision.
Click to expand...

Very good analogy, and very true. Never been able to understand why feminists defend the wearing of oppressive garments that completely cover the face. To my mind it is part of the discredited multiculturalist philosophy which only succeeds in creating ghettos. Denmark has recognised this, hopefully before it is too late, and is now compelling Muslims to integrate into Danish society not live in a hermetically sealed environment where extremists have free rein. Why don't people understand the difference between multiculturalism and multiethnicity?
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
Very good analogy, and very true. Never been able to understand why feminists defend the wearing of oppressive garments that completely cover the face. To my mind it is part of the discredited multiculturalist philosophy which only succeeds in creating ghettos. Denmark has recognised this, hopefully before it is too late, and is now compelling Muslims to integrate into Danish society not live in a hermetically sealed environment where extremists have free rein. Why don't people understand the difference between multiculturalism and multiethnicity?
Click to expand...

The PC Fascists live in their own world. There's a Politically Correct Handbook they must all follow.

The video you posted with Ayaan Hirsi Ali sums it up pretty well.

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali: ‘FGM was done to me at the age of five. Ten years later, even 20... I would not have testified against my parents’ "
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyl...s-later-even-20-i-would-not-have-8534299.html
 
Jack said:
The PC Fascists live in their own world. There's a Politically Correct Handbook they must all follow.

The video you posted with Ayaan Hirsi Ali sums it up pretty well.

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali: ‘FGM was done to me at the age of five. Ten years later, even 20... I would not have testified against my parents’ "
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyl...s-later-even-20-i-would-not-have-8534299.html
Click to expand...

This is what a British Muslim woman Quanta Ahmed has to say on the subject! Why don't people listen to her rather than bullshit from third wave feminists? She knows what is really going on, she is a Muslim and knows the mentality of Islamists.

As a Muslim woman observing Islam, I am fully supportive of Boris Johnson’s rejection of the niqab. And I wonder how many of the former Foreign Secretary’s critics understand my religion, what this form of dress represents and the subjugation it implies. To defend the niqab and to defend Muslim women are, I can assure you, two very different things indeed.

Growing up Muslim in Britain, not once was I compelled to cover my hair. This changed when I moved to Saudi Arabia to practice medicine. Arriving in the Kingdom, by Saudi Arabia’s Sharia law, I could not go out into public without concealing my entire body, save face and hands, in a flowing, black abayya. This was my first experience of enforced veiling. And my last.

But even there, in the pre-9/11 Saudi Kingdom, the epicenter of Islam, the niqab (which covers most of the face) was not adopted by most women. Only the ultra-orthodox ones following Wahabisim or, perhaps, tribal Bedouins. And even these women, the most rural Bedouin women I treated while working there as a doctor, bore serious facial sun damage and tribal tattoos to their faces – indicating their faces were not veiled from sight or light for whole lifetimes.

Twenty years later, while Saudi Arabia is itself liberalizing, the niqab is increasingly adopted by Muslim women living in the West, often as an anti-Western pro-Islamist political statement opposing secularism. For this reason, Denmark has legalized the ban on the niqab – a move I strongly supported in Denmark’s leading newspaper Politiken. Women wearing a niqab in public in Denmark are now in violation of the law and can be forcibly removed from the public space. Most commendably, Danish law now prosecutes any individual compelling a Muslim woman or girl to wear the niqab.
This ban follows other bans on the niqab first initiated in 2011 by then French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel in December 2016 supported legalizing a niqab ban ‘by all means’. In Bavaria, the full-face veil is now legally banned. Austria followed suit in January 2017. Belgium has had a full-face veil ban in effect since 2011. We can expect more European states to follow suit.

When Boris Johnson mocks the niqab, he is emphatically not mocking Muslim women because – and this is a point that we Muslims seem to be unable to get across to non-Muslims – there is no basis in Islam for the niqab. Claiming otherwise is a profound distortion of Islamic belief. That’s why Muslim nations are themselves regulating and banning the niqab and burqa – as in both Morocco and Turkey where these coverings are seen as an invasion of Salafist affinities and a risk to national security and societal integrity.

My religion certainly does mandate modesty. In the early Islamic period, the word khimar, ‘veil,’ did not connote face or even head covering. In the Quran, Sura 24:31, the reference to ‘khimar’ reminds Muslim women of the need to ‘draw…[it] over their bosoms’ as integral to female modesty. Similarly, the verse of the veil commanded only the prophet Muhammad’s wives, to speak from behind a ‘hijab,’ meaning a curtain within the Prophet’s home (Quran Sura 33:53), their privacy being a mark of their high distinction.

Later traditions asserting khimar to specifically mean ‘niqab’ may have been fabricated. Records show Aisha – known to Muslims as the Mother of the Faithful in recognition of both her eminence among Prophet Muhammed’s wives as a great scholar and as the foremost teacher of early Muslims – provided great detail on the color and fabric of the khimars in her day. Aisha was known as the ‘One with Red Hair’ as the Prophet himself referred to her, suggesting her head and hair were uncovered in public. Nonetheless, no record exists as to how exactly khimars were worn and which parts of the body were to be covered with these elaborate cloths.

This convenient vacuum has allowed some to insert their own interpretation of veiling, for their own motives, including enforcing gender segregation and even gender apartheid, while also portraying Muslims in Europe as besieged by the false construct of Islamophobia which capitalizes on a false victimhood that so empowers Islamists as the persecuted darlings of blind liberalism. It is this blind liberalism that is now baying for Boris Johnson’s blood unaware that their indignation and calls of ‘Islamophobia’ do not protect Muslims but instead empower an Islamism that further dominates pluralist Islam.

Literal interpretations of the veil, derived largely by Muslims ignorant of the true dictates of our own religion, are derived from cultural misogyny. Thus, with their bans on the niqab, neither France, nor Germany nor Denmark are impinging on religious freedom. Instead they are legislating anti-democratic cultural mores that do indeed repress women living within their societies.

In the holiest sanctuary of Islam, in Mecca at the Ka’aba, facial covering is forbidden by Islam. There is no evidence in Islam that veiling of the face is either religious or required. In fact, it is actively discouraged at the time of a Muslim’s greatest act of religious devotion – during Hajj. Today the adoption of the full-face veil, particularly in the modern secular world is far worse than looking like a letterbox. It’s both a symbol of cultural misogyny and a political marker for Islamist sympathies. The detractors of Mr Johnson would do better to consider their own role in marginalizing true, civil, pluralist Islam in favor of its anti-secular anti-democratic variant, Islamism.

The jihadis want to present their bizarre dress code as the face of Islam, and for that they need useful (non-Islamic) idiots in the West to help them do so. I will not be the only British Muslim woman who is thankful that Boris Johnson is not playing along.
Click to expand...

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/...hank-boris-johnson-for-calling-out-the-niqab/
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
What seems to have been lost here is that Boris was actually defending their right to wear burqas and niqabs. I don't agree with you about cultural misogyny, in fact the opposite is true. It is Muslim men who force women to wear these oppressive garments that are the misogynists. This is a recent phenomenon in the West, it has absolutely no grounding in Islam, is entirely political and all about cocking a snook at Western values. Ask yourself why Denmark, one of the most liberal societies in the world, has banned the burqa? It's simple enough, they want to stop the ghettoisation of Muslim women and their children. They are 100% for integration into Danish society, and not being marginalised and cut off from the rest of society. I recommend you read this excellent article about the problems in Denmark, it is extremely insightful in my humble opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pite-one-Europes-proudly-liberal-nations.html
Click to expand...

^ This is exactly what I think. And it appears Denmark has the same backward fears, i.e. "protecting Danishness", that the US has about Hispanics becoming a majority by some future date.

Read the link... it's a good article. I guess the bottom line for me is why are people making the burqa the focus of all their anxieties.
 
Havana Moon said:
Very good analogy, and very true. Never been able to understand why feminists defend the wearing of oppressive garments that completely cover the face. To my mind it is part of the discredited multiculturalist philosophy which only succeeds in creating ghettos. Denmark has recognised this, hopefully before it is too late, and is now compelling Muslims to integrate into Danish society not live in a hermetically sealed environment where extremists have free rein. Why don't people understand the difference between multiculturalism and multiethnicity?
Click to expand...

It's not a good analogy. Forcing children to have painful and permanent disfigurement is not the same as wearing a body-covering garment.
 
Havana Moon said:
This is what a British Muslim woman Quanta Ahmed has to say on the subject! Why don't people listen to her rather than bullshit from third wave feminists? She knows what is really going on, she is a Muslim and knows the mentality of Islamists.



https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/...hank-boris-johnson-for-calling-out-the-niqab/
Click to expand...

Oh Havana, you so miss the point. It's about 'diversity', 'inclusion', 'acceptance', 'culture', and 'tradition'. If a group of people came to the West and started throwing Virgins into volcanoes and you objected, the PC Fascists would chastise you for your ignorance into local customs and, because you're a racist scumbag and bigot, would (A) cut your tongue out for daring to speak and (B) send you to a Re-Education Camp.
 
Legion said:
6gtokth0egf11.jpg
Click to expand...


The first one looks like an idiot. The second one ... looks kinda' hot.
 
christiefan915 said:
And it appears Denmark has the same backward fears, i.e. "protecting Danishness", that the US has about Hispanics becoming a majority by some future date.
Click to expand...

Except that there is no "backward fear about Hispanics becoming a majority" in the US, is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top