Raymond Ibrahim: Parallel Betrayals -- Iranian Revolution and Arab Spring

Over at FrontPage Magazine (via RaymondIbrahim.com), I discuss the parallel histories -- the parallel lies -- of 1979 Iran and 2012 Egypt, in the context of the hijab:

Many are the lessons to be learned between the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the current revolutions of the Arab world.

Consider the issue of the hijab, the female "veil"—the proliferation of which, according to one former Islamist and associate of al-Qaeda's Ayman Zawahiri, is associated with a Muslim society's downward spiral into oppression and terror.

Prior to Egypt's presidential elections, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Muhammad Morsi, assured the nation's liberals and secularists that, as president, he would certainly not enforce the hijab: "Many people are speaking nonsense, saying that I will impose the hijab against the will of the people; no one is going to force anyone to wear a specific uniform."

These are famous words, spoken almost verbatim some 33 years earlier, in Iran, at the time of the 1979 revolution. In fact, during the early days of the revolution, Ayatollah Mahmud Taleghani, a popular mullah, to reassure the secularists who participated in the overthrow of the Shah that an Islamic government would certainly not interfere with their freedoms, declared in the March 11, 1979 edition of Iran's newspaper, Ettela'at, that "The hijab will not be a matter of coercion."

The rest is history. Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed, female government workers were made to wear the hijab, women were barred from becoming judges, sex-segregation laws were promulgated, the marriage age for girls was dropped to 13, and married women were barred from attending regular schools. Today, Iranian women are regularly beaten if they are not dressed in appropriate hijab.

The parallels between Iran and Egypt do not end there....

Continue reading to see how.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

56 Comments

| Leave a comment

John C. Barile | June 18, 2012 11:08 AM | Reply

Barack Hussein has doubled-down on every feckless policy of appeasing enemies and abandoning friends--Obama is more like Jimmy Carter than Jimmy Carter!

Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 1:14 PM | Reply

Raymond,

Maybe you are not old enough to see it having happened in front of you with your own eyes, but there has been no "mandatory sharia enforecement" of Hijab in Egypt since the 1953 "laughing and ridicule" incident

All upon their own the sisters in Egypt have come to the obvious conclusion and are deciding on their own to empower themselves and uplift the Egyptian society.

There is no laughter and ridicule except coming from the ignorant and the shameless...in arrogance some think that lack of shame is a "modern" trait to be respected.

By the way, Naser isn't laughing or ridiculing now, is he?

miriam rove replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 1:39 PM | Reply

did you get my message earlier or do I need to repeat myself.
M

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from miriam rove | June 18, 2012 1:48 PM | Reply

You are entertained by the wit of your own posts...who am I to deny you? Post again.

Domenick replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 2:15 PM | Reply

"The sisters have come to the obvious conclusion"

Well, It's not obvious to me. Please explain in specific terms, how they came to that conclusion, how it empowers them, how it will lift Egyptian society and why you think women who don't wear the hijab, are arrogent and should be ashamed, like the rest of earth's inhabitants.

Please do explain.

Kinana of Khaybar | June 18, 2012 3:11 PM | Reply

Belgium: Muslima wearing a niqab, who head-butted a police officer, with ensuing Islamic mayhem, 150 Muslims surround police station
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2145/Meanwhile-Back-in-Molenbeek.aspx

Kinana of Khaybar replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 3:13 PM | Reply

Keymelon,

You didn't answer my questions. They're easy.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/raymond-ibrahim-islamic-terror-vs-norway-massacre---chicken-or-egg.html#comment-885999

Evi L. Bloggerlady | June 18, 2012 3:46 PM | Reply

How's that Arab Spring turning out for you?

I guess that means no tabouli in Egypt (that's okay, it is only good in Lebanon anyway).

DefenderofIslam | June 18, 2012 4:59 PM | Reply

You people are reading too much into this Egypt in 2012 isnot Iran in 1979.First they are arab not persian. The Egyptian women have than history of dressing modestly.

George | June 18, 2012 5:53 PM | Reply

I live in a small /mid-size city and have been here for a little over 12 years. In that time I've not seen anyone whom I could positively indentify as a muslim. Fast-forward to my trip to the supermarket today. And, there she was--the full Monty--a walking Hefty Bag with eyes. Though I've seen this abonination (Obamanation?) before in big cities, this is a first for this little burg. Several thoughts occurred:

Since where there's one muslim, there are usually a LOT more...have they "discovered" our little outpost of civilization?

The reliable thermometer in my car registered 103 degrees in the parking lot. Wonder how that feels under that ugly--and it was BLACK, no less--tent?

It was a busy time in the store and lots of women were shopping. Though these women were for dressed for the heat, none of them looked gauche or in bad taste. You could certainly tell they were women--I see no reason for them to be ashamed of that! The only person in bad taste was the muslima. Apparently, she's ashamed to reveal her gender?

If it were necessary, how could anyone indentify this "person" inside the trash-bag? How do we even know it's a "she?" She could've knocked the joint over & nobody would've known who she was.

Fortunately, I was able to register my disgust at this offensive display without a word. But I'm certain she got the message conveyed by my look of total disdain, which I made no attempt to hide (when she saw that, she turned away (perfectly appropriate, I think, for her to be embarrassed).

I sincerely hope I don't see much more of this. Our town has its problems--like every city--but it's still a pretty good place to live (retains some "old-fashioned" charm and pleasantness). The last thing we need is a hoarde of muslims descending on us. And the last thing I'm going to do is to make them feel in any way accepted or welcome here...

dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 5:55 PM | Reply

For newcomers to this site, who hear the mohammedan dementors claiming that the Mohammedan female Slave Rag is about 'modesty' and 'shame' (which means, by implication, that they regard ALL non-Muslim women, ALL women who do not cover everything except face and hands, or indeed, who do not in addition cover their head hair, or who do not in addition cover their whole face except their eyes, or except one eye, or who do not go the whole hog and render even the eyes invisible behind a mesh or screen): know that in the crazed Mohammedan mindset, a woman's body - her *entire* body, including in the most extreme cases even her feet and ankles, hands and wrists, her face and eyes - is nothing but a gigantic naked c**t.

Where in all other sane societies that exist on planet earth a woman's pudendum is her pudendum, and her face is her face, and her back, her legs and arms, and in some societes even her bosom may be bared without the woman being regarded as in any way immodest, these **madmen** look at a whole woman and see ...**nothing but c**t.

It doesn't matter whether she's a pop tart in shorts and halterneck, a Brazilian beach beauty in bikini, an amishwoman wearing her little lace cap, a soccer mum in jeans and t-shirt with ponytail, an athlete in a baggy tracksuit, or a nice frum girl or nun in sensible skirt and shirt; or a lawyer, doctor or business executive dressed for work; if she's not wearing the Mohammedan Female Slave Rag, she is not a Mohammedan Gang Moll, and therefore she is by definition a whore, shameless,'immodest', exposed NAKED C**T. And any Mohammedan male who so chooses can, if he thinks he can get away with it, grab her and rape her and make her a 'possession of the right hand'...**irrespective of whether she is wearing a wedding ring or not**, and irrespective of whether she is six, seven, twelve, fifteen or thirty.

Madness.

Stupidity.

And vile as hell.

the Mohammedan Slave Rag is not about 'modesty' at all.

It's about marking a woman as a Mohammedan Gang Moll; and by extension classifying *all other women* as Prey Items.

A Mohammedan female who reduces the extent to which she wears the Slave Rag, or who chooses to not wear it at all, defines herself as a rebel against the Sharia order; and Mohammedan males will then wage Jihad against her, exactly as if she were a dirty kuffar c**t.

Aqsa Parvez, in Canada, who defied the sharia order of things by refusing to wear the headscarf version of the Slave Rag, was strangled to death by her Mohammedan father, as punishment for her perceived insubordination.

I hate the Slave Rag.

It is the functional equivalent of the black flag of Jihad.

To me, it represents vileness, the mentality of a human gestalt that desires and intends to dominate and domineer over other human beings: it is like the KKK hood and robe, or the SS or Gestapo uniform, the swastika or the deathshead badge. It also codifies the extremely unhealthy and destructive master-slave relationship that obtains between Mohammedan males and Mohammedan females.

When I, a free western christian woman, walking through the shopping centre with my hair uncovered, in perfectly normal and decent western street dress, see a Mohammedan female strutting toward me in the Slave Rag, I feel the same chill down the back as a Jewish or native French girl in occupied France would have felt upon seeing someone in Nazi uniform approaching.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 6:00 PM | Reply

Pursuant to my posting above, a small addition.

I left something out when I wrote the following "(which means, by implication, that they regard ALL non-Muslim women, ALL women who do not cover everything except face and hands, or indeed, who do not in addition cover their head hair, or who do not in addition cover their whole face except their eyes, or except one eye, or who do not go the whole hog and render even the eyes invisible behind a mesh or screen)".

I meant to write: "(which means, by implication, that they regard ALL non-Muslim women - ALL women who do not cover everything except face and hands, or indeed, who do not in addition cover their head hair, or who do not in addition cover their whole face except their eyes, or except one eye, or who do not go the whole hog and render even the eyes invisible behind a mesh or screen - as 'immodest' and 'shameless')".

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Kinana of Khaybar | June 18, 2012 6:03 PM | Reply

Quid pro quo... do you really want to know, or do you just want to throw jabs?

I am game either way.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 6:07 PM | Reply

What did Mary Mother of Jesus wear?

Answer that...then give me your smart ass retort.

Who is it that you really love, honor, respect, and follow?

God knows you...

Trust me...

God knows you.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Kinana of Khaybar | June 18, 2012 6:15 PM | Reply

And your point is?

One in 900,000,000 is apt to crack now and then...who can say?

Maybe it was that 28th day and this woman had enough of your male dominant crap to deal with on a monday...Who can blame her?

Lets be scientific, instead of emotional, shall we daery? Hike up your skirt, this may challenge you.

It would take 45,000 "psycho bitch" incidences just like this one single isolated event before you could say with any scientific accuracy that,

"Islam and modesty of dress negatively affects human interaction between the female of the species and others."

Man, pound sand with your tricks and you bullshit media...the only crowd you will fool is the simple minded idiots here.

dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 6:18 PM | Reply

A useful article about the real meaning and function of the Slave Rag.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

Outlaw the hijab
N. Maruani
07/08/2009 20:54

The author is discussing and summarising the writings of an Iranian-French dissident, one Chahdortt Djavann, who has written a good deal about the 'veil', the Mohammedan coverup of women, whether of hair and body, or of face and even of eyes.

Excerpts (but read the whole thing):

" [Djavann] She writes that the veil cannot be presented as a personal choice, disregarding centuries of Islamic history.

'She adds that it is inappropriate to probe the motivations of every young girl wearing the veil when what is at stake is a political agenda.

'Djavann explains further: "The veil has never been innocent or innocuous. It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries." ...

'ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda: "The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance... If this weren't the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?... It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law."

'...Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system."'

And a further very interesting point:

'As the Islamist system covers women's heads, it only sees them as genitals, Djavann argues. Hence she calls the veil "pornographic on the symbolic level"'.

More information and analysis in *this* article (I hope the link still works)

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=118F9624-B318-4C86-AA6F-BBAC6D0289FA

Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab
By Frontpagemag.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 25, 2008

Nancy Kobrin, psychologist, observes:

"The veil is about control/domination vis-à-vis submission of the female and her subjugation.
The headscarf is the beginning of the slippery slope of subjugation that slides into the burqa and/or the niqab. "

And Nonie Darwish, ex-Muslim, who was raised in Islamic Egypt, and speaks fluent Arabic:

Darwish:
"A woman’s body according to several Islamic hadith is Awrah, Arabic for pudendum, the external genitals and a thing to be ashamed of, especially of the female."

Another symposium on the same disturbing subject -

'To Rape an Unveiled Woman'.

FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, March 07, 2006
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5347

The Mohammedan female Slave Rag is the polar opposite of anything we would recognise as modesty and decency.

At a profound level, it represents a system of **INdecency**; a system that is obscene, cruel, violent and degrading of both women *and* men.

dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 6:39 PM | Reply

Observe the Mohammedan dementor above deploying what he hopes will be a 'gotcha' argument: he is claiming - BTW on no shred of historical evidence whatsoever - that Mary Mother of Jesus wore the Islamic hijab. And he is therefore trying to argue that Christian women, like myself, should knuckle under and wear the abominable Slave Rag. Like she did, so he says...

ROFLMAO.

Of course, it's most likely that he doesn't actually care two hoots about objective historical fact, so challenging him on that basis is probably a waste of time. It was just a cheap shot, like chucking a handful of sand...or a handful of dung.

but for the benefit of any rational non-Muslims out there who might have been momentarily confused. I very, very much doubt that first-century Jewish peasant women like Miriam of Nazareth wore anything at all resembling the burqa, the niqab, or even the Mohammedan headbag that obsessively conceals every single strand of hair. Modern orthodox Jewish women wear headscarves but they don't obsessively cover like Mohammedans do, and their men don't 'honor' murder them. Jews don't equate a woman's head, or her face, with her pudendum; they don't go in for that kind of bizarre nonsense.

And in any case, that devout Torah-studying Jew Yeshua of Nazareth did not in any way rebuke the woman - a stranger, not related to him in kinship - who came up to him in a public gathering and fell at his feet and wept all over them and then **wiped his feet with her hair**.

So loose uncovered hair of a woman, in a public gathering, seems not to have bothered him at all.

All he said was to **commend her** for her faith.

He also commended for her faith the desperate woman, ritually unclean because of ongoing menstrual problems, who came up to him and touched his garment, and was healed.

So the Mohammedtroll can bullshit all he likes, nobody here is interested.

George replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 6:55 PM | Reply

DDA,

Notice that with the voluminous information you've provided here...that this "Mensch" character has little but ad hominems to offer in response. And, like lots of trolls before him, he's arrogant and condescending--HE'S the smart one--we're all fools! Notice also, that rather than answers Kinana's question, he answers with--another question? If she weren't serious, whay would she ask? Who says muslims can't dance? Then he says he's "game." He's game, alright, like a deer in the headlights!

But, here's a great question, I think for our "superior" muslim friend. Why only women covered-up? It was 100 + degrees here today--so because I could, I stayed casual (and cool) in shorts and a t-shirt, sneakers, no socks. That means my arms and legs were entirely UNCOVERED! So, does that make me "fresh meat?" God, I HOPE so! Another little query would be just how does "Mensch" think we all got here? Men and women were designed differently...so we'd attract and procreate! The parts were engineered to mate! As humans, we can enjoy this biological attraction--at it's best--as deep and abiding love, a feeling of one-ness and equality and connectness like no other. Guess those qualities are not among islamic priorities?

You've done a great job to make sure no one (I'm thinking new readers here) is fooled by this reptile's bullshit and projection. Like islam itself, he's going nowhere here...

vladtepes2 | June 18, 2012 7:01 PM | Reply

"Consider the issue of the hijab"

The hijab is a weapon of war.
The point of the hijab is reproduction.
The point of the hijab is the population bomb, the demographic weapon.
The muslim is waging war against the West but it's not a traditional war of tanks and jets, it's a war of infiltration, and illegal immigration and out of control reproduction.
Once the virus of the muslim has penetrated the borders of the EU it begins to reproduce wildly, eventually overwhelming the native population.

The point of the hijab is not modesty or morality - it's reproduction.
The hijab is not some silly muslim stupidity from the dark ages, it's a very insidious and evil element in the totalitarian control of the whole world.

The hijab goes along with all the other barbaric muslim practices like lowering the age of marriage to thirteen, so the muslim woman can get a good headstart over her Western counterpart when it comes to producing babies.
And the muslim crime of polygamy, if Mohammed Offs himself while trying to build an IED, no problem, his brother will make sure that his wife will still meet her baby quota, he'll just add his sister-in-law to his harem.

Islam means submission, it's all about submission.
The hijab is the mark of submission of muslim women to muslim men just as the yellow star was the mark of the submission of the Jew to the Muslim conquerer.
The hijab shows a muslim woman her place.
Her place is to produce more muslim martyrs.
Along with the restriction on the mode of dress to the hijab go all the other restrictions on muslim women.
No driving in Saudi Arabia, no going out on the street without a male relative babysitter.
No working outside the home, no career, no independence, nothing to distract the woman from her primary responsibility to produce more martyrs with which to conquer the clueless Christian and Jew.

And the irony of the Islamic population bomb is that it was made possible by Western Civilization itself.
Without modern Western medicine and technology, which the muslim has only because he happened to be grazing his camels on an ocean of oil, the population of the muslim would still be stuck at stone age numbers, like the Australian aborigine who had no oil.
It was the West that allowed the muslim population to explode.
Truly, Western Civilization contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

vladtepes2 | June 18, 2012 7:07 PM | Reply

"Consider the issue of the hijab"

The hijab is the orange jumpsuit of the muslim world.
The muslim woman and the Western convict are both prisoners.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 8:43 PM | Reply

Dumbledoorsarmy,

Sorry, I mistook you for a person of Christian background and upbrigning who might have understood the simplest thing about her own religion.

Sorry I was wrong, I apologize.

Mary Mother of Jesus is depicted in every single graphic representation as she was, in modest dress with hair covered and clothed to the wrist and well over her ankle a trailing robe.

Maybe you never paid attention, but I have, keenly. And her Son, Jesus, has described the believing woman as such in Cronthians 1:11 (paraphrased) "If the woman worships let her head becovered, if she be not covered let her be shorn ( as in the punishment for a whore )"

Go look it up and take issue with it, not the bearer of the message.

As I said, God knows you...

Take up your issues with God, not the bearer of the message.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from vladtepes2 | June 18, 2012 8:45 PM | Reply

Yeah you pretty much lost any human being with a brain at "consider"

vladtepes2 replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 9:11 PM | Reply

It's mandatory that the muslim give up logic, rational thought, truth and objectivity when he accepts Islam.
It's the difference between Western Civilization and the magical, nightmarish, fairytale thinking of Islam.
It's in the Koran.
Read "The Closing of the Muslim Mind" by Robert R. Reilly.
Therefore we in the West should not expect logic, rational thought, truth or objectivity from the muslim and we should not be surprised or disappointed when he fails to display any these Western qualities.

liberty.or.death replied to comment from vladtepes2 | June 18, 2012 9:16 PM | Reply

Please add this one to the list to consider -

**Wherever there is a hijab-totting muslimah, there are hijab-enforcers nearby.**

I read it right here at JW a couple of months ago.

Mary J replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 9:19 PM | Reply

Images of the Virgin Mary are individual artist's interpretations of what a woman of that time and place might have worn, they follow certain conventions but there is a large variety of images of Mary from cultures all over the world. Usually her hair is not completely covered, her parted hair shows at the crown and then is flowing on her shoulders. Often one of her breasts is bared as she nurses the Baby Jesus. She is in awe and humble but never ashamed.

The passage from Paul that you (incorrectly, it's 1 Corinthians 11:6) cite, refers to whether or not women should cover their heads during prayer, not everyday activities. And the "as punishment for a whore" line isn't there, you made that part up, and it says everything about how ugly your mind is.

Mary J replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 9:24 PM | Reply

Thank you for all your brilliant posts on this topic!

gravenimage | June 18, 2012 10:21 PM | Reply

Raymond Ibrahim: Parallel Betrayals -- Iranian Revolution and Arab Spring

Many are the lessons to be learned between the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the current revolutions of the Arab world.
....................................

Very, very true—and the Hijab is not the only issue.

You can argue that both the protests against the Shah and the "Arab Spring" was begun by Liberals and Leftists.

We have seen how these secularists were first sidelined, then arrested, then liquidated by the Islamic state in Iran.

So far, the "Arab Spring"—the revolution—is following almost the identical path in Egypt. Liberals and Leftists have been sidelined and harassed.

Also, in both cases "Islamists" claimed early on that they had no intention of ruling. Then the Mullahs seized power in Iran, and crushed their former allies in the Tudeh Party.

The poor Leftists went to their deaths crying that they still supported the revolution.

Wael Ghomin, the face of the secular "Facebook Revolution", has been similarly sidelined. He was prevented from speaking in Tariri Square by an "Islamist" mob.

I hope Egypt doesn't become the next "Islamic Republic"—but it looks more likely all the time...

Buraq replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 18, 2012 11:12 PM | Reply

You wrote, bizarrely: 'All upon their own the sisters in Egypt have come to the obvious conclusion and are deciding on their own to empower themselves and uplift the Egyptian society.'

So, the 'sisters' could also decide 'all upon their own' to take off the hijab if they wanted, right? Then why is it that when a woman in an Islamic society decides NOT to wear a hijab she is ridiculed by Muslim men, or worse, sexually assaulted?

Because it is Islamic, that's why! And there are millions of Muslim men who would agree with me and disagree with you!

dumbledoresarmy | June 18, 2012 11:36 PM | Reply

Nothing that looks like a hijab on the Madonna in this painting.

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/26/2670/OJ9UD00Z/art-print/stefan-lochner-madonna-in-the-rose-garden.jpg

Our Lady of Guadalupe.

One can see her hair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Virgen_de_guadalupe1.jpg

Mary at the Annunciation, as depicted by Fra Angelico.

Again, one can quite clearly see her hair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fra_Angelico_049.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fra_Angelico_046.jpg

Da Vinci, the Madonna of the Rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Virgen_de_las_Rocas_(Museo_del_Louvre,_c._1480).jpg

The representations of Mary - of the Jewish woman Miriam of Nazareth - in western art are not fixed at all. As conventions of women's dress changed over time, representations of Mary changed also.

Rubens: Adoration of the Magi. Again, Mary's hair is clearly visible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_009.jpg

gerard replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 5:42 AM | Reply

"mandatory sharia enforcement"
Melonhead, this will happen under MB.
Don't you just get tired of having to explain everything to mussies?

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Mary J | June 19, 2012 6:01 AM | Reply

I appreciate the correction, yes I ment 1 Corinthians 11, not Corinthians 1:11..not my book, sorry.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble, and teach you something you did not know of your own religion, and note the finger you point at me as "line isn't there, you made that part up, and it says everything about how ugly your mind is." it I was discussing things beyond your knowledge, again, sorry I assumed you knew or should have known:

Let's cover it in a bit more detail, shall we?

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible: “…among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonor her head - her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.”

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-5.htm

And here we see the resurgence of the Western Religiously based practice of shaming the whore by shaving her head:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/05/women-victims-d-day-landings-second-world-war

“The punishment of shaving a woman's head had biblical origins. In Europe, the practice dated back to the dark ages, with the Visigoths. During the middle ages, this mark of shame, denuding a woman of what was supposed to be her most seductive feature, was commonly a punishment for adultery.”

Furthermore:

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." - Deuteronomy 23:17-18

************************************************************

Now perhaps as you are pointing at me you should consider the three fingers on your own hand pointing back at you.

My mind and heart are clean and my inentions pure.

Study your own religion before you attempt to comment on someone elses, and, more importantly, study the religion you are going to comment on BEFORE you comment on it.

Woman With Shaved head = Biblical Punishment for Whoredom, Adultry, Prostitution.

1 Corinthians 11:6

“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or “shaven, let her be covered.

Don't shoot the messenger when you get news you don't like...focus on the message and get with the program you claim to belong to.

LemonLime replied to comment from vladtepes2 | June 19, 2012 7:27 AM | Reply

"The muslim is waging war against the West but it's not a traditional war of tanks and jets, it's a war of infiltration, and illegal immigration and out of control reproduction."

You're half right -- but this stealth war necessarily includese violence. And it is entirely reasonable to assume this necessary ingredient of violence is going to escalate.

If this stealth war did not include violence, I would not be anti-Muslim. I would tolerate their presence in our societies, however otherwise objectionable or repellant I may find some of their beliefs and behaviors.

Mary J replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 8:33 AM | Reply

Sorry but you didn't "Burst my bubble and teach me something I don't know". You are also making assumptions about what religious beliefs I hold. I am well aware that shaving a woman's head has been a punishment since ancient times. Like the hijab, the niqab and the burqa it has been used to "put women in their place." It's just that that is not what St. Paul is saying here and the point remains that this is his answer to whether women need to wear a veil when praying. Not all early Christians were originally Jews, some were pagans, with different traditions. Here is writing to the Greeks in Corinth.

We've all heard this argument of trying to make an equivalence between the hijab and Mary's veil and it's just a distraction. As interesting as all this talk may be from a historical and anthropological perspective, it doesn't really matter if Mary wore a veil 2,000 years ago. It is not necessary to wear one in 2012. It is not a practical article of clothing, it is a sign of submission to religion, and to the men who feel the need to "put women in their place." Free women want no part of it, no matter which argument is used to rationalize it.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Mary J | June 19, 2012 9:13 AM | Reply

Mary J you wrote: "We've all heard this argument of trying to make an equivalence between the hijab and Mary's veil and it's just a distraction."

It is no distraction, it is a foundational element of monotheistic faith, modesty of dress, it is an order from God.

Mary Mother of Jesus was a Jew and a person of great honor and respect and, yes, she wore the "veil" "hijab" "habit"...whatever you call it, she was modest before God and thus man.

Mary J you wrote: "and to the men who feel the need to "put women in their place."

It is modesty and it is not opression...it is from God, an order in Judaism, an order in Christianity, an order in Islam.

What you do with it is your own business, if you reject it, fine, but you cannot say it is not a part of the monotheistic faith...some people today claim "modernity" and yet they degenerate to a time when humans were uncivilized and unclothed and blind to it calling it "modern.

Do you see how we circle back to a point I made in another thread about Human beings getting together and deciding on their own what was right and what was wrong? Yes, to those it changes with their mood and their culture and their perception of the flow of time.

There is no ancient and modern in respect to God, there is only God, whose religion is timeless and unchanged by the tongue or the heart of man.

"Free women want no part of it, no matter which argument is used to rationalize it."

Freedom of choice, that is what God gives us.

True freedom is better.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from vladtepes2 | June 19, 2012 9:28 AM | Reply

Ever been to an engineering firm? A doctor's office? An IT company? A university?

Yeah, I guess you got me there...yuk yuk...we Muslims sure aren't knowed very well fer our logics, is we?

gravenimage replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 9:31 AM | Reply

"Mensch Keymelon" wrote, replying to Dumbledore's Army:

Mary Mother of Jesus is depicted in every single graphic representation as she was, in modest dress with hair covered and clothed to the wrist and well over her ankle a trailing robe.

Maybe you never paid attention, but I have, keenly.
.........................................

Apparently not.

I see that Dumbledore's Army has already linked to a number of depictions of the Virgin Mary that completely contradict your meretricious assertion.

Here are a few more:

Here's Fra Filippo Lippi's Madonna delle Roccie:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MeWivNnj7XE/S0CEfb9bHvI/AAAAAAAABX8/RpZvJyyfPgY/s640/Filippo_Lippi_Madonna_delle_Roccie.jpg

Her "veil" here is more of an ornamental hair ribbon.

Here's Raphael's Small Cowper Madonna:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Raphael_-_The_small_Cowper_Madonna.jpg

Her "veil" here not only leaves most of her hair uncovered, but it is, in any case, so diaphanous that you can see her hair through it.

And here's Dürer's lovely "Madonna of the Rose Garlands", where not only is Mary's head bared, but her hair falls in glorious waves over her shoulder:

http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/month/jun00/pics.htm/rose.jpg

In all of these works, much of her décolletage is bare, as well—she is certainly not wearing a garment buttoned to her chin.

And in this painting by Jan Provoost, not only is Mary' head bare, but so is her breast:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/77/166034132_ee4fffdf50_z.jpg?zz=1

Deliberately, I only cited very famous depictions of Mary.

My mind and heart are clean and my inentions (sic) pure.
.........................................

Really! You could have fooled me...sarc/off

Mary | June 19, 2012 9:37 AM | Reply

The veil worn by women in the Bible was a symbol of her submission to the protection of her husband. Sarah was to call Abraham "lord," which in those times signified a seeking of and responsibility of the protection by the one in authority/power. The veil which Paul was speaking of was in reference to the married state of women (who were enjoying a new freedom in Christ), not some kind of literal enslavement via wearing a veil. The Bible is much more symbolic and parabolic than the Qur'an, which is primitively literal in meaning. The enforcement of the wearing of the hijab is the silencing and subjugating of women, in effect getting them out of the way of jihad and enslaving them to the whims of the Muslim male. One is a perversion of the other.

David Dowse replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 10:06 AM | Reply

You wrote:

"I appreciate the correction, yes I ment (sic) 1 Corinthians 11, not Corinthians 1:11..not my book, sorry."

But previously, on this thread, you wrote:

"Sorry, I mistook you for a person of Christian background and upbrigning who might have understood the simplest thing about her own religion."
______________________

And you lay out other, supremacist jabs, but argue like a fool yourself, even admitting your own stupidity, as above.

If you want to truly challenge a Catholic as to his beliefs, I'll take you on, smartass.

Let's go.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from David Dowse | June 19, 2012 12:13 PM | Reply

David,

Being appreciative of a correction is some how "supremacist" to you?

When those here stand on a soap box braying like an ass that they know what my religion is and then malign and smear it and all that time they couldn't be more wrong...saying sany truth to them, yes, that's the fool's arguement.

So, I must admit I argue like a foolMost are just filled with hatred...it comes out in almost their every word.

Challenge you Catholic beliefs? Why? Their yours...I really don't care. You might straighten out some misconceptions I have.

Why do nuns abide by Hijab?

Please, do tell.

Domenick | June 19, 2012 2:27 PM | Reply

God doesn't force women to wear the habit or the hijab, men do. Especially in a patriarchial society, where men have to impose religious dogma to invoke fear and shame in their women, in order for them to do so.

Today, nuns can choose not to wear a habit without shame, ridicule or reprisal. Not so, for Islamic women. I'm sorry that they are not given the same right to choose.

Mary | June 19, 2012 3:27 PM | Reply

Nuns take a vow of chastity, meaning they live a life consecrated to Jesus and do not have sex. They wear the habit to prevent themselves from being distracted or tempted from their vow by the attention of men. It is not, like in Islam, a taking on of all responsibility for man's sexual/abusive crimes against women.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Domenick | June 19, 2012 5:40 PM | Reply

"Today, nuns can choose not to wear a habit without shame, ridicule or reprisal."

Damn...I mean DAMN...how can one person be SO right and SO wrong in the same metaphorical breath? ( TYpe font? )

You get it, but you don't get it.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from Mary | June 19, 2012 5:48 PM | Reply

Mary,

I don't know you from Eve, so I really don't give a rat's ass what your erroneous opinion is of Sharia...God is the One who holds responsible every person of faith.

Not Mohammad.
Not Jesus.
Not any created being.

That's true faith...Abraham had it.

Look, you are a twisted up Western-psychosis woman...you think every man is putting his laws and paws on your body...Get a freaking grip, girl.

It is between you and God...any brother in my ranks who wrinkles his nose at a sister who has not decided on her own to wear hijab is likely to get some rhetorical knuckles in the nose from me.

You, just like every other asshole here, miss the point entirely...it's not muy responsibility, it's not my scholars responsiblity...hell, it is no one's responisbility for a brother who does not wish to live by the rules of his hijab.

What?

OMG!

You mean Muslim men have a dress code!!!!??

Oh my Gawud! How am I going to get psycho bitch with some rag head if I know he has a dress code too?

I mean, weaping Jesus on the cross...don't you people know anything???????

The man and woman are equal in Islam, we hold two different positions under God...I can't have a baby, and she sure as helll can't work all day long like a horse under the sun...but I can, to provide for her and that baby.

You Western women are so arrogant and obnoxious you don't even know the special position that God has elevated you to...you wallow in the sesspool of the Western Christian idiology that all of their "suffering" in the world is due to the Woman, (Eve) and her evil tempation of Adam.

If you accept that denigration, and the sin of original sin, sister, that's pathetic.

You are far more honored than that if you only knew.

Domenick replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 6:31 PM | Reply

No, I get it. You want us to think that we don't know what we're talking about and you do. Think again, but take it easy at first, until you get used to it.

gravenimage replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 19, 2012 7:19 PM | Reply

"Mensch Keymelon" wrote:

You Western women are so arrogant and obnoxious you don't even know the special position that God has elevated you to...
............................................

This is what he has to say to those who balk at being stuffed into a hefty bag or "Honor Killed" is we resist.

It is between you and God...any brother in my ranks who wrinkles his nose at a sister who has not decided on her own to wear hijab is likely to get some rhetorical knuckles in the nose from me.
............................................

Better get with the rhetorical knuckle sandwiches, in that case.

A Muslim cleric in Britain, Al Jibali, was recorded saying this “By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear Hijab, and if she doesn’t wear Hijab, we hit her.”

Canadian teenager Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death by her pious father for balking at wearing Hijab.

And the religious police are enforcing Hijab in Saudi Arabia, Aceh province in Indonesia, and Iran—and in Iran and Saudi Arabia this means the full hefty bag, not just the headscarf. Al Shebaab is enforcing the same in Somalia.

I think you have your work cut out for you. We'll understand if you don't have time to post here for a bit while you take care of this...

David Dowse replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 20, 2012 7:43 AM | Reply

Listen, you POS. I spent 3 years in Riyadh, where I learned all about you and your death cult.

I'm not obliged to answer your stupid question, because that's what it has been proven to be.

Ever heard of the Virgin de Guadalupe, SatanSpawn? I didn't think so.

And yes, you are a supremacist, but not for "appreciating" a correction, but for claiming on the one hand, to be thoroughly knowledgeable about Christianity, then on the other, when challenged, claim you, "don't care".

You're a fool and you argue like one,poor writing and all, just as I said.

Now get lost, and GFY!

Domenick | June 20, 2012 9:09 AM | Reply

Mirriam's first response, was all this muslim mutt deserved.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from David Dowse | June 20, 2012 9:47 AM | Reply

So what was it, a full Arabic immersion intentensive University program on Islam? I have some friends who have been...they come back to lead masjids and teach.

I doubt that is what it was, right?

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from David Dowse | June 20, 2012 9:50 AM | Reply

France, Great Britain, Norway, Germany...from those places lots of us go to the Universities in the ME to learn about Islam, and then we return to lead and to teach.

Your purpose to Riyadh was probably military or monetary...

Mary | June 20, 2012 9:57 AM | Reply

It is sad to see someone make a total fool of themselves ranting about things they obviously have no concept of. There is no reasoning with someone like that as they do not care about the truth, just about feeling superior and abusing people.

We can all read the basics of Shariah law for ourselves (http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf). We can all read the Qur'an ourselves (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html). We can all read the Bible for ourselves (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM). However, once you have read the original (not rewritten by Muhammad 600 years after Jesus)Bible, you know that Muhammad's Allah is NOT the God of the Bible, Abraham's God. Abraham was promised by God that his descendent would be the savior of the world, and all those prophesies about Him through the centuries did not fit Muhammad.

David Dowse replied to comment from Domenick | June 20, 2012 11:17 AM | Reply

You're right, Domenick, and so I'm out with this clown.

It's useless. Islam twists these men into abominable creatures. It warps their minds. They lose rationality and become monsters.

Sickening, isn't it?

My daughter will live in freedom - free of Islam - free of the Hijab - free and far from the Idiot Troll stinking up our lives here at JW.

Mensch Keymelon replied to comment from David Dowse | June 20, 2012 1:05 PM | Reply

So you are going to move to the moon?

CGW replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 20, 2012 5:41 PM | Reply

No, we're going to purge islam from the West.

As in E-R-A-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N.

Get ready - it's already underway.

gravenimage replied to comment from Mensch Keymelon | June 20, 2012 8:13 PM | Reply

"Mensch Keymelon" wrote, replying to David Dowse:

So you are going to move to the moon?
.................................

Repulsive. Notice that this Mohammedan has almost completely dropped his mask—he didn't even go through the motions of pretending to assure David that ascendant Islam *doesn't* mean the imposition of Hijab, among other nasty forms of oppression.

David Dowse replied to comment from gravenimage | June 21, 2012 7:33 AM | Reply

Thank you for your warm remarks.

Gi, I am willing to temporarily give-up my privilege of Free Speech as a form of protest against those who would fail in the responsible exercise of theirs by advocating such things as the cutting of the clitoris, the mandating of the Hijab (and Misogyny at-large), or by making veiled references to Genocide. I’m no Jew. I’m just some Schmo from California.

Nevertheless, I can neither tolerate the insane desire to kill off Jewish people nor stomach any form of Religious Supremacy. I happen to be Catholic, myself, but who cares?

This self-ban is, of course, both despite and due to my obvious affection and respect for JWatch, Spencer and powerhouses like you.

See you on July 21st, dear.

Here’s a little poem that I wrote for you, in response to the “long fight” you brought up.
I know it’s horrible, but anyway.

METASYNTHESIS and MALEVOLENCE

Those who wheel from lands afar
To steal our Heaven, to take our stars,
Have little hope, of robbing our hearts or pilfering our minds
Of all we’ve yet found and are yet to find,
In that infinite well - on tri-part tables at which we dine,
In that Western Ocean that feeds our thirst and quenches the mind
To the ends of the earth, no matter how far ‘tis.

DMD 6-20-12

gravenimage replied to comment from David Dowse | June 21, 2012 8:47 AM | Reply

David Dowse wrote:

I still wish you would stay. I agree that these Muslim supremacists are horrifying, though I'm not sure self-banning is the most effective way to protest their savagery.

But I certainly understand.

I’m no Jew. I’m just some Schmo from California.
.......................................

I'm also Gentile and also—incidentally—from California. And like you, I stand with Jews—and anyone else threatened by Jihad.

Here's my "I AM A GHARKAD TREE":

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/gravenimageartist/?action=view¤t=gharkad.jpg

Nevertheless, I can neither tolerate the insane desire to kill off Jewish people nor stomach any form of Religious Supremacy. I happen to be Catholic, myself, but who cares?
.......................................

Exactly. It's just like decent men like yourself who care about women at risk from Islam. You don't have to be part of a group yourself to hate to see them threatened and oppressed.

This self-ban is, of course, both despite and due to my obvious affection and respect for JWatch, Spencer and powerhouses like you.

See you on July 21st, dear.
.......................................

I still wish you would reconsider. But if you do not, I hope to see you back here in July.

Here’s a little poem that I wrote for you, in response to the “long fight” you brought up.
I know it’s horrible, but anyway.
.......................................

It's not "horrible" at all—you are far too modest. Thank you for "Metasynthesis and Malevolence", David.

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”