Dhimmi Watch: Fitzgerald: Naomi Wolf and the hijab

October 1, 2008

Fitzgerald: Naomi Wolf and the hijab

Naomi Wolf, casting about for a new topic, appears to have found it. What better way to epater, than to defend the hijab? But why stop there? Why not the burqa? Why not the eye-slit of the niqab?

Naomi Wolf preeningly insists on her empathetic identification with wearers of the hijab in this country. But she does not extend such empathy to Muslim women in Muslim-ruled lands who are forced to wear, through law or incredible social pressure, the hijab – as in Egypt today, which is rapidly re-hijabbing (to the astonishment of Nonie Darwish and others who returned to Egypt after decades away).

Wolf does not say a word about the burqa or the niqab. She says nothing about the Arab women who, the moment the planes lift off from Arab lands, delightedly fling off their burqas and other imposed dress. She says nothing about the acid thrown in the face of Pakistani women today who are uncovered. She says nothing about the religious police – the mutawwa – of Saudi Arabia, nor their Shi’a equivalent in the Islamic Republic of Iran, who are busily enforcing not only the wearing of the hijab, but of burqas. She says nothing about the French studies of the cases brought against the laic state for forbidding the hijab in schools, that French women writers have discovered – the very “feminists” whom Naomi Wolf used to claim as soul-mates – are put-up jobs, with the Muslim men forcing the girls to make this stand.

And Naomi Wolf does not distinguish between the “converts” or “reverts” to Islam in the West. They are a very particular and bizarre group (see, e.g., Ingrid Mattson). The wearing of the hijab gives them such perverse pleasure, for they now become, so often, the cynosure of all Infidel eyes. That is not the spirit in which pressure is brought upon girls and women who are born into Islam and are often forced even in the West to wear the hijab. They are forced to do so not because of the law but because of overwhelming family pressure. The “reverts” are happy in their outward sign of submission to the demands of Muslim men and to the Islam-based notion that women are dangerously seductive, and men, poor men, cannot control themselves but must, necessarily, behave as beasts if those naturally seductive women do not make every effort to tone down, or hide, that seductiveness.

No one should object to the objection that this society is immodest. It is. And modest dress is hardly objectionable in itself: few object to the long dresses of the Amish, or to the wigs of Orthodox Jewish women. And for god’s sake, one found oneself admiring the modest dress and the Gibson-girl hair-piles of the female followers of Mr. Jeffs, the ones taken into custody in Texas some months ago -- if not their robotic mental state.

Wolf wishes to pluck out the hijab and disconnect it from all the things to which it is connected, and that Muslims would prefer Infidels not to know: the passages in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira that inculcate Islamic supremacism, and that divide the world uncompromisingly between Muslim and non-Muslim, Believer and Infidel, and insist that a permanent state of war, if not open warfare, must exist between the two until, through the central duty of Jihad -- that is, the “struggle” to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam – Islam rules everywhere. She ignores the collectivism of Islam and its indifference to the individual. She ignores the hostility to freedom of speech, to freedom of conscience, to free exercise of religion -- as that term is understood in the West by non-Muslims. She ignores the Islamic hostility to varieties of artistic expression other than calligraphy and architecture, and to free and skeptical inquiry.

Unlike the well-informed and clever French women who have written about Islam and the laic state, Naomi Wolf remains ignorant. Whatever else she may be, she is not clever save in the crude, careerist sense -- and there, of course, all kinds of people in this country, including professional “conservatives,” can give her a run for her money.

Meanwhile, we all need a treat, don't we, after the humorlessness and silliness of Naomi Wolf. So, here, for the denizens of the advanced non-Muslim world, that world which the naomi-wolfs merely pass through, in a mental and emotional disarray that is palpable, are three most hijab-less ladies, offered in ascending order of (presumed) seductiveness. Who would not fall for, or wish to give his all for, any of the three?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XOAJlbjUo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-HNZLg6ntI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQtHZeyIfrM

Posted by Hugh at October 1, 2008 12:32 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

That's a beautiful life affirming song from Naomi Shemer,Hugh. We need more of that and less of the thanatos worshippers.

Posted by: johndoe

at October 1, 2008 1:30 PM

I can't understand the Hebrew words of the song written by Naomi Shemer. Its sentiments may even have been a bit too Peace-Nowish for me (I don't know). My attention was rivetted on Ronit Roland.

Posted by: Hugh

at October 1, 2008 2:09 PM

Hugh: Click on 'more info' to the right and you get the lyrics in English. It expresses a profound love of life....quite unlike the maudlin and naive, sentimental appeasement of the Peace Now movement.

Posted by: johndoe

at October 1, 2008 2:37 PM

If I might point out a few things:

Ms. Wolf's epiphany wearing salwar kameez and a hijab occurred in Morocco, not a Western country. The "warmth" she encountered was a common phenomenon, one that I've experienced myself in India when doing the same thing. It's a visitor respecting local traditions and culture -- just as a local crowd would cheer a newly transplanted Indian engineer, decked out in a team jersey, digging into his first barbecued chicken sandwich and beer at a tailgate party. And while this approval can bring the sense of "calm and serenity" she describes, it's the peace of fitting into the crowd -- or more specifically in her case, the peace of male consent to her public appearance, and not the hostility or threat she would otherwise have experienced.

(I might add that salwar kameez can be very beautiful; it is usually brightly colored, often superlatively embroidered in delicate fabrics, and bears no resemblance to the dull, billowing abayas and manteaux. The tightly wrapped headscarf, which chokes the neck, muffles the ears, flattens and greases the hair and bulges the face forward, is in my experience never a part of the salwar kameez).

Similarly, the "research" she performed for this article seems to have occurred exclusively in Muslim homes, in Muslim countries. In such places, where does the fearsome "intrusive western gaze" come from? And why on earth would traditional Muslimahs know the terms of Western gender theory? (Didn't this ring the BS bell, if in fact these encounters occurred at all?) And if Western fashion magazines are so terribly threatening, why are "Victoria's Secret, elegant fashion, and skin-care lotions" omnipresent in Muslim homes, as Wolf herself attests?

The fact is, we're all "on display" whenever we step foot outside the house. A pious Muslimah's required, and often violently enforced, display is the camouflage of a prey animal trying to disappear into the background. It's the exact opposite of what Muslimahs claim; it's the statement that "I am fungible, I am not an individual, don't pay attention to me."

How this kind of social interaction is mistaken for "respect" by Muslimahs continues to elude me, unless "respect," in the Alice in Wonderland world of Islam, means "not getting beaten, raped or killed."

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter

at October 1, 2008 5:34 PM

"But she does not extend such empathy to Muslim women in Muslim-ruled lands who are forced to wear, through law or incredible social pressure, the hijab"

You could have also mentioned the pressure in the UK, as uncovered by the Undercover Mosque series the first time around:

Excerpts from preachers and teachers included "Allah created the woman deficient" and "by the age of 10, it becomes an obligation on us to force her (young girls) to wear hijab and if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her".

And remember these mosques were supposedly "moderate" mosques before the undercover reporters went in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/19/channel4.ofcom

Posted by: DenverRodeo

at October 1, 2008 9:48 PM

Naomi needs to sing the praises of FGM next.

And beheading can relieve headaches, too.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at October 1, 2008 11:28 PM

Maybe it's time for us gals to go on the defensive when we run into a be-burka'd Muslim chick on the street. Would she feel as superior or as condescending if we were to stand in front of her and point and laugh? Would she feel protected by her trash bag if we were to ridicule her for wearing it? Hmm, I wonder.

Tit for tat. You wear that in my country to intimidate me and I will turn it around and make you feel like an idiot for doing so. And maybe this will be a charitable act, for if you realize that you are hot and sweaty under that thing, you feel ugly, and none of us take you seriously, perhaps this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for you and you'll realize that life in Islam just ain't what all those Muslim men are telling you it is.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

at October 2, 2008 1:11 AM

The hijab/burkha/niqab may hide a lot of things, but it reflects in full display the wearers own racism.

Posted by: miira

at October 2, 2008 6:47 AM

Yeah, or just pander, as I do, to their notion that they simply do not exist insomuch as squirrels and chipmunks and other subhuman rodents don't exist. I may brake for them if they jump out in front of my car, but they never actually grab my attention otherwise. If they have no rspect for their own human dignity, why should I? If you consider yourself to be nothing but a vagina, a filthy one at that, unworthy of joining the rest of us in the world and interacting with us like a human being, so I consider you to be just that: subhuman, filthy, completely lacking in dignity, fit only to be chained to a stove somewhere. And I have no sympathy for hijabed women either. I figure, even if her slave-owner forces her to wear it, screw her. She can leave him. And if she's here on his visa and can't resist his orders, double-screw her. She shouldn't be here and if she wants to be she should earn her way. Whoring your life away in exchange for a free ride and a tapeworm's epitaph is not only not an excuse for anything, but it's intolerable, for all they are fit for - their whole purpose in life - is breeding, and they necessarily fail at that too, since being nothing more than some man's/some children's bitch necessitates being a maladjusted child incapable of self-sufficiency and whose children grow up to be nothing more than their mothers. The 30-year-olds who populate student housing for pedophiles are without exception the offspring of failures at life.

Why we give civil rights to people who not only don't pay taxes, but whose owners actually receive tax breaks on their behalf is beyond me. We were founded on the principle of 'no taxation without representation' and that should be a two-way street. Do tapeworms have civil rights? How about monkeys? Because if your epitaph reads 'ate, shat, screwed, bred, made carbon dioxide and a negative economic contribution, raised children to be maladjusted children incapable of self-sufficiency,' then check it out: you haven't come anywhere close to achieving monkey status. Monkeys have the equivalent of an economy - the jungle ecosystem - and they do their part to maintain a constant state of flux within it; they don't parasitize it and leave it worse-off than it was before them. Monkeys grow up to be well-adjusted, self-sufficient adults and they successfully raise their children to be well-adjusted, self-sufficient adults, and nobody's bitch. Sub-primate indeed.

Posted by: jdamn

at October 2, 2008 6:53 AM

"(I might add that salwar kameez can be very beautiful; it is usually brightly colored, often superlatively embroidered in delicate fabrics, and bears no resemblance to the dull, billowing abayas and manteaux. The tightly wrapped headscarf, which chokes the neck, muffles the ears, flattens and greases the hair and bulges the face forward, is in my experience never a part of the salwar kameez).

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter

I have several salwar kameez, in beautiful colors, some heavily decorated (for special occasions).

You're absolutely right about the hijab. As I understand it, the dupatta is worn in many different and artful ways, by non-Muslim women in India. It's the difference between a fashion accessory, and no-option uniform.

Posted by: Abscedere

at October 3, 2008 1:13 AM

I thought modesty came from within. Billions are modest without needing a hajib.
I suppose we need to go back to the reason why Mohmmad forced it on his many wives... where it then spread to all Muslim women.
No issue of modesty but one of the practical problems of polygamy at least in keeping tabs on multiple wives who lived in separate houses. How religious and pure!

Posted by: tommy

at October 4, 2008 2:38 AM

At the end of his little essay, Mr Fitzgerald provided links to some sources of refreshment.

For a further antidote to the perverted and bizarre Muslim view of women and of female sexuality (a bizarrerie also represented in another dhimmiwatch thread featuring a Saudi cleric who was advising that women should cover everything except one eye) and as a reminder of how the feminine has been respectfully celebrated in some of the great moments of western culture, I recommend the following.

First: what could be more haraam than *this*? (if you click on the link, watch and listen, you will see - and hear - what I mean)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwX4wER370&feature=related

An exquisitely sensual rendition of the duet Pulchra es, ‘thou art fair’, containing the repeated phrase, ‘turn away your eyes from me, for they have overcome me’ [averte oculos tuos a me/ me avolare fecerunt]’ = Song of Songs/ Canticles 6: 5) from Monteverdi’s Vespers of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1610. Oh, that hair. Oh, those eyes. Oh, those stringed instruments! Enough to send any pious sheikh into paroxysms!

Now for some great Western artists taking delight in the glory of the female face and form:

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-C-216?lang=en

and something else

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Saskia_von_Uylenburgh_im_Profil_(Rembrandt)_3.JPG&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Saskia_von_Uylenburgh_im_Profil_(Rembrandt)_3.JPG&h=1632&w=1224&sz=730&tbnid=g1N-jMIeOp4J::&tbnh=150&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRembrandt%2BSaskia&hl=en&usg=__8easMjRcRyLgR79nqIRPP0aL_7c=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1">http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Saskia_von_Uylenburgh_im_Profil_(Rembrandt)_3.JPG&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Saskia_von_Uylenburgh_im_Profil_(Rembrandt)_3.JPG&h=1632&w=1224&sz=730&tbnid=g1N-jMIeOp4J::&tbnh=150&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRembrandt%2BSaskia&hl=en&usg=__8easMjRcRyLgR79nqIRPP0aL_7c=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

and Rubens' Coronation of the Virgin (i.e. of Mary Mother of the Lord)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peter_Paul_Rubens_079.jpg

and Jan van Eyck's Madonna giving the breast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jan_van_Eyck_076.jpg

and of course, Botticelli, La Primavera

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/primavera.jpg.html

and Chagall, The Bride
http://www.artofeurope.com/chagall/cha11.htm

and the 14th century Madonna of the Rose Garden

http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/900-3466

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/6/6a/300px-Stefan_Lochner_007.jpg

Pierre Bonnard: Nude in front of a mirror

http://www.nga.gov.au/International/Catalogue/Detail.cfm?IRN=16491&ViewID=2&GalID=ALL

http://www.thecityreview.com/bonnard.html

Not a hijab in sight!

One might also watch Kieslowski’s Three Colours: I commend particularly the third, Rouge, and within that, the ‘fashion parade’ sequence, and the banner poster, ‘Breath of Life’, featuring the female protagonist, ‘Valentine’, who in Kieslowski’s exquisite allegory represents Holy Charity.

I also commend certain films by Australian director Peter Weir.

In all his films Weir respectfully and lovingly - even, at times, with a kind of holy awe - celebrates the beauty and wisdom of women. Unveiled women, all of them, shining at times as though with the golden cloud of the divine glory; women with voices and faces, women whose counsel the men in those films ignore at their peril.

'Picnic at Hanging Rock' - see the portrayal of the Jewish girl, Irma, who alone returns as it were from the dead, more glowingly alive than ever.

'Year of Living Dangerously' - the protagonist’s choice of woman, in the end, equates with the choice of the West over the (Muslim) East.

'Witness' - for the portrayal of the Amishwoman, Rachel.

Three stills from Witness (sadly, not the most beautiful moments, but they were what I could find):

http://film.virtual-history.com/pic.php?id=2855

http://film.virtual-history.com/pic.php?id=2854

http://film.virtual-history.com/pic.php?id=2853

Green Card - for the portrayal of the intensely female protagonist, Bronte Parrish, in the midst of a lushly feminine garden oasis reminiscent of the 'garden enclosed' in the Song of Songs.

Fearless: the male protagonist is relentlessly educated, and turned away from death toward life, by not one but *two* strong, smart, beautiful women, their feet planted firmly on the ground, not naive little girls but mothers who have borne children.

Certain scenes stand out for their presentation of woman as likeness of divine 'glory' - in particular, a wonderfully un-Islamic scene in a ballet classroom, in which Isabella Rossellini as the wife, Laura, choreographs a swarm of little girls; a scene in which the wife, Laura - l'aura - is filmed glowing bare-headed against the winter darkness, entirely modest by western standards, and at the same time breathtakingly beautiful, warm, and alive, the Grace of God made visible; and the final sequence of the film, which re-enacts the breathing of life into Adam in Genesis 2: 7. One shouldn't forget, either, that the closing 'voice' of that film is the voice of Mary in a Polish stabat mater, from Gorecki’s Symphony of Sorrowful Songs, first movement; and one should pay close attention as to when and how Weir uses the text of the Hail Mary . Look closely, also, for the tribute to Dante’s Paradiso.

Here is the only still - not the best - from ‘Fearless’ that I could find, featuring Rossellini as Laura/ L’aura, breath of life, ruach adonai.

http://www.peterweircave.com/fearless/rossellini.jpg

In Truman Show it is a woman who calls Truman out of his world of illusion. "This day your beatitude has appeared to you" (scroll down: the images are from the key sequence of the film – when Truman meets and loses his Beatrice).

http://www.peterweircave.com/truman/scene3.html

All of this - all of it - Islam fails (or wilfully refuses) to comprehend and desires, viciously, implacably, to destroy - to smash, to burn, to silence, to annihilate forever.

*This* - and so much more - is what we are fighting for.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at October 7, 2008 2:01 AM

Sorry - deeply sorry - a couple of dud links in that posting!

I had found images of Rembrandt's 'Jewish Bride' and a glorious Rembrandt of Saskia in a red hat.

But the links went wrong.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at October 7, 2008 2:08 AM

Let's try for the Rembrandt again, shall we?

The Jewish Bride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_-_Het_Joodse_bruidje.jpg

And his magnificent 'Bathsheba'