The propaganda arm of Teresa May’s shabby little police state chirps “Islamophobia” on cue. But isn’t it true that some women who wear the niqab or hijab do not do so freely? What about Aqsa Parvez? Her Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. What about Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? Or the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprisings, by daring to take off their hijabs; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.
Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? No one. Apparently it would be “Islamophobic” to do so.
“Israeli ‘Freedom is basic’ niqab advert criticised,” by George Pierpoint and Osob Elmi, BBC News, October 31, 2018:
An advert for an Israeli clothing company which shows a woman ripping off a niqab and headscarf, has been heavily criticised online.
The ad, for clothing brand Hoodies, opens with a caption reading “Is Iran here?” and shows Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli wearing a face veil.
Ms Refaeli then removes the niqab and dances before a voiceover states: “Freedom is basic.”
The video has been viewed thousands of times on various social media platforms and has triggered outrage and attracted accusations of Islamophobia.
It comes at a time of rising tension between Israel and Iran.
Many took to social media to express their disappointment and anger at the advert.
Bar Refaeli also shared the video on her Facebook page.
Ms Refaeli is one of the most prominent Israeli supermodels, and has more than five million followers on Instagram and Facebook.
Popular Israeli-Arab vlogger Nas Daily shared his reaction to the advert with his almost 10 million followers on Facebook.
He called the advert “terrible” and said he felt “angry” about the representation of Islam and women generally.
The online clip is part of a wider marketing campaign by the company which includes billboards and TV adverts.
The video was viewed more than 200,000 times on Instagram before it was removed by Hoodies on Tuesday evening….
Soren Kuula says
Still to watch at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1794102/Video-Supermodel-Bar-Refaeli-strips-niqab-controversial-advert.html
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, Soren.
gravenimage says
This was a great ad! Everyone should watch this.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Mazal tov, Hoodies! Never mind that you were forced to pull it. You’ve cracked the taboo. Now others can break it down.
gravenimage says
I hope so, Anjuli!
Nannette says
Boycott Hoodies for turning their backs on oppressed women!
gravenimage says
Nannette, at least Hoodies was brave and decent enough to create this ad in the first place. Are you now punishing them for doing this? I don’t see any other clothing companies running ads against the Niqab.
Benedict says
Interesting juxtaposition:
Wearing a Hijab in Tel Aviv during the Israeli Gay Pride Parade
https://youtu.be/s00EszY0Qh0
Apparently the two things can coexist. But what should be more offensive to moral sensitivities: a woman who covers her body with a Hijab in public or half naked men appealing to other half naked men in public?
gravenimage says
Note that Benedict has lauded veiling now on over half a dozen threads in just the past week or so–so this is not a one-off.
Here he mentions men–for the first time. Is he now claiming that men as well as women are “half naked” if they aren’t immured in Burqas? Probably not–before, he has only said that Western women–and even children!–should be forcibly veiled.
Benedict says
You certainly enrich the conversation, G, and I seem to exert a gravitational influence on you. Have you ever considered another planet for your monomaniacal circulations and false, undocumented claims? For example: “Benedict has claimed that public nudity is legal in San Francisco–when the very opposite is the case:”
Until you correct this falsity you stand exposed as a liar.
gravenimage says
Benedict was talking about public nudity being legal, and then linked to a story about San Francisco–the implication was quite clear. Note that public nudity is not legal in this city.
And note that he will not address his appalling approval of forced veiling of Western women and children here–which he has disgustingly been flogging over the past several days. I suppose he is hoping to distract from my calling him out on this.
And I post here on all sorts of stories–that I should take Benedict to task for his repulsive advocacy of the Muslim slave rag does not make me a monomaniac–I condemn many other aspects of Jihad and Shari’ah here every day. Moreover, I would condemn *anyone* approving of forced veiling of Infidel women and girls, not just Benedict as he pretends.
And yes–I think that opposing forced Shari’ah *does* enrich the conversation at Jihad Watch. That Benedict believes that apologia for the horrors of Islam enrich the tone here says a great deal about him–none of it good.
Benedict says
The article I linked to was written by no other than Dennis Prager and here is what HE wrote – I didn’t write it and didn’t implicate anything other than what anyone can read here:
“Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted by the barest (pun not intended) margin — 6 to 5 — to ban public nudity. By public nudity, the law refers only to displaying one’s genitals in public. San Francisco women are still free to walk around topless. But that is not unique to San Francisco. Years ago, the highest court in New York state ruled that since it sees no difference between a man’s chest and a woman’s, women should be free to walk around topless, just as men do.”
gravenimage says
And how does this contradict anything I said? Of course, it does not.
And no–I haven’t seen women walking around topless here, either.
But Benedict believes this means that we should enforce Shari’ah law by forcing women and children into Burqas. *Ugh*.
And, as I have noted on other threads where Benedict has pulled this, pretending that the Burqa is about modesty is sickening, as well. The veil is intended to show Muslims which women they can rape. Per the Qur’an, all unveiled women are fair game.
Benedict has never said how Muslims raping unveiled women in the streets is “modest”.
Add to this that Muslims regularly arrest, imprison, and murder women and girls who resist the imposition of the veil, and you see the full horror of what Benedict is proposing to do to the Western women and girls he hates so much.
Jean says
Benedict.
C. S. Lewis has commented best on what modesty is, or how it should be interpreted. It does not at all depend on how much or how little clothes a person wears. To believe this is a conceptual confusion.
http://incandescentink.blogspot.com/2011/07/modesty-according-to-cs-lewis.html
The hijab is morally offensive on many levels that are quite unconnected with the question of covering the body. I do not think I need to list them, you know them well enough.
Benedict says
Thanks for the link, Jean.
C.S. Lewis was a clever man. Outward appearance does not always correspond to inward reality. A stark naked, native hunter in Africa is not out to provoke; naked customers in restaurants, naked visitors in museums and a group of naked bikers in a big city probably are. They are also promoting the religion and creation-story that man is created in the image of animals. A Muslim women in hijab or a None in traditional garb are bound to be offensive to such religionists and their acolytes. I prefer the latter offense in the public space to the former and having some understanding of Islam I certainly prefer to see Nones in the public space in Europe to seeing Muslim women here.
Jean says
Benedict.
You’re welcome.
It is interesting, but the provocateur types you refer to usually side with the covered Muslim women – as this Danish artist, Jens Galschiot, did when Danish politicians banned the burqa:
http://www.galschiot.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fuck-too-Little-and-too-Much.pdf
http://www.galschiot.com/burka/ (scroll down for photographs of naked men in burquas, combining the two offenses against Danish law)
On the other hand, the same cultural segment loathes any display of Christianity. They would never dream of defending a Catholic nun against anything. They are indeed provoked by the sight of her – but not by the hijab.
Another example of the latter attitude is here:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/08/02/muslims-leftist-women-protest-burqa-ban/
Now, why is that? Probably because socialists are attracted to Islam as a fellow collectivist creed that does not value the individual, but goes in for maximum control of society.
The word “monk” on the other hand is from Greek “monos”: one who is alone, i.e. does not conform to society, but walks his own spiritual road to salvation. This is considered subversive in a socialist or Muslim society. Therefore, to socialist secularists (members of the religion you describe), monks and nuns = bad, burqa women = good.
So again, the clothes-or-no-clothes part of it is so important. The underlying idea is what matters.
Not all uniforms are equal!
Benedict says
Thanks for the link, Jean.
C.S. Lewis was a clever man. Outward appearance does not always correspond to inward reality. A stark naked, native hunter in Africa is not out to provoke; naked customers in restaurants, naked visitors in museums and a group of naked bikers in a big city probably are. They are also promoting the religion and creation- story that man is created in the image of animals. A Muslim women in hijab or a None in traditional garb are bound to be offensive to such religionists and their acolytes. I prefer the latter offense in the public space to the former and having some understanding of Islam I certainly prefer to see Nones in the public space in Europe to seeing Muslim women here.
gravenimage says
Benedict wrote:
A stark naked, native hunter in Africa is not out to provoke; naked customers in restaurants, naked visitors in museums and a group of naked bikers in a big city probably are. They are also promoting the religion and creation- story that man is created in the image of animals. A Muslim women in hijab or a None (sic) in traditional garb are bound to be offensive to such religionists and their acolytes.
……………………….
The idea that one is only offended by Muslims in Burqas if one is running around naked is, of course, quite false.
I don’t think that Robert Spencer has a habit of going clothing-optional, yet he is here reporting on the freedom to go without the Niqab, and has many times condemned Muslims murdering girls who resist the Hijab.
How does Benedict explain this?
Giacomo Latta says
Who are these halfwit males who think that islam is on their side? Tomorrow’s victims of a slaughter in a gay bar somewhere if they don’t get smart in a hurry.
gravenimage says
Israeli “Freedom is basic” ad featuring model taking off niqab ripped as “Islamophobic,” is withdrawn
……………….
Good for Hoodies. I wish they hadn’t caved to this disgusting pressure.
Benedict says
I wish Hoodies would have shown a woman who also tore of her upper garment together with her hijab and thus exposed her bare breasts in order for the Israelis to catch up with the freedoms in San Francisco and New York, since it is the legal right of women in these cities to do so according to Dennis Prager – and not according to me.
gravenimage says
Benedict claiming that two silly laws in New York City and San Francisco means that he has the right to force women and girls into Burqas is just grotesque.
Will he also arrest, imprison, or murder women and girls who resist? After all, that’s what Muslims do to enforce the veil–and he has not said anything critical of this oppression in his demanding that women be forced into the Burqa. *Ugh*.
And he only wants to force this on women–just like Muslims.
Benedict says
With these two last comments of yours it should be evident to everyone reading the comment section here on JW that you have lost your mind.
gravenimage says
Benedict has indeed called for the imposition of the Burqa on Western women. Does he think that they are going to simply go along with this? If not, he must have some say of enforcing it.
Muslims have been enforcing this for some time now. Does Benedict have other methods of enforcement in mind?
gravenimage says
some way
kouldb says
‘The video has triggered outrage and attracted accusations of Islamophobia.’ There is not another political, legal, cultural or religious organisation on earth that is as toxic & sensitive as Islam. It is surely a crime against humanity, thus should be declared a cult, then outlawed. Across the globe.
Noel Anderson says
Why Oh why are we pandering to these barbaric islamic fools, islam is an abomination,and those that follow it are unthinking savages……, It has no place in a 21st century civilized society…Look into the history.300,000,000 million deaths and counting , every day that passes they kill some poor soul that dose not agree with thire perverted barbaric doctrine ……They are a disgrace to humankind…..
terry says
Suck it up islam, welcome to the free world.
If you can’t handle freedom, …. ask yourself why.