Western feminists insist that the hijab is a choice. This is the reality. The violinist wasn’t brutalized, but Iraq’s Ministry of Youth and Sport will make sure this doesn’t happen again. And so the lesson will be reinforced for women in Kerbala: venture outside without your head covered at your own risk.
“In Iraqi holy city, row over female violinist at soccer match shows social rift,” Channel News Asia, August 7, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
KERBALA, Iraq: The match should have been cause for young Iraqis to celebrate. Their national team beat Lebanon 1-0 in the first competitive international hosted by Iraq for years in the holy city of Kerbala, complete with an opening ceremony of music and dance.
Instead, the event drew high-level criticism which many of the city’s youth say shows the gulf between them and the political and religious establishment.
At the opening ceremony last week for the West Asia Football Federation Championship, a tournament of Arab countries hosted by Iraq, a Lebanese woman violinist not wearing the Islamic headscarf and with uncovered arms played Iraq’s national anthem.
Many Iraqis were elated that such a ceremony, typical of international football tournaments, could finally take place on their soil after football governing body FIFA last year partially lifted a ban largely in place since 1990 on Iraq hosting competitive matches over security concerns.
Iraq’s Shi’ite Muslim endowment which administers religious sites and property, backed by prominent conservative politicians, rushed to condemn the performance saying it “overstepped religious boundaries and moral standards … and violated the holy sanctity of Kerbala.”
Iraq’s Ministry of Youth and Sport which organised the ceremony first defended it, then said: “the ministry will coordinate with official bodies to prevent any scenes that contrast with the holiness of the province.”
For many Iraqis, especially women, it was a reminder of the power Islamic authorities, Islamist parties and conservative Iran-backed politicians still wield after years of conflict and sectarian killing, as Iraq tries to recover and open up to the outside world.
“We thought the event was a positive message, that a more normal life can come to Kerbala,” said Fatima Saadi, a 25-year-old dentist, sitting in a coffee shop in Kerbala.
“Most of us rejected the politicians’ comments – the holy ground is where the shrines are, but outside those places there’s a different life.”…
mike says
religion of peace
CRUSADER says
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Religion of Pieces:
– piece of yellow cake
– piece of you (fingertip)
– piece of me (ear)
– piece of Bedouin paganism
– piece of monotheistic Judaism
– piece of misunderstood Christianity
– piece of piracy (several pieces of “aaargh!”)
– piece of satanic shill game
– piece of mind given to women …along with the back of a man’s hand
CRUSADER says
So glad that country was liberated from the yellow cake eating Sadist Hussein — as it brought to surface all the liberties which Iraqis now enjoy.
revereridesagain says
There are no “men” in Islam.
gravenimage says
So true.
FYI says
But there is “MAD” in muhammad,whose sunnah muslims follow.
CRUSADER says
According to this video, Muslimas are protected…
…well, don’t they feel so SPECIAL !
(Which it seems why Western gals flaunt their new fashion pieces.)
What does the Quran really say about a Muslim woman’s hijab?
| Samina Ali | TEDxUniversityofNevada
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_J5bDhMP9lQ
Anjuli Pandavar says
Crusader, early last year, I responded to Samina Ali with this article on the Canadian website The Postmillenial (it has since been removed, so I can’t provide a link):
The Fight against the Hijab: the right fight for the wrong reasons
A fitting metaphor for the blackout of women that is Islamic dress has been the media blackout of the mass casting off of such dress in Iran. Till recently, the jilbab, hijab, niqab, burka, chador, abaya, etc., have been cast in the West as matters of women’s choice, as if ‘choice’ is a concept in Islam.
A fitting metaphor for the blackout of women that is Islamic dress has been the media blackout of the mass casting off of such dress in Iran. Till recently, the jilbab, hijab, niqab, burka, chador, abaya, etc., have been cast in the West as matters of women’s choice, as if ‘choice’ is a concept in Islam.
What started out as an error has since sunken to the ignominy of non-Muslim Western women adopting the hijab (that’s the fashionable, Nike-promoted headscarf, not the face-obliterating mask, the shape-killing abaya or the blue plasticine burqa) “to help Muslim women feel at home”.
There seems no end to the absurd agenda-setting entitlements of Western feminists. Let us deal with this last absurdity first. Anti-Trump tantrums demand that everything that Donald Trump is against must be supported, which, merged with identity politics, gives rise to the “We are all Muslim now” corruption of the May ’68 slogan “Nous sommes tous des Juifs allemands,” and German-held US PoW Roddie Edmonds’ defiant “We are all Jews here,” a cheapening that might well have begun with Barack Obama and in terms of which Edmonds would be reduced to an “ally” of the Jews, rather than a fellow human being.
So now an Islamised US flag fashionably drapes the crown of a classically-proportioned American woman, and the iconic Nike tick adds both speed and approval to a Muslim female swimmer about to dive into the modern world. Marvellous.
Wearing the hijab to help Muslim women “feel at home” is misplaced, to put it mildly, It is precisely at home where they do not have to where it. But it is especially galling since Muslim mores dictate that a woman shall not leave the home without her husband’s permission and then never unchaperoned, and in some places, never without a male “guardian” and, in any case, never without a jilbab, hijab, niqab, burka, chador, abaya, or some such, obliterating her. Thank you, sisters.
Worse is the “women’s choice” idea. This holds that women are free to choose what to wear or not to wear and should not be forced wear or not wear any particular garments.
That is fine where Islam is a matter of free choice (a freedom that flows from the Enlightenment, but that Western Muslims like to ascribe to Islam), where women are free, are persons in their own right, and enjoy the protections of the law against assault and violation of the person, in short, where women enjoy human rights.
Where Shari’a obtains or encroaches, or where Islam/the Qur’an underpins social conduct, a woman is not even a person in her own right. She has no personhood, let alone one with human rights. From birth till death she is the charge of a male, who is a person in his own right, albeit still without human rights (he submits).
Here the jilbab, hijab, niqab, burka, chador, abaya, etc., mean something entirely different.
Western apologetics for such dress is farcical. Sometimes such farce conceals a sinister manipulation. In order to convince her gullible TEDx audience that that nice chap Muhammad was merely fulfilling his mayoral brief of “finding a solution to women in the city being attacked and molested” when they went to the Ladies’ at night, modern Muslim speaker Samina Ali tells them that the Prophet “turned the matter over to God,” who was apparently unaware of this problem until then. The ever-obliging God, according, revealed the following verse of the Qur’an:
“O Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers to draw upon themselves their garments. This is better, so that they not be known and molested,” [emph. AP]
There is a string of absurdities in Ali’s silly account, including that women going for a wee at night walked out “past the outskirts of the city” (presumably the gates were opened for them especially), and only at that point did “a group of men actually [begin] to see an opportunity in women’s nightly tracks,” (it never crossed their minds in all the centuries that they’ve seen women wandering into the dark alone at night). But this silliness conceals a sinister manipulation. The quoted verse, Qur’an 33:59, differs from that which Ali offers her TEDx audience in one small, but highly significant respect: the position of the word ‘not’.
Whereas Ali quotes the verse as saying, “so that they not be known and molested,” the verse says, “so that they be known and not molested.” So they may be known as what?
Ali says so the may not be known as slaves, since free women, jilbab-wearers, were recognisable as such and not molested. This is nonsense. The verse clearly refers to “women of the believers” (sometimes translated as “believing women”), i.e., Muslim women or women-owned by Muslims. In other words, the Qur’an is saying, get your women to identify themselves clearly as woman of Muslims and you will not be molested. Molested by whom? Ali tells her lovely TEDx audience the molesters are those dim blokes who loiter on the outskirts of cities at night. Except the Qur’an was not revealed and the Prophet did not proselytise to dim blokes who loiter on the outskirts of cities at night.
The Qur’an and Muhammad address Muslims and Muslims alone. Women of the believers are not told to identify themselves as “women of the believers” to non-believing molesters; they are told to identify themselves as such to believing molesters, i.e., Muslim molesters. A woman not identifiable as a “woman of the believers” is fair game to any Muslim inclined to molest.
Ali says one thing that is most certainly true: “Muslims like to take historical rulings and apply them to the modern era.” Far more significant than choice of clothing are the global and universal implications of 33:59 today, since the real reason for these garments have to do not with Muslim women, but with non-Muslim women.
The Qur’an instructs Muslim men to make their women wear Muslim dress so they may not be mistaken for those women that Muslim men are allowed to rape (by this point we can dispense with the euphemisms). And while such rape of non-Muslim women by Muslim men have been going on in Muslim lands for as long as there’ve been non-Muslim women in Muslim lands, the West woke up to such practices only when ISIS demonstrated how to do it right, and when large groups of Muslim male immigrants to the West became bold enough to behave as Muslim males are entitled to behave: rape non-Muslim women.
When a Muslim woman in the West wears a hijab, she might well, in all innocence, be “asserting her identity as a Muslim woman” and it might mean exactly that to her male free-choice fellow Muslims, but that is not what it means to packs of Muslim men from Muslim lands.
To them, she signals: don’t rape me, rape them — a virtue signal if ever there was one. Our feminist sisters might want to think about that before they next “celebrate the hijab” or wear it to make Muslim women feel at home. While they’re thinking, they might also consider where Henda Ayari heard the words, “either you wear a veil or you get raped.”
Certainly, a great deal of oppression attends to enforcing the wearing of such items, from petite officials, many female, publicly berating grown women for a single offending strand of hair, on the one hand, to the brutal public flogging of women by any male, on the other. The casting off of these symbols of female non-existence is long overdue, but it is also a casting off an entire social order, value system and way of being.
The women in Iran casting off their oppressive clothing are doing so for themselves, of course, but they are also doing it so Western women can continue to freely walk their streets and feel the wind in their hair without risk of getting jumped on. Yet even now, the role of the hijab in the mass-rapes in Europe is not touched on, let alone made explicit. Of course not: Muslims are an oppressed group and, in any case, “we are all Muslims now.”
gravenimage says
Iraq: Muslims enraged over female violinist with uncovered hair at football tournament ceremony
…………………..
*This* is what enrages pious Muslims–but beating women and Jihad terror are perfectly Islamic.
CRUSADER says
Having a direct relative from England, GI, you must be shocked and thoroughly dismayed about what’s happening in UK, and you probably have mixed memories of appreciation now, just as I have about the Bay Area, having spent time in both CA and UK myself.
——————————————
Your fatwa does not apply here | Karima Bennoune | TEDxExeter
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLi6iYnnsGc
gravenimage says
Yes, CRUSADER–I am horrified by what is happening in much of Britain–and in the Bay Area.
I don’t have time now–just about to shut things down for the night–nut I will check out that video tomorrow.
gravenimage says
Good to see some fighting back against Jihad and Shari’ah in the Muslim world itself. Thank you, CRUSADER.
jayell says
One normally associates the violin with nice, civilised European classical music. What the heck’s it doing at a football match in Irag?
CRUSADER says
Angel of talent touched this young violinist, Alma, early in her life:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Epg1XLlyWE
Terry Gain says
I associate the violin with Jack Benny. All else is pretense.
Angemon says
Shiite or sunni, all read from the same books.
FYI says
She was not wearing an islamic headscarf and her arms were exposed whilst playing the violin?
Why ,the dirty Jezebel!
what IS the islamic world coming to when a woman exposes her….arms for all to see?
The Ghost of muhammed is on the prowl:what woman is safe….?
livingengine says
“The Freedom to Go Topless”,By Amir Taheri, Wall Street Journal, Dec 6, 2002 –
“In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane. To protect the public, the new regime passed special legislation in 1982 making the new form of hijab mandatory for all females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code is punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1039129549129547833
Wellington says
Muslims enraged, subjecting females to humiliating status (including FGM), and yet all the while thinking themselves “the best of peoples” {Sura 3:110} is nothing more than par for the course.
Thus is the lot of Islam. It’s a highly lousy lot.
CRUSADER says
That’s the worst part.
Their arrogance.
As if their ignorance isn’t enough to dismiss them!
mortimer says
Your vindictive contempt is un-Christian. The law of Christ that you ignore is ‘Love your enemies.’
Muslims are humans who have wrong information. You cannot speak about all Muslims without great presumption. You project your own arrogance on others.
CRUSADER says
Stay in your lane, mortimer
Take your meds
Count to twelve
Save your ammo for the real bad people
Keep embracing that EMPATHY for Moooslems,
dead marsh man, it’s a winning ticket for you…
gravenimage says
Mortimer, what is it about pious Muslims that you don’t find ignorant and arrogant?
Surely the story above shows this.
CRUSADER says
Lousy, for sure, Wellington!
Anjuli Pandavar says
It is true that there is not yet peace in Iraq. There is not yet peace in Libya. There is not yet peace in Afghanistan, where the hope of peace was bought at the expense of its female population (the infamous “Afghan peace deal”). But something has changed: *change* has again become part of social reality, as last catalysed by colonialism and since interrupted with brutal stasis of one kind or another. There is a social dynamic where previously there was none. There are possibilities where previously there were none. Consider this:
““We thought the event was a positive message, that a more normal life can come to Kerbala,” said Fatima Saadi, a 25-year-old dentist, sitting in a coffee shop in Kerbala.”
A young woman
with a career
presumably *still* unmarried
who gives her name
offers her opinion
to strangers
in a public place
in Kerbala
Eight mob riots that didn’t happen
“A more normal life” *is* coming to Kerbala. It’s not nearly as close as she thinks, or we would like, but it was unthinkable when she was 12.
mortimer says
The Iranian mullahs are losing. When the older ones die off, the country will reject Islam.
CRUSADER says
Holding your breath, are you?
gravenimage says
Mortimer, the Mullahs have been in power in Iran for forty years now. Many of the old clerics have died off in this period, and it has not made any difference.