| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Olde Tyme Religion | |
| Counterpoint: Setting Themselves Apart | |
| 2006-11-23 | |
| This is no 'personal' decision. The fundamentals of modern civil society are at stake. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali British Prime Minister Tony Blair says the Muslim veil is a mark of separation, which makes the integration of Muslim women into society more difficult. He's right. Those who wear the veil deliberately set themselves apart. Many are coerced into shrouding their bodies. The veil is the visible symptom of their more comprehensive subjection. They are required to be obedient, to ask permission of their male guardians when they leave the house, often with a chaperone. These victims of force, whether they live in England or in Saudi Arabia, almost always have very limited education. They are married young, through arranged or forced marriages, and are groomed for docility. They do not appear in unemployment statistics, or any statistics at all. As ordained by their faith, they are invisible. Those women who voluntarily choose the veil are different. Often they are literate, verbally forthright and independent. Many are recent converts—"born again" Muslims and Islamic activists who may be well integrated into society. Yet they have made a clear choice. They reject the Western lifestyle. The veil is an expression of the moral philosophy they hold and wish to impose upon others. They seek to provoke, to intimidate. In many European cities it is increasingly common to see girls, sometimes as young as 5, with headscarves tied tightly around their necks, or even little veils. They are taught to keep away from boys, from unbelievers and from Muslims who are weak in the faith—in other words, other, unveiled Muslim little girls. That is precisely the purpose of the veil. The veil also manifests division of the sexes. Women must veil; men do not. Underlying this simple dogma is a sexual morality that holds women responsible for the sexual conduct of men. Men may become aroused to sinful thoughts at the sight of a woman. For that, the unveiled woman will be punished in hell by Allah. Australia's most senior Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, recently spoke about a group of Muslim men jailed for many years for gang rapes: "If you take uncovered meat and place it outside on the street ... and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it—the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem." He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her higab, no problem would have occurred." The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct. And this sexual morality clashes deeply with that of the West, which emphasizes female eroticism in fashion, music, films, advertising. Feminists may argue the merits of all this, but one distinction remains important. In the West, there exists an assumption that men are capable of sexual restraint. It is this presumption that makes it possible for us women to freely take part in public life and make our own private choices. The victim of rape in a miniskirt did not ask for it, and the husband who rapes his wife is guilty of a felony. And what of the debate over the separation of church and state, as waged in France? No single religion may dominate the public space. Everyone may freely exercise their religion—a right not enjoyed in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan—but they may not seek to impose it on others. They may not wear "ostentatiously visible" insignia of religion in schools. Muslim women who veil in Western societies violate all these norms. They are being immodest and invasive. They will succeed only in creating hostility. To every woman who decides to walk out the door looking like Batman and then complains of being ridiculed, I say, you are inviting it. Bear it or shed it. Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament, is author of "The Caged Virgin" and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. I'm hoping that this will be posted under the nick "ryuge" and that my cookies can be reset to that. If it doesn't work, maybe a moderator can help me get it reset sometime in the future. Thanks.
| |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #3 Jeeez, it's hopeless. We up against 400 million blue-balled teenagers. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-11-23 08:34 |
| #2 In the O Club, Fred suggested I try to reset my cookie through the comments box - so I'm trying one more time. Otherwise, I will e-mail him. Thanks for your help, Mr. Salmon, I mean White. :-) |
| Posted by: ryuge 2006-11-23 06:40 |
| #1 The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct. And this sexual morality clashes deeply with that of the West, which emphasizes female eroticism in fashion, music, films, advertising. Feminists may argue the merits of all this, but one distinction remains important. In the West, there exists an assumption that men are capable of sexual restraint. It is this presumption that makes it possible for us women to freely take part in public life and make our own private choices. The victim of rape in a miniskirt did not ask for it, and the husband who rapes his wife is guilty of a felony. All of this answers well towards my objections regarding how Islam is essentially one vast abuse of women. Of far greater importance is the first sentence alone: The most wicked aspect of this "morality" is the complete lack of male responsibility for male conduct. Even outside the context of sexuality, this statement still applies in full force. Islamic males simply refuse to take personal responsibility for anything. Whether it be mistreatment of women or flying fully loaded passenger jetliners into occupied skyscrapers, all such vile conduct is always attributed to or blamed upon someone else. One can only hear "The Anglican Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali put it so extremely well: THE Church of England’s only Asian bishop, whose father converted from Islam, has criticised many Muslims for their “dual psychology”, in which they desire both “victimhood and domination”. In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands. The way that Muslim males desire both “victimhood and domination” epitomizes the deep hipocrisy and interminable exoneration for even the most heinous behavior that Islam encourages amongst its followers. When such veritable license to kill is combined with taqqiya, the pinnacle of deceit, it makes a deadly brew that portends absolutely no good for the West. It is a much needed ray of hope that Blair and Straw have both begun to denounce the veil for what it is, a refusal to integrate. While the hijab might provide a veneer of protection in Arab cultures where its absence is an invitation to rape, in societies that vigorously prosecute sexual assault such apparel merely signifies a refusal to accept the proper protections and normatives of a new host country. The best resolution of this issues lies in banning the hijab, niqab and burqa. Let those extremists who cannot abide such accomodation to their newly adopted place of residence remove themselve to somewhere that is willing to endure such Neanderthal behavior. There are many other measures that can serve to discourage Islamic extremism, but such a ban represents one of the most easily enforced and readily enacted moves to do so. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-23 02:29 |