You are here . on the pale blue dot


'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.
(See Introduction note in right hand column)

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Monday, 23 September 2013

You looking at me?


Photo: Global Research


The 'wise' can make compelling cases for just about everything. There is a reasoned defence by a distinguished professor who teaches law, philosophy, and divinity here of women choosing to wear the veil. There are many other opinions with highlights from the New York Times archives here. In Great Britain the general attitude is 'live and let live'.

Whether it is freedom of choice or freedom of religious expression, save for specific security or health care reasons, people in the UK are allowed to wear what they like provided they wear something. Whilst not a religious requirement, claims that wearing the veil is a religious requirement have become commonplace because Muslim scholars disagree on the subject, but claiming religious rather than cultural reasons has the effect of putting the subject off limits as Islamophobia.

In Egypt where Christians have been under constant attack there is a TV channel featuring only fully face-veiled women. But it is not all women. To quote: "There is also a big role for men at the channel. Maria TV’s owner, Ahmed Abdallah, is a prominent Salafist preacher, well known in Egypt for his anti-Christian rhetoric. Abdallah and his son Islam, the channel’s chief executive, were arrested last month for burning a Bible during a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11."

Logic suggests that the modesty of these veiled women would be better protected using a radio show instead but then the visual effect of making the veil commonplace would be lost. In areas of Britain where Islamic influence dominates the sight of the niqab no longer raises an eyebrow - see 'Londonistan' here. Meanwhile in areas where Islamisation is in its infancy the veil actually draws attention. There is an element of cultural jihad here. In some instances the veil has become a means of Muslims thumbing their noses to the very people who have welcomed them choosing segregation in preference to integration. The gullible will see no problem with this until they become victims of exclusion in the land of their birth. In many of British cities in Britain, traditional tolerance has resulted in large areas being converted into ethnic ghettos.

'Live and let live' is not an idiom that appeals to Muslims, rather, it is do it our way, or else! While Muslims insist on their rights in this country, Christians abroad are not so fortunate, see here and here. They are not even allowed to practice their religion openly in some countries. Where it is permitted persecution prevails. In Pakistan on Sunday men, women and children not only had their clothes ripped from them but their bodies were ripped apart. This appalling act of barbarism, perhaps because it is only one of many in Muslin countries, has been almost neglected by the media. - Read Cranmer here for a full account - but beware if you are at all squeamish - and VOL here.

There are occasional protests from the Muslim community in response to acts of terror, usually when they feel vulnerable after another Muslim outrage but otherwise attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims around the world are simply brushed aside as the actions of Islamists who do not represent Muslims in general. They may not represent all Muslims but they all subscribe to the same faith which Islamists claim permits atrocities against fellow human beings, indeed, even against fellow Muslims for holding a contrary view to theirs. 

As a gesture of solidarity against Muslim terrorism women tempted to wear the veil could, if only temporarily, demonstrate their solidarity by rejecting it until Muslims eradicate the violence that shames them. Only then they will stop wondering: You looking at me?

Postscript: Veils, segregated schools and why we risk sowing the seeds of Islamic terror in Britain

From an article by Manzoor Moghal  in the Mail Online:

The aim of true multi-racialism should be to promote tolerance, understanding and integration. These are vital qualities if our increasingly diverse society is to function successfully. But while the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant people, the extremists are pushing in precisely the opposite direction. Their eagerness to impose their fundamentalist, alien values is undermining harmony, with suspicion and division rising in their place...

It’s claimed that, in defiance of all British traditions of tolerance, girls and boys are segregated at the school; that even non-Muslim staff are required to wear the hijab, the Muslim headscarf; and that stringed instruments, singing, the telling of fairy tales and even the use of the word ‘pig’ have all been banned. I am a proud Muslim — but I find this appalling. Such superstitious, divisive nonsense should have no place in a British school. We are not living in rural Pakistan or a Taliban-run region in Afghanistan. Apart from anything else, the pupils are being deprived of a proper, rounded education and therefore will not have the same life chances in adulthood.

Under the great English tradition of justice, we are all meant to be equal before the law, regardless of status, wealth or religion. Indeed, it is exactly that genuine equality under the law that has long attracted many migrants to Britain. ... Nothing imposes that sense of alienation more powerfully than the full veil, which is at the centre of a furore over whether it should be tolerated at educational colleges, or worn by hospital staff and defendants in court.

Read full article: here


1 comment:

  1. Have you read about the Muslim school (In UK) where they took the kids on a trip to a "theme" park. The girls duly lined up, when they got to the head of the queue their places were taken by the boys and male teachers. That's how it works in that environment. We have allowed multi culturalism and that's what is now allowed. Oh golly they would not have women bishops!

    ReplyDelete