Frontier 40th video
Giant Book Sale

Article Tools

Use the form below to share this article via email.

Your name:

Your email:

To email:

Message:

Possibly Related:

Forcing Islamic women to not wear veils is still oppression

15 comments
Text size
Last updated: 08/27/10 1:49am

Editor,

Freedom is the opportunity to decide for you. Choice is the basic building block of capitalism and a democratic system.  Americans have the freedom to choose our political representatives and products we consume.  
In our Constitution, it is written that we have the right to choose religion, political figures and pursuit of happiness. However, these ideals sometimes are not upheld to the high standards we set for ourselves as Americans.

As an American, I listened to the stories flooding the news about a law that recently passed through the French senate. The law states that Islamic veils cannot be worn in public. On one hand, lawmakers state the law is in place for safety reasons. The covering of the face makes it easy to escape the law.

However, a member of the Cabinet who approved the bill also states that the veils are symbolic of female oppression and not welcome in France’s democratic society.  
Now let’s take a closer look at the idea.  

The Cabinet member wants to free women from oppression by forcing them to abandon sacred practices that have been handed down through generations. It seems like a backward step to the goal of a free world. The whole concept of freedom is to have a choice. This law takes away the Muslim women’s right to choose whether they wish to practice their religion. More and more, laws in Europe have been sprouting up that directly attack the Muslim community.

More close to home, in Disneyland’s resort restaurant a hostess was told to go home without pay seven times because she chose to wear an Islamic headscarf. She had been working faithfully and diligently for the company for three years.  
As a tribute to her culture and sacred holiday Ramadan, she wanted to wear a headscarf in public at all times. Her choice to get closer to her religion by practicing common traditions was looked down upon by her employer.

If someone can wear a crucifix to work, then it is only just she wear her headscarf. It must not be a small world after all.
Since 9/11, the Muslims have been the focus of our woes. The reality is that a small group of terrorists should not inform opinion of an entire population of people. Muslims need not be the scapegoat. The only way to attempt unity in our salad bowl society is to respect each other.

It is a woman’s right to wear what she feels accurately depicts herself. It is constitutional to support people’s right to worship. It is moral to embrace a different heritage. Freedom is not freedom unless you can choose. Forcing people out of oppression is a sorry excuse to oppress.

Thelma Greenfield
UNM student

Published August 27, 2010 in Letters, Opinion

Follow us

15 comments

Secular Islam

August 27, 2010 at 7:58 AM
Flag this comment

It seems doubtful that the whining over “Islamophobia” will be as shrill against Syria as they have been against France.
=
“Syria bans face veils at universities”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100719/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_islamic_veils

“Syria has banned the face-covering Islamic veil from the country’s universities to prevent what it sees as a threat to its secular identity, as similar moves in Europe spark cries of discrimination against Muslims.”
=
Arab Muslims in the Sudan attack Black Muslims in the Sudan. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Read more …

Saudi Arabian Muslims attack fellow Saudi Arabian Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Egyptian Muslims in government ban and imprison members of Islamist political parties. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Sunni Muslims in Iraq attack and kill Shia Muslims in Iraq. Shia Muslims attack and kill Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Alawite Muslims in Syria attack and kill Sunni Muslim in the Hama Massacre. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Sunni and Shia Muslims regularly attack each other in Pakistan. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Sunni Muslims regularly oppress and persecute Muslims sects such as the Ismailis (a branch of Shia Islam). Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Kemal Ataturk dismantled the Caliphate, made all Muslim clerics employees of the state, decreed that the Arabic alphabet could no longer be used, banned the hijab in government institutions and put state controls on what would be the ideological content of Islamic religious instruction. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

Tunisia has banned the hijab. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

The Taliban in Afghanistan established an authoritarian police state which in their opinion was meant to be the perfect Islamic state. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

The Iranians have established an authoritarian police state in the name of Islam in which dissent is not tolerated. Muslims must really hate Muslims.

“Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of the religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.” —Ernest Renan—

Wingnut

August 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Flag this comment

American 18 yr olds have freedom of choice if they DON’T want to join the pyramid scheme called capitalism? Really? I don’t see it. Capitalism is a join OR STARVE, OR DIE, OR ELSE… for American non-born-set-for-life Americans, buddy. Nice. Forced religion into the competer’s church. FELONY. How ‘bout Chicago mob-like “pay up or lose your wellbeing” felony extortion. Seeing any of THAT within capitalism? Duh. How ‘bout servitude? Seeing any working ‘FOR’ going-on in capitalism, instead of working WITH in equality? DUH! Seeing anyone taking ‘orders’ in capitalism? C’mon, wake up, friend. The Columbian Freemason pyramid scheme symbol is right there on the back of the USA dollar, and the USA gov is in a “district of Columbia”. Need we say more? If you’re bought into capitalism, you’re bought into a felony con/sham pyramid scheme… and you’re in for a rough afterlife. Freedom? In the USA? hahaha.

Secular Islam

August 27, 2010 at 8:03 AM
Flag this comment

Islamophobia is not just rampant in Syria…
=
“Egypt purges niqab from schools and colleges”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/6262819/Egypt-purges-niqab-from-schools-and-colleges.html

Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi was reportedly angered during a tour of a Cairo school when he saw a girl wearing a niqab, the full veil worn by some devout Muslim women which covers the entire body except for the eyes.

Read more …

Sheikh Tantawi, regarded by many as Egypt’s Imam and Sunni Islam’s foremost spiritual authority, asked the teenage girl to remove her veil saying: “The niqab is a tradition, it has no connection with religion.”
=

Who knew Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi himself was an “Islamophobe”, too!

Sari Krosinsky

August 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Flag this comment

“Secular Islam” — You could also interpret the law in France to mean the French hate the French.

Sari Krosinsky

August 27, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Flag this comment

I’m missing your point — It’s not Islamophobia to prohibit Muslim practices because Muslims do it, too?

Tony Seat

August 27, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Flag this comment

Wingnut, while I agree with your conclusion that “freedom” in the United States is about semantics, I must point out that your incoherent and poorly bridged premises make your argument very uncogent. Yes, these ARE very basic philosophy 101 terms, but that’s the point. If you want to rant, there are blog-o-spheres for that. If you want to point/counterpoint the article, please structure your ramblings. It only serves to weaken the external oppinion of like-minded individuals if you fail to do so.

Tony Seat

August 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Flag this comment

My appologies about filling up comment space with my previous fluff, my initial reason for wanting to comment is that “freedom”, on a social whole, must be taken in degrees. “freedom” on the individual basis is limited simply by the thought that the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. This being said, to completely eliminate religious freedom, (in this case the freedom to chose whether or not to wear the coverings), is completely degrading to the needs of the many, thus removing ‘freedom’ in it’s basist components. However, in the case of, say, secure locations, I believe the law has justification, as was the supposed reason behind the ban. The “for instance” in this case is a bank robbery. Before backlash commences, please note that I am not saying that everyone wearing a veil has the intention to rob a bank, i’m just saying that certain situations reserve the near necessity to accomodate such a restrictive law. Also, I’m not suggesting that outside of these secure locations this law be enforced.. .it’s a ridiculous thought.

Ana Heim

August 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Flag this comment
  • “… in Disneyland’s resort restaurant a hostess was told to go home without pay seven times because she chose to wear an Islamic headscarf.”
  • “Her choice to get closer to her religion by practicing common traditions was looked down upon by her employer.”

You must have quite an axe to grind to publish such blatent lies as the basis for your argument … or you simply have done zero research.

She was sent home because she refused to adhere to Disney’s infamous strict dress code. Introducing religion is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue.

Read more …

The Disneyland Resort is in the business of selling immersion in fantasy. Ms. Boudlal was NOT singled out. Why, you ask? Because ANY similar displays of individuality are not allowed under the strict dress code that every new “onstage” DLR cast member agrees to. Yes, a food server at the Storyteller’s Cafe is as much “onstage” (i.e. visible to the public) as someone ushering you into a doombuggy. Your implication regarding her hajib ignores the FACT that onstage cast members are not allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes. “Backstage” is a different matter, as ALL of these would be allowed in the back offices.

This isn’t Denny’s. Denny’s is NOT in the business of selling escapism … just in the business of selling food. If Ms. Boudlal worked there, one might be able to make a case for her and she might engender sympathy from reasonable people. In the instance of working onstage at the Storyteller’s Cafe, she is 100% in the wrong. Religion is only an issue here for those with an agenda. Otherwise, religion has absolutely nothing to do with this story.

Disneyland is a PRIVATE employer and, as such, has the right to set a dress code … as does “Hooters”. Would Ms. Boudlal apply to work at Hooters only to challenge their dress code two years later and expect to not be in the wrong? Of course not. I personally wouldn’t work under a dress code as restrictive as Disney’s, but SHE signed the paperwork agreeing to it before she even started.

Arafat

August 27, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Flag this comment

IN THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, pages 511-517 (758-766 in the Arabic) WE LEARN HOW IN KHAYBAR MUHAMMAD ORDERED THE TORTURE AND BEHEADING OF A MAN IN ORDER TO GET HOLD OF A TREASURE, AND HOW A FEW DAYS LATER MUHAMMAD TOOK INTO HIS PRIVATE TENT FOR CONSUMMATION OF “MARRIAGE” THE TORTURED MAN’S WIFE, WHOSE FATHER AND OTHER MALE RELATIVES MUHAMMAD HAD ALSO RECENTLY KILLED:

Kinana b. al-Rabi’, who had the custody of the treasure of the B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle [Muhammad] said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle [Muhammad] gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head in revenge for his brother Mahmud. [— page 515 (763-764 in the Arabic)]
…The apostle took captives…among whom was Safiya d. Huyayy b. Akhtab who had been the wife of Kinana b. al-Rabi’ b. Abu’l-Huqayq, and two cousins of hers. The apostle chose Safiya for himself. [— page 511 (758 in the Arabic)]
When the apostle married Safiya in Khaybar or on the way, she having been beautified and combed, and got in a fit state for the apostle by Umm Sulaym d. Milhan mother of Anas b. Malik, the apostle passed the night with her in a tent of his. Abu Ayyub, Khalid b. Zayd brother of B. al-Najjar passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle and going round the tent until in the morning the apostle saw him and asked him what he meant by his action. He replied, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people, and till recently she was in unbelief, so I was afraid for you on her account.’ They allege that the apostle said ‘O God, preserve Abu Ayyub as he spent the night preserving me.’ [— page 516-517 (766 in the Arabic)]

Arafat

August 27, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Flag this comment

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, WE LEARN THAT MUHAMMAD ALLOWED HIS MEN TO RAPE THEIR CAPTIVE WOMEN:

From Sahih Muslim, one of the canonical hadith collections:
Book 008, Number 3371:

Read more …

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Notice that Muhammad did not say, “do not rape your captive women.” He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.

From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

Thus we find that Muhammad has led a raid on a tribe from which women were captured. Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers’ queries Muhammad doesn’t say “You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you.” He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.

Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it’s better not to do coitus interruptus. His men should keep going till coitus is complete.

In the Qur’an “Allah” says at least 25 times that Muhammad is to be obeyed. That is one reason why the vast majority of Muslim scholars accept the Bukhari hadiths and a few other hadith collections as authoritative for Muslims: canonical hadiths show what Muhammad did and said, permitted and forbade.

Damian

August 27, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Flag this comment

It is immoral and a grave injustice to force employers to meets some sort of cultural standard. Nobody has any right to a job, ever.

tralala

August 28, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Flag this comment

Choice seems good.

Romae

August 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Flag this comment

[tralala stuttered: “Choice seems good.”]

Indeed. And if Muslims CHOOSE to live in France, then they are obliged to respect French laws.

Read more …

/si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more

slowhike

August 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Flag this comment

I admire the French for their ability to cut through the political chaff and make reasonable decisions. One of which is that women no longer wear the Islamic nonsense veil. Another is that the French put to rest the incomprehensible debate about gay marriages that rages in America. America is demonstrating it’s liberal stupidity as it tolerates either of these behaviors.

French Muslims riot!

August 29, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Flag this comment

Two years ago, the peaceful Muslims, who said they were Muslims therefore labeling themselves by a religion, rioted in the streets for months burning up to 500 cars per night. The past President was afraid to take action and on and on it went. They didn’t want a 9-11 type retaliation which showed weakness which brought on more anachy in the streets.

The Muslim population had a high unemployment rate and they used that as their excuse and they claimed to be “victims” so their rioting was justified by the world’s Workers, aka Communists and Socialists who have taken over France!

Read more …

Many of our political science students go on “Socialist” exchanges to France. They come back more radical and extreme and then write their term papers on the “Virtues of Socialism: Marxist Economic Theory.” Then they are recommended to Marxist professors at other colleges to get their Masters, for free, and soon they are the professors which continue the cycle of the cult!

I bet the 72 Virgins don’t wear veils. Sheep would look kinda funny don’t you think? “I wanted goats!”

Comments are closed for this item.