web analytics

WHAT IS THE BURKA ABOUT?

By Pete Moore On August 11th, 2018

“The niqab is being defended by those that believe they are liberal intellectuals, and that is preferring and allowing Islamist garments and ideologies to become the dominant discourse of Islam, silencing civil and pluralistic Islam in the process.”

So says Dr Qanta Ahmed, a physician and journalist according to her wiki page, on the BBC yesterday. According to her the burka and niqab (ridiculous items which make women look like bank robbers, letterboxes and bats – PM), are recent expressions of Islamism and not at all prescribed within Islam. I know that their appearance in Britain is recent, because I never saw them when I was growing up in London. She might be right or wrong, but I suspect she knows more about it than anyone here.

If she’s right then self-described liberal intellectuals – along with their parochial, unworldly minds – are not only ignorant but dupes of a wicked, evil ideology. I know, not for the first time either.

(Roll it to 0:12)

31 Responses to “WHAT IS THE BURKA ABOUT?”

  1. I totally agree with Dr. Ahmed. That argument was very well presented.

  2. Yes

  3. Cloth shackles. Why aren’t the Muslim women (slaves) rising up against their male (masters)? Why aren’t Non-Muslim Feminazis calling for the can of the burqa? It’s in fact meant as a “stick-in-the-eye by all liberals against Western Culture. Whatever magnifies the anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-Judeo/Christian meme is high capacity magazine ammunition for the sanctimonious culture-haters.

  4. Dr Ahmed is correct that there is no specific requirement with in Islam for the veil. Burqas and the Niqab are not mandatory in Islam, however the Qur’an requires that all people dress modestly. And there are then cultural differences as to what dressing modestly means. There are many Muslims (including it would seem Dr Ahmed) who believe that dressing modestly in the western sense fulfils the Quaranic requirement. There are others who believe that their own cultural requirements for dressing modestly means that they must cover their hair or their face.

    And yes a Muslim woman will have more liberties and rights in the UK than they will in much of the world, and far more liberties and rights than the majority of other Muslims. However to argue that Muslim woman, and only Muslim women, should be denied the right to decide what to wear for themselves is abhorrent. It is abhorrent (and should be criminal) for her father or her husband to force her clothing options.. But it is also abhorrent (and should not be allowed) for the state to force her clothing options.

  5. The Burka is a degrading dehumanising garment. It is not voluntary , neither is it an Islamic requirement no matter what some fooolish defenders of it claim. If it was truly voluntary, some Muslim men would choose to wear it but they dont, it is only for women and it is only worn to hide the fact of being female, as if your sex is something to be ashamed by. It deserves rejection and mockery.A decent healthy society should urge Muslim women to reject such Instructions of inferiority. Boris is right on this matter. There is nothing respectable about this “choice”. Something that is wrong doesn’t magically become acceptable with the fake excuse that it is based on religious faith.

  6. Seamus,

    However to argue that Muslim woman, and only Muslim women, should be denied the right to decide what to wear for themselves is abhorrent. It is abhorrent (and should be criminal) for her father or her husband to force her clothing options.. But it is also abhorrent (and should not be allowed) for the state to force her clothing options.

    Putting aside the fact that the vast majority of Muslim women around the world do not choose to wear the full face covering, and of those that do many are forced to wear it against their will, I actually can’t argue with your point Seamus.

    If someone actually wants to cover their face with a cloth with a slit in it, should we be allowed to stop them? what about people who get extreme full face tattoos or piercings or face altering cosmetic surgery?
    When is the line crossed with a person’s freewill to dress and look the way they want taken away by the state?

  7. WHAT IS THE BURKA ABOUT?

    subjugation

  8. Seamus –

    I understand what you’re saying. Don’t worry, I instinctively get it and have huge sympathy with it. But what if Qanta Ahmed is correct, that the burka and niqab are in-your-face symbols of aggressive Islamism, worn to signify rejection of the very fundamentals of Western society and mores?

    It means it’s a uniform. It’s the uniform of a political ideology which is not only opposed to Western Civilisation, but which works via both democracy and violence to end it.

    It’s the uniform of a medieval ideology which is wicked and oppressive, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted and cruel. It’s the uniform of a creed which has fostered terror around the world, killing countless innocents.

    If I started marching around in an SS uniform people would object, many of them probably the kind of people who defend a woman’s right to wear a burka. In Syria, just a couple of years ago, the burka-pushers enslaved thousands of Yazidi women and attempted genocide, an actual genocide, on the rest.

    So if (say) Allan@Aberdeen wants to go around dressed like Himmler or Heydrich, those now defending the burka must do likewise and defend neo-Nazi dress, yes?

  9. Pete Moore

    So if (say) Allan@Aberdeen wants to go around dressed like Himmler or Heydrich, those now defending the burka must do likewise and defend neo-Nazi dress, yes?

    As far as I’m concerned, Allan and walk around with a frilly tutu on if he wishes.
    good to see that the Germans have finally lifted the ban on displaying the swastika in video games.

  10. I don’t believe the Burka should be outlawed but I do think it should be the policy of everyone including public bodies and govt. officials to actively discourage it and there should also be absolutely no hesitation in demanding its removal in circumstances where it restricts security procedures. There should be no “respecting” the right to wear it.

  11. PS Dave

    I am quiet prepared to believe Allan often walks around in a frilly tutu 😱

  12. Colm.

    I’m pretty much with you on this one mate.

  13. The ploy here is that ‘islamism’ is bad, and good muslims will agree with their hosts on that one – but islam is good and more is needed because it’s moderate, caring and not at all nasty unlike those ‘far-right extremists’.

    Somehow, this story is being reported away from the MSM…..

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/msm-blanks-out-story-of-dutch-politicians-suicide/

    Scanning Google news results today, the story of Dutch politician Willie Dille‘s suicide seems to have been completely blanked out by mainstream English-language news organisations. Shortly before committing suicide, she claimed, in a video, that she had been kidnapped and gang-raped by Muslims and that the whole thing had been arranged by Arnoud van Doorn. Like Dille, Arnoud van Doorn had been a member of Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam party, the PVV. Bizarrely, however, Van Doorn left the party and converted to Islam.

    How can the refusal to report this story be justified? Even if Dille’s claims about rape and kidnap were false (and so far there is no indication of that), the fact that she made them and then committed suicide would be newsworthy in itself.

    There is no way to explain this failure to perform basic news-reporting functions except by a desire to protect Muslims.

    Imagine the roles were reversed. Image a Muslim or other BAME politician claimed she had been kidnapped and gang-raped by racists or Islamophobes and then committed suicide. Do you think the MSM would show the same scruples about reporting it?

  14. You agree with me about Allan’s dress habits 😉

  15. Allan

    I read about that story on an English news website earlier today, I think it was the Mail or the Express.

  16. It’s the uniform of a medieval ideology which is wicked and oppressive, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted and cruel. It’s the uniform of a creed which has fostered terror around the world, killing countless innocents.

    Exactly.

  17. Colm,

    You agree with me about Allan’s dress habits 😉

    Yes. And I also agree with your post above it about the burka.
    Cards on the table, I don’t like the burka and I don’t like women wearing it.
    I think it represents oppression and giving the finger to western society.
    But I’m on the fence about banning it. I don’t like the idea of the state telling people what they can and can’t wear.

  18. “But what if Qanta Ahmed is correct, that the burka and niqab are in-your-face symbols of aggressive Islamism, worn to signify rejection of the very fundamentals of Western society and mores?”

    I disagree with that suggestion Pete. Ultimately it is a symbol of conservative Islam. Yes Islamism, and more pointedly, Salifist Islamism, are forms of conservative Islam. And so yes Salifists and their supporters are strong supporters of the Burqa and the Niqab. However many non-salifist, non-extremist, non-violent, conservative Muslims consider it appopriate.

    “So if (say) Allan@Aberdeen wants to go around dressed like Himmler or Heydrich, those now defending the burka must do likewise and defend neo-Nazi dress, yes?”

    A) for what is worth I don’t believe that wearing a Nazi uniform should be criminal. And broadly it isn’t. There are a huge number of examples of people wearing it without legal sanction. Aidan Burley, a Conservative MP, was a few years ago pictured on a stag do sitting beside a guy in a Nazi uniform. As far as I am aware that person, the friend of the Tory MP, was not arrested. Harry Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha quite famously wore one to a fancy dress party. As far as I am aware no one was arrested and no charges were brought. Shops still sell them and there is, again as far as I am aware, no attempt to criminalise it.

    B) I don’t agree with the equivalence. As I said the Burqa and the veil are symbols of conservative Islam, not just Salafists. To treat it as a Salafist uniform would be incorrect.

  19. Seamus –

    Yes, Harry and Burley were so pictured, and nothing eventually came of it. However in each case there days of outrage and horror. Given what Islamism has done and hopes to achieve, more pressure must be exerted to make its symbols unacceptable.

  20. And similarly if a senior politician or ‘royal’/celebrity was pictured holding the Black Banner I would also support them being criticised and ostracised and even criminalised. I disagree that the Burqa is the equivalent.

  21. When anyone is in public the people have a right to see the faces of people. Covering the face is a violation of common rules of civility.

  22. I would broadly agree New Yorker. However, is it the role of the state to force people to be civil to one another? What is next? Banning bad language? Banning discourtesy?

  23. That this discussion is happening is evidence of how alien and unwelcome these things are. They don’t belong here. They’re not from here. They jar the senses.

    Maybe it’s best all round to turn back the clock.

  24. Seamus

    “However, is it the role of the state to force people to be civil to one another?” I am using “civil” in the broad sense to include seeing faces as a means of identity which is a government function as, for example, in tracking criminals. I think you are using “civil” in the sense of being nice to others which is not a state function.

  25. I think in those situations where seeing faces is essential it is acceptable, even prudent, to not allow face coverings, religious or otherwise. So I think it is acceptable to ban burqas in secure environments, such as banks, or other secure buildings. I also think in areas where non-verbal communication, such as court rooms (at least for those appearing as witnesses), or for things like class rooms, that it is acceptable to ban the burqa.

    But an over arching ban? No. There are plenty of modern examples of people covering their faces without criminal sanction. Are we going to ban non-see through motorcycle helmets as well?

  26. //Are we going to ban non-see through motorcycle helmets as well?//

    You don’t wear such helmets when interacting with people.

    “face to face”, “to face up to” something, “to lose face”, “a barefaced lie” – western culture insists on an uncovered face as a requirement for open and honest communication, where each meets the other on a level field and interacts in a civil and frank way.

    The burkha defies this sound cultural imperative and should not be tolerated in public places where such culture prevails.

    It is also an extremely ugly thing to see, and should accordingly also be prohibited in the same way as litter etc is.

    The covering of women was devised by men in order to keep their women in subjugation and prevent them interacting with men, to protect them as you protect your own property.

    It has to be banned, or at least every civilised person should refuse to communicate with, serve or acknowledge anyone wearing one.

  27. “So I think it is acceptable to ban burqas in secure environments, such as banks, or other secure buildings.” What about criminals in the street? Should they be allowed to hide their identity?

  28. What about criminals wearing motorcycle helmets New Yorker? What about other face coverings?

  29. Noel,

    I think were that culture is most important, and required, then it should be banned. As I said in places like classrooms. But to force people walking down the street, not talking to anyone, to conform to your requirements is not acceptable.

  30. // As I said in places like classrooms. But to force people walking down the street, not talking to anyone, to conform to your requirements //

    But then you are promoting a kind of apartheid. A woman wearing such covering in public is deliberately excluding herself from the community of regular social interation. She is also introducing not just a symbol of but the very essence of an oppressive misogynistic society into a more free society where genders are approaching equality.
    I know many Muslim women. Without exception they say that ALL Islamic dress for females is oppressive, that one of the great things about living in the west is that “women wear what they like” etc.
    The Burka is woman wearing what someone else likes her to wear.

  31. “What about criminals wearing motorcycle helmets New Yorker? What about other face coverings?” All people’s faces should be able to be seen without exception. Do you think a criminal on a motor cycle with a helmet that covers his face from detection should be allowed to get away to commit more crimes?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.