THIS had me gasping for breath, so hard did I laugh when I read it.
At a rally in Australia in support of the veil – where one speaker after another sang the praises of Islam, and the “liberation” it bestows on its females – one burqa’d woman, approached for a comment by the Sydney Morning Herald, said she would have to ask her husband before speaking to the paper.
A perambulating binbag at the pro-burqa/niqaab rally
When asked if she needed her husband’s permission to speak, she said:
We are allowed but we choose not to.
One of the speakers at the rally, Fautmeh Ardati, a member of the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, declared:
Despite the intense negative propaganda against Islam and in particular the lies about its treatment of women, the number of Western women embracing Islam continues to rise at a rapid rate. By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.
She added that women did not wear Islamic dress out of freedom of choice:
Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.
Women had two options, she said.
The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman’s dignity, respect and honour are priceless.
It’s not a burqa this creature should be in in, but a straitjacket.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn
I’m not sure calling a woman a “creature” is the best way to go about complaining about Islam’s horrendous treatment of women, but that really is some absurdly abused logic she is using to claim that black is white.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!!!
There is NOTHING in isLame that requires the tent!!
It only says to dress modestly.
These women if they are telling the truth are so brainwashed they’ve managed to scrub the skull clean!!
But then, what else could she say when the small brained idiot is standing right there ready ‘treat her with respect’ when they get home.
I’ve worn flowing robes and capes and believe me it there is NOTHING convenient about them compared to shirt & pants.
But how do we know there was a woman in the tent?
We take their word for it?
Oh! They would never lie! Oh, wait, they are religious…that means they lie from day one and never stop.
Brain-dead from day one! And they should allow ‘us’ to have some rules too. If they really want a life of government-endorsed religious restrictions they should move to some Islam-infested country; there are plenty to choose from.
“The [islamic] way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of [secularism], where a woman’s dignity, respect and honour are priceless.” There, that reads a bit better!
These brain-dead islamists are an insult to all women.
Angela, they’re an insult to our species in general, just like every other kind of religious nut.
As ugly as a woman in a full-body tent is, I have a suspicion that what is under the tent is even uglier. Oh, if only such a device had been available in Mary Whitehouse’s day!
Yahoo news
By MARGIE MASON, AP Medical Writer – Mon Sep 20, 12:54 am ET
SUKKUR, Pakistan – Suhani Bunglani fans flies away from her two baby girls as one sleeps motionless while the other stares without blinking at the roof of their tent,
….
Doctors…have warned Bunglani three times to take her children to the hospital, or they will die.
The mother says she knows they need help, but she cannot leave the tent without her husband’s consent. She must stay until he returns, even if it means risking her daughters’ lives.
“I am waiting for my husband,” she says, still fanning flies from the sweating babies. “He is coming.”
Kerala girl defies threats, wears jeans – not burqa
Kasargod: An aeronautical engineer by qualification and preparing for the civil services exam, a 23-year-old Muslim girl here refuses to wear the burqa and often sports jeans despite constant threats to her life. Rayana R. Khasi, a resident of Kasargod has handed over the threat letters she received to the police.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4397902
Actually, this woman has hit the nail right on the head:
Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women.
You can’t fault her logic. Whatever it may or may not say in their religious teachings, she has once and for all given the lie to the oft-parrotted claim that “we dress this way because we choose to”!
But it was the gloves that did it for me, Barry. I was helpless!!
“they’re an insult to our species in general,”
“I have a suspicion that what is under the tent is even uglier.”
This overboard rhetoric is profoundly unhelpful.
Agreed, Anonymous. Treating the victims of religious brainwashing like they are subhuman is not going to help anyone, even if they are frustratingly illogical.
I am aware that there are nontheists who think that incurable religion addicts should be treated as if they are not an embarrassment to primates. Others take the position that being polite to self-inflicted brain amputees only encourages them to think that they are NOT aberrations who belong in the Cuckoo’s Nest.
The former group never ceases to irritate me. But I recognize that this is a matter of opinion, and there is insufficient evidence to determine which approach is more likely to free the human species from the god delusion faster.
Whenever I see these women and the positive slant that they try to put on their clothing I am reminded of the short film ‘Submission’ by Theo Van Gogh (dutch film-maker killed by a member of the ‘religion of peace’)
To me this is just another form of control over their bodies. If the muslim men who insist that their wives/daughters wear this nonsense actually had any respect for their female relatives they would let them wear what they want.
But as the men are a bunch of dickless, backward cowards I don’t see that happening soon.
“Attack on Niquaab = Attack on Islam”
Of course, I totally agree. So, if Islam is vanquished (the idea, not the people who have been abused from birth to submit to it), Niquaab also will be. I’m all for the attack. Let’s march on.
This is what The Koran is supposed to say on the subject of dress and modesty:
Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
And say that the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
In what way is Islam “being attacked”? These pathetic bleatings are reminiscent of the idiots who claimed that workers who were not allowed to wear a little golden cross were “being prevented from practising their faith”!
From Barriejohn’s extract above…
“…or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.”
Just what is it with Semites and sex?
What gets me is that like so many other religiots of varying and vying faiths today, these people will not tolerate the slightest criticism against their beliefs without going ballistic with their reaction.
What is it they are so afraid of? The truth would be my best guess.
On the positive side, many governments are finally waking up from their slumber and starting to acknowledge how those silly religious prescriptions and obligations have contaminated the open, progressive society and went way beyond being only a harmless fairy tale or a bunch of deranged individuals. Those pious idiots are impervious to open minded dialogue to the point they cannot even understand that there are other people who do not operate under (or bow to) their values, because there are good reasons not to do so. Unopposed (or even when only mildly challenged) they use our own rules of tolerance to smuggle their irrational beliefs an indoctrinate their weak; but on the same token, they more powerful amongst them push hard to silence the debate while shielding behind the “religion” badge, as if this would trump anything else including reason. However – and they fail miserably to grasp – this ought to be a two way road: have they want to live in (and profit from) the Modern World, then sorry, they must comply to the egalitarian values we stand for. It is about time to set the score clear and say we will not accept moving back the clock to pre-enlightened times. Because we had already to cope with this kind of non-sense (and its appalling consequences) here in the dark ages. Now that we broke free from the shackles of ignorance and stupidity (ditto), there is no way to drag us back there and say that we must oblige to their obsolete world view.
Meanwhile, in our small island, I am still pondering when (or if) the UK powers will some day stop dismissing that as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘inconsequential’ and have the guts to take stance against the ever growing unreasonable demands of those “logically challenged” and potentially damaging people, and say ‘OK, that is it. Enough !’.
When will these indoctrinated women stand up for their basic human rights and demand equality with their willfully ignorant menfolk. Make all muslim men wear the berk ha. Job done!
So it’s alright for Muslim women to wave their breasts at their fathers in-law and their husbands’ nephews, eh? I wouldn’t have thought many of us depraved infidels, let alone our wives, would be very happy with that. Must get quite interesting round the Scrabble table of an evening.
Quote from The Australian Morning Herald,
“I can move freely throughout society without being subjected to the eyes of every Tom, Dick and Harry and not be judged on face value but rather for who I am as a person.”
I suggest we treat these ladies more sympathetically. It must be terrible living with agoraphobia so bad they must perambulate from within a portable dwelling.
I’m pretty sure I read the acronym “FIFO” on an Australian blog. It stands for Fit In, or Fuck Off. Once you start accommodating these people’s demands they’ll keep pushing for more until they’ve managed to Islamise the country. Australians need only look to Europe to see how it goes.
>a commodity to be bought and sold
Now the rest of us know all about bride-price and the real reason the fathers get so upset if daughters won’t marry the guy daddy reached an agreement with.
So she can come off her high horse there.
People seem to be waking up in Europe, it’s just that the politicians are still asleep, which might explain the emergence of the more extreem Right-wing parties.
“The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman’s dignity, respect and honour are priceless.”
….How warped must one’s mind be to so greatly twist reality and logic? I have lived in Egypt and seen with my own eyes how women in Islam are treated as commodoties. The ‘dowry’ of gold and jewellery presented to a potential bride, which is a custom in engagement proceedings, can be regarded as nothing less than the buying of a wife. Women in Islam ARE treated as commodities to be bought and sold, in a very literal sense.
Also, the question of a woman’s ‘dignity, respect and honour’ being priceless is only so in relation to the male members of her family: it is really the father, husband, brother or other male relative who’s ‘honour’ is directly related to how a woman lives, not so much the woman herself.
And as for the women’s board which says ‘An attack on Niqab is an attack on Islam’… I see she’s clicked on that ‘attacking Islam’ (questioning Islam) holds some kind of bullshit taboo in the West now. I say, yes, the attack on niqab is an attack on Islam, because Islam is the warped doctrine that instructs it.
@ JohnMWhite.. .yes, you are right, calling a woman a creature is not the best way to go about things, but we actually cannot be sure that there is a woman under there, or indeed a human. This is the sad irony of the Niqab.
I’ve just looked at the photograph at the head of this article again. How can anybody think that dressing like a feckin’ dalek is even remotely sane? It’s like something out of Star Wars. I mean, where’s the self-expression? The sense of personal identity? It is utterly dehumanising in every respect.
I’m unsubscribing this website from my feed reader if you think religiously motivated people need “straitjackets”.
It dawned on me: You don’t want to HELP people like the woman in the article, you HATE them..!
You are NOT the fucking “voice of atheism”, you pretentious, bigoted asshat…
You have put yourself on a self-appointed pedestal, and think the object is to destroy the opponent. You’re acting like a religious person.
The hate is showing very clearly.
Anyone know the law about people wearing burkas entering or leaving the country? There are stories of men escaping arrest by leaving the country in a Darth Vader outfit. Do passport photos show the full face? Are entrants to the UK allowed in without a photo showing the entrant’s face? When in the UK, banks forbid entrance to people wearing crash helmets, does the same apply to those wearing face veils? I have heard of people dressed in burkas robbing (infidel) banks. So many questions, so little time. Ho Hum.
In my area burkas are pretty rare, but on my way home I saw one of these pathetic women, in the company of some scrawny-bearded guy. I don’t like women dressed as skanks, but I don’t what is worse of the two; I think the burka.
That reminds me – who won the caption competition for the burka passport photo picture?
Anyone who does anything that is motivated by religion–and that obviously does not include behaviour that emulates the non-religious, such as helping the needy or avoiding killing people–assuredly belongs in a straightjacket.
Why do the godphuqt persistently project the insanity they see in the mirror onto the educated? Are they really as stupid as they seem, or are they simply brainwashed into believing that their imaginary playmate loves the feeble-minded?
I have to admit I like the gloves…. Sorry!
A fetish, Stargraves?
Spot the bloke. (He’s probably the one wearing gloves to cover his hairy palms) :0)
Oh aye barriejohn – anything black n shiny
) I’m easily google-able
Urgh… I actually had something useful to say and the website’s just not posted it. Toss.
Ok, let’s try again.
My friend had an accident in a Muslim country and ended up with a small scar on a part of her body that the ‘binbag’ covers, but even modest ‘western’ clothing would not necessarily hide. I think we need to move away from defining revealing clothing as western, by the way. If we say that, we have been hoodwinked into using the religiotards’ language. In some cultures it is acceptable for women to walk around wearing nothing but a loincloth or pair of knickers and NONE of those cultures are western. Similarly, East Asian women are often happy to wear miniskirts which would be considered a bit risque in many areas of Europe. The rule that ‘shorts that expose the buttocks’ are banned from the DMZ is not aimed at foreigners who might flash a bumcheek to the communists. It’s aimed at Korean women who have a thing for wearing hotpants. These women would be insulted if anyone suggested they are trying to be western. They are not.
So, back to my friend’s accident. A Muslim doctor said to her, “Thank Allah! Your bride price will not be affected much,” because a burqua or niqab would hide this small mark. This remark, made by an educated medical man rather than some hick in a cave with an AK-47, tells you everything you need to know about Islam and its attitude towards women:
1) My friend’s feelings, having survived a serious accident, and having a minor change to her appearance, were irrelevant. She was treated as an object by this insensitive man.
2) The main focus was on my friend’s marital status – her relationship or lack thereof to a man – not on her.
3) My friend was effectively described as shop-soiled goods.
4) The only thing of any note about her was her appearance. Her status as a qualified professional was an irrelevancy.
This is all stuff that Islamic fundies accuse this mysterious united entity called ‘the west’ of promoting. Clearly, they are projecting.
Very well put, Garlic. Isn’t it dreadful that we in The West “objectify” women!
I guess in her world she’s “liberated” because she’s allowed to speak at all.
Aye Garlic – pertinent anecdote there. What an horrific attitude it seems, on a deeply ingrained cultural level.