VEILED NONSENSE
Griffith University PhD student Nada Ibrahim responds to French President Sarkozy's assertion that the burqa is "not a sign of religion", but a sign of "enslavement ... and subservience":
It is actually an obligation that is put in the Koran.This is nonsense, of course: a majority of Muslim women wear neither veil nor burqa, with Ms Ibrahim pictured with neither.
"If you go into a chapter called 'the light', God particularly tells us Muslims to cover ourselves, so it's a commandment from God."
It has nothing to do with Muslim men being oppressive and controlling ... nothing to do with terrorism ... it has everything to do with God commanding you to do it," she said.
posted by Anonymous at 4:45 PM |
9 Comments:
Meanwhile a Flinders University PhD student is convinced that it is Israel and the West that are shooting women in the street in Iran.
sounds more like sensible advice against skin cancer - ie cover up from the light. People read far too much into these things.
Wasn't it "let there be light"? Or was that a different mob?
The burqa is a symbol of oppression on a par with the swastika and the hammer and sickle...
Here are two worthwhile things to consider in Burqa fashion.
"The burqa is a symbol of oppression on a par with the swastika and the hammer and sickle..."
Show me a violent political movement that has adopted the burqa as a symbol of their beliefs, and then we'll talk.
Outrageous assertions like yours get us nowhere.
"Show me a violent political movement that has adopted the burqa as a symbol of their beliefs, and then we'll talk."
Yeah, those Taliban boys were real friendly, weren't they? No violent political oppression there, right?
"Yeah, those Taliban boys were real friendly, weren't they? No violent political oppression there, right?"
Has the Taliban as a movement adopted the burqa as their logo, like the Nazis did the Swastika and the Commies the Hammer-and-Sickle? Do they wave it about on flags? Is it imprinted on their schools, their hospitals, their libraries? Is it a symbol they all rally around, waving it proudly before them as they goosestep down the boulevards of conquered nations? No.
A swastika = Nazism. A hammer-and-sickle = Communism. These are icons deliberately chosen to serve as political symbols precisely because they are so easily recognisable - you see a swastika, you know there are Nazis about. But a burqa is nothing more than a piece of clothing. Many fundamentalist Muslim groups force their women to wear it. Some don't. Many women choose to wear it of their own free will, for their own reasons. Many women in Turkey would like to wear it in public offices and universities, but the law does not allow them the right - which I think is as great a crime as forcing a woman to wear one.
The point is, it hasn't been adopted by any group as a symbol of their struggle. Thus, to compare the burqa with the Swastika is completely outrageous, and only harms any attempt at legitimate rational discussion of the issue. That was my point. I stand by it.
I see the teenager Alex hasn't gone to bed yet. Lights out young Alex. Your call to PC is heard. Good night.
Post a Comment
<< Home