Ugliness Behind the Burqa
John Palubiski comments on the honor killing in Canada:
This murder is an outrage, not because it was committed by the girl's father, but rather because it is clearly motivated by sick, perverse religious impulses.
*Shakes head sadly*.
So crosses and pendants are okay because they represent "civil society", but hijabs are not because they represent "sick, perverse impulses"?
I don't even know where to start...
Let me start with the "logic" behind the burqa. And by burqa I mean the clothing which cloaks the entire body except perhaps the hands and eyes.
According to the Shari’ah, it is incumbent upon a Muslim female to fully cover herself in front of Ghayr Mahram men besides her hands and feet. If any part of her body, be it even a strand of hair is exposed in front of non-Mahram men, she will be sinful for exposing her Satar / Awrah, and will unfortunately earn the curse and wrath of Allah.
Also, a curious reason given for the burqa is that it liberates women from being looked at as sexual objects. This is amusing because the entire essence of a woman is distilled down to her sexuality when she is told to cover up every inch of her body.
Remember that not wearing a burqa draws the hungry cats.
THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.
You see, burqa-free women are partly responsible for attracting rapists. One finds the vicious, logical conclusion of this thinking in Arabia: "Saudi court punishes rape victim with 200 lashes."
What sweet liberation.
This wretched mindset sees women as only a sexual object -- and men as no more than beasts who should never be enticed. The burqa is a symbol of this monstrous, backwards, uncivil way of life. Women in Islamic nations wear this vile garb not because they choose to but out of fear. Fear that they might be hit or worse.
Another example: In March of 2002 a few Muslim men were presented with two stark choices.
(A) Allow young girls to escape a fire with a small chance that someone might get a glimpse of their ankles or
(B) Block the exits from the inferno which would result in the painful, horrifying deaths of over a dozen girls.
Guess which choice they went with.
There's another aspect to this perverseness. Most Muslim men do not have control over their lives, laws or society. What they do have is tremendous power over women. These men routinely beat women for the smallest transgressions in Islamic nations; the neighbors and the police don't even bat an eyelash. It's an utterly normal and a sick dynamic.
This normalcy is strongly challenged and threatened in Western culture. Here, women have far more choices in every sphere of life. Aqsa Parvez had only rebelled against the most visible aspect of Islam: the burqa. However, in the future, she could have decided to choose her own studies, profession, and even a husband!
Her father had lost control. He at first thrashed her. She still defied him and threw off her glorious garbage bag when she was in school. He finally murdered her. This heinous man constructed a tiny district of the Taliban in a Canadian city but her daughter repeatedly went outside to taste freedom. He couldn't stomp out that freedom. So, he crushed her.
This is what it's about.
I'll finish by asking segacs or any reader: How many Jews and Christians are beaten or killed every year for refusing to wear their religious symbols?