Top Menu

Are Jeans and Hijab Symbols of Oppression?

“The Hijab is not something that should ever be seen on American women. It is a symbol of oppression and difference.”/Milo Yiannopoulos, senior editor on Breitbart

If you claim that the “hijab” is a symbol of oppression and claim that all who wear hijab are oppressed, then know that includes the Jews that wear “hijab,” like the Sheitel.

Orthodox Jewish women often cover their hair too

Often people refer to Iran as the reason why the Hijab is “dangerous.” Well, the laws regulating what kind of clothes women should wear in Iran are certainly oppressive. To force women to wear hijab and punish them if they don’t is horrible. But the problem is not the Hijab. It is the oppression that is the problem.

To force people to wear a hijab or to force them to take off the hijab is equally wrong! But of course, not for Milo, who frequently makes fun of people that have been forced to remove their hijabs, or even claim that they are liars.

The laws regulating what people should wear in Iran are not only restricted to the Hijab. If you read what is required you see that long trousers are mandatory:

Head: Hair should be covered. It does not mean you shall have a tight scarf around your head. Don’t worry, It is very usual that some parts remain out of the cover. It’s quite acceptable for women to allow whips of their hair to frame their face. Appropriate hats & caps can do this function as well as scarves. Scarf is the most common covering for head and is called “Roosari” in Farsi.

3. Body: Should be covered with loose clothes like man shirt, coat or manteau. Arms should not be bare.

4. Legs & feet: Legs should be covered down to ankles. Feet can be bare and you can wear sandals. Tight jeans are no problem.

So, if the hijab is a symbol of oppression because Iran forces women to wear it, and because some other extremists force women to wear it, is it not oppression to force women to wear trousers?

If the hijab is banned, should we not ban trousers too? And why are so many of those men and women that hate the hijab wearing trousers? Should they not walk around in miniskirts, or in their underwear only, to protest against the “cruel Muslim regulations dealing with clothes.”

Well, well… Some people like the hijab and trousers and carry it because they are following their conscience. Some wear trousers and hijab because of their religious beliefs. Some wear hijab and trousers because it is their habit or culture to do so. Some others because it feels good, especially in the winter. Others wear it because they believe they look attractive in it. And many do not like long trousers and hijab and do not wear it, or at least try not to (it is hard when it is snowing).

Let women themselves decide what to wear! Some Muslim women and some Jewish women use “hijab,” and some don’t. It is up to THEM to decide. Too long have men attempted to dictate how women should behave, say, and how they should dress.

But I would like to see Steve Bannon and Milo protesting on stage against the cruel “Iranian” regulations and laws regarding clothes, by only wearing their underwear. I can see it in front of me now and I can hear the voice of Milo: “Jeans is a symbol of oppression”.

, , , , , , ,

  • Nope, not preaching at all. Just pointing out reality.

  • No, everyone, including you.

    If you look at someone in a police uniform, another person in a burka, another in a business suit, and yet another in a mini skirt and lingerie-like camisole with 4-inch heels, you’re going to tell me you judge/evaluate them EXACTLY the same? No, you don’t.

    Consciously AND unconsciously, we absolutely DO evaluate and judge people based on appearance. If you say otherwise, you’re lying to me, to yourself, or both.

    It’s absolutely ridiculous to pretend you’re some sort of robot who doesn’t react to the way people dress. You’re not and you do, just like everyone else.

    The question is how much weight do you give to they way a person dresses? If you try to reserve judgement and get to know the person, that’s great. You shouldn’t over value appearance, especially to the point where it blinds you with too many assumptions or prevents you from getting to know someone. But by no means does tempering your judgement mean you’re 100% immune to basic human nature.

    This is why people criticize social activists. Their inclination toward denying basic reality in favor of their own idealism. Idealism sets targets. It doesn’t trump reality.

    Yes, Looks Do Matter
    …On a very basic level, judging people by appearance means putting them quickly into impersonal categories, much like deciding whether an animal is a dog or a cat. “Stereotypes are seen as a necessary mechanism for making sense of information,” said David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University. “If we look at a chair, we can categorize it quickly even though there are many different kinds of chairs out there.”

    Eons ago, this capability was of life-and-death importance, and humans developed the ability to gauge other people within seconds….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/fashion/26looks.html

  • JenniWest

    Not everyone. Only superficial, shallow people. And bigots.

  • Grain

    The more converts the better – the more fallout the better.

    Female converts will be impressionable and of low IQ. They will confuse expression with repression. It’s their own fault, those girls, they should have studied harder at school.

    On the other hand male converts will usually be completely unbalanced in the first place, jumping on the nihilistic choo choo, because there ain’t nothing else to do.

    Every single fall out case in the coming years will be graphically exposed in The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, Breitbart and to an extent the Daily Telegraph. Drip, drip,drip.

  • George Carty

    When I see Trump I don’t think “dark ages”, I think of insane Roman Emperors like Caligula, Nero or Commodus.

  • Everyone judges people based on the textiles they drape on their body.

  • JenniWest

    Anyone who judges others based on the textiles they drape on their body, has a real issue. This concept should be off the table as a form of criticism. It’s never not petty. It’s never not based on small-mindedness. It’s never right.

  • Khizer

    Thanks for the nuanced reply, a lot of people have been exploiting the Ahmadi situation to stir hatred of Muslims. This info definately sheds light on this situation.

  • I have some time, so let me pick apart some of what this “ex-Muslim” has said, just for fun.

    “…..not being allowed to fly into a country while supporting death penalties for gay people.

    There are a number of problems with this statement. First, it lumps Muslims together. How did this person determine the same Muslim who is opposing a flying ban is the same one who supports death penalties for gays?

    Second, what does one have to do with the other? By what logic are they connected? Why do you have to pass some litmus test on “gay rights” to be entitled to civil rights? I think even an open Nazi, whose views I find repugnant, has civil rights and the right to defend them–one doesn’t negate the other.

    Also, there is not and never been a death penalties for “gay people.” This is incorrect, and surprising coming from someone who was supposedly at one time a Muslim.

    The concept people are divided into categories such as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” is a modern concept, and not one recognized in Islam. As such, “being gay” is not even a thing, never mind a sin. It is homosexual BEHAVIOR that is a sin, not “being gay.” Furthermore, it’s not even homosexual behavior that is punished, but rather the ADVERTISING of such behavior that is punished, because it disrupts the social order, which Islamic doctrine seeks to preserve.

    If a man were to have a clandestine homosexual affair with his neighbor, for example, that person would be a human being (not a fixed identity of “homosexual”) engaging in PRIVATE homosexual activities, for which he would answer to God, not to man. But if that person then decided to go outside in some state of undress, wielding a giant sex toy, and agitating for acceptance of homosexual behavior and identity, as we see in the US today, then that person might be subject to punishment. I say “might” because not every Muslim society has viewed this in the same way. Look at how the Ottoman Turks decriminalized homosexual behavior at a relatively early point, even in comparison to parts of the West.

    Many of these rulings depend on NUANCE. When the nuance is lost, the whole idea is distorted. To declare that Islamic doctrine prescribes the death penalty for “being gay” is to display ignorance of the subject matter.

    Like adultery, being convicted would require a confession–and the whole point is NOT to punish personal behavior. It is, as with laws pertaining to adultery, to preserve the social order so that people can live in harmony and serenity, in a sustainable society.

    I’m not sure what this person means about “racism in all its forms.” Within the context of the commentary, it seems to imply that “Muslim” is a race and “gay” is also a race in this person’s mind. So that if you support the “Muslim” race, you must support the “gay” race? Neither is a race. It’s muddled or incomplete thinking, which I often find among “ex-Muslims” who, if they ever were really Muslim, seem never to have really understood the doctrine they were supposedly rejecting in the first place!

  • I think non-Muslims who keep shoving the Ahmadi in the faces of Muslims care about causing friction and finding ways to justify their hatred of mainstream Muslims. I say this because causing this friction doesn’t help the Ahmadis, and in fact is counterproductive.

    We should use “Ahmadi” and not Qadiani, because I think the latter is considered by some to be pejorative. I’ve never seen a scenario where Ahmadis referred to themselves as “Qadiani.”

    I’ve personally never met a Muslim in real life who had anything at all to say about Ahmadis. This is a topic manufactured by the enemies of Islam, for the most part. There are some Muslims fixating on Ahmadis online, but this is fringe.

    On the other hand, IF CONFRONTED with the question of whether or not Ahmadis are Muslims, the mainstream position is that they are not. If this idea spills over into violence and persecution against Ahmadis, then it’s wrong and should be condemned. But what if it doesn’t? What if it’s just recognition of an important distinction?

    I don’t think anyone has the right to be recognized by anyone else. Muslims don’t have to recognize Ahmadis as Muslims and Ahmadis don’t have to recognize non-Ahmadis as Muslims. I have heard some Ahmadi’s in fact don’t recognize non-Ahmadis as Muslims–I haven’t confirmed that, nor tried to figure out whether or not it’s common. If an Ahmadi feels that way, it doesn’t bother me–they too can recognize and not recognize whomever they please.

    Now, there are problems in some regions with the persecution of Ahmadis, which I disagree with of course, but there are complicating factors. It’s one thing to disagree with a core idea of Islam (the seal of the prophets, for example) and quite another to collude with enemies.

    The Ahmadis are viewed as being created, or if not created then at least supported and brought into the limelight, by the British as a means of weakening Muslim resistance to colonial domination. There is evidence to support this claim, and disagreement I would say is more in the realm of to what degree it’s true. You can also find examples of Ahmadis supporting Zionism, which of course is extremely unpopular, as well as them undermining the idea of the khilafah by promoting a “spiritual khilafah” with no actual manifestation in tangible reality–which of course also serves the interests of the Zionists and Western imperialists.

    So with Ahmadis we have (1) signification doctrinal differences (2) collusion with the enemies of Islam as the primary reasons why they are not only rejected by are also resented. You can see why the second would be a bigger issue in places where they are still dealing with the legacy of colonialism, and ongoing neocolonial meddling, as is the case in Pakistan.

    That said, NOT ALL Ahmadis are the same. I have seen some of them reject Zionism and Western imperialism, so what is said about collusion can’t rightly be said to be universal. That reduces the potential differences to doctrine, which remains an issue, to the extent Muslims or Ahmadis want to make it an issue. What I see mostly is NON-MUSLIMS who want to make it an issue, because they want to stir up trouble and manufacture as many problems as they possibly can for Muslims–that’s what we should reject.

    To me this matter is resolved very simply. Live and let live. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask Muslims not to persecute Ahmadis. It is NOT reasonable to DEMAND they must view Ahmadis as fellow Muslims. Muslims don’t have to and the majority of them don’t. I don’t see the same people harassing Jews to accept “Jews for Jesus” into the fold! Muslims will define their various communities for themselves, period.

    It’s not actually Ahmadis themselves who are causing problems. Not that I’ve ever seen. It’s their self-appointed “champions” who shove their plight in the faces of Muslims who are causing needless friction. I think the best approach is to ignore these agitators, and just live and let live.

    There are Ahmadis who have joined the fight against Islamophobia, and whatever differences we have, we can appreciate that. People don’t have to agree to respect one another.

  • Khizer

    Agreed.

    anyway what do you think of this Ahmadi/Qadiani debacle and ‘Muslims must accept them’ arm-twisting done by some liberals?

  • Ex-Muslims need to move on to what’s next, and stop bitterly complaining about what they supposedly left behind. I don’t waste time on people who identify as an “ex” whatever.

  • Khizer

    On the topic of cinema,

    What do you think of this big debacle here,

    https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/5we32e/mahershala_ali_won_an_oscar_for_best_supporting/

    Apparently the ‘Muslim’ who won the Oscar is an Ahmadi/Qadiani, and some people are trying to use this fact as a stick to beat Muslims over the head since the Muslim community doesn’t consider Ahmadis ‘real muslims’ and are ‘persecuting’ them. Here is one comment from a ex-Muslim insulting Muslims over this.

    “Because Muslims (in this sub and in the real world) are fucking idiots that will complain about not being allowed to fly into a country while supporting death penalties for gay people.

    Seriously, it’s bizarre how many Muslims want to make a stand against racism only when it very specifically affects* them, and are fine with it in all its forms otherwise.

    The second Mahershala won I knew I’d have to see this bullshit, holier-than-thou fuckheads talking about how Mahershala isn’t a real Muslim like they are. Assholes.

    “The Ummah” is a disappointment.”

  • Interesting.

    First, the use of the word “fatwa,” as if that really means something. It’s a non-binding ruling that is only as good as the credentials of the Shaykh who issued it, and only to those who respect his opinion. It’s made to sound like some ominous official sentence that encourages vigilante justice.

    Second, she is clever if she is playing to a particular audience. There is nothing some people love more than seeing Muslim women defiled. If you can take a pious Muslim woman and turn her into a drunken, half naked “SlutWalk” participant who rejects her roots, that will probably be a smash hit.

    This woman expressly said she wants to “shake the system.” More like wreck the social order. We are in the midst of a culture war, and people like her are on the front line. I don’t agree with the death threats, assuming really were any. I think much of the time attention seekers like this SAY there are fatwas and death threats and whatnot as part of the hype, and a way for them to play heroic martyr for secular “values.” I’m skeptical of their claims, but maybe someone really did threaten her, which is absolutely wrong.

    Threatening someone is not an argument, and in fact, is more a way signaling the absence of a good argument. What her opponents need is a better defense of traditional values. Just the way Al-Ghazali finally armed religious Muslims so they could fire back at the philosophers in public debates, we need people who can fire back at secularists (metaphorically) with compelling arguments.

  • George Carty

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the “Philly beard” was Islamically-inspired…

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    I’m not speaking of the west in general. I am speaking about certain “areas of the west.” Let me be specific. In the US conversion has been a massive phenomenon in the Black community, take areas of Philly, Germantown is so Muslim it is often called Muslim town. Atlanta, the community Imam Jamil Alamin is spread over several blocks. In Chicago it is similar. These are just a few examples.

  • Khizer
  • Khizer

    MRA’s are a strange bunch.

    There are problems facing men in the world, including western countries especially with the changing up of gender and societal roles in western countries. However, most Men’s Rights Advocates usually ignore these problems and get angry about non-sensical or unimportant crap.

  • The men’s rights movements are strange and incoherent. They’re angry. That’s all I can say for sure. 🙂

  • George Carty

    At least seeing the genuine misogyny of the alt-right means I’m a big less likely to beat myself up over admiring women in hijab…

  • Khizer

    Yep

  • George Carty

    A “tankie” is a derogatory term for a left-winger who slavishly supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War (the name come from their praising of the Soviet decisions to crush Hungarian and Czech freedom movements by military force). More recently it means left-wingers who slavishly support contemporary despots perceived as being anti-Western (such as Slobodan Milosević, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad).

  • George Carty

    I made the mistake of confusing the alt-right with Trump supporters in general. Many of them (particularly the ones in the Rust Belt who secured his election victory) were older blue-collar types attracted to him by his protectionist (ie anti-globalization) rhetoric. I also suspect that those voters (and their equivalents voting for Brexit in the UK) were motivated by “family values” in the sense that they are terrified of a lonely old age (as their offspring move away to the big city in search of work, while they themselves are unwilling or unable to follow them) and blame globalization for the decline of small-town employment.

    Interesting point on the alt-right’s gender politics – it looks like they’re outright misogynists (rooted in so-called “men’s rights activism”) who reject both feminism and traditional gender roles – some feel more threatened by Muslim women than by secular feminist women.

  • Khizer
  • What’s a “tankie” ?

Powered by Loon Watchers