Idiocy In Action: Non-Muslims Donning Hijab To Support Religious Freedom
Islam is not a religion that stands for "religious freedom." In fact, it stands for quite the contrary, with Islam translating to "submission," and that's what all of us "dirty kuffars" are supposed to be made to do, per the Quran.
So it is the height of dim for Western women -- Australian women -- to don hijabs to "show support for Muslim women and religious freedom," as Natalie Whiting reports at ABC Australia:
Kate Leaney is a Christian woman who manages the Welcome Centre in Adelaide - a drop-in centre for refugees, asylum seekers and new arrivals.She decided to wear the hijab for a week in solidarity with her Muslim friends who were feeling threatened in the current climate of fear.
Why would people be afraid of Muslims? Perhaps because the religion demands that Muslims slaughter or convert of the infidel in exchange for 72 "houris" in Paradise (which are either virgins or yellow raisins -- there's been some dispute).
Now, of course, there are many peaceful Muslims. The problem isn't with the people but with the ideology. But the ideology causes many people to behave in ways antithetical to the values of a free, western society -- such as the commands to slaughter gays, stone adulteresses, and put to death anyone who decides to leave the religion or who even mocks Mohammed.
This is evil stuff and I'm afraid of anyone who believes in this stuff. This is a reasonable fear.
What I still don't understand is why there are no strong Muslim voices leading organizations to reform Islam. Then again, this would be somewhat of a death wish, so I guess I actually do understand that.
But the notion that it is "Islamophobia" to fear those who fervently believe in an ideology that calls for the death of others who don't conform to it, well, that's what's crazy.
Oh, and the truth is, it isn't Muslims who most likely to be attacked for their religion. It's Jews. (There are 10 times more "hate crimes" against Jews than against Muslims.)
"why there are no strong Muslim voices leading organizations to reform Islam"
Egyptian President/Military Dictator el-Sisi may be pointing the way forward on this.
Isaac T at March 12, 2015 6:20 AM
I love that al-Sisi spoke up the way he did, but I worry about his life and safety because of it.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2015 6:45 AM
Here's al-Sisi's speech:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2015 6:46 AM
How ironic it is that these women can don the hijab specifically because they live in a country that actually respects religious freedom. If you want to know about religious suppression, go to Iran and wear a Star of David pendant.
As for al-Sisi, Amy, I'm right there with you... I'm afraid it's going to be Sadat 2.0, including the ending. If we had a coherent foreign policy (and a functional Secret Service), we'd be offering, on the down-low, to provide him with personal protection.
Cousin Dave at March 12, 2015 7:25 AM
It's a trend!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 12, 2015 11:04 AM
Also, that "per the Koran" is a nice touch.
"Per" is concise enough to seem offhand, but edjumicated enough to confer the meaning of the whole post: I have done the reading.
Because Moozlims .
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 12, 2015 1:37 PM
Remember, for Muslims, Mohammed is the ideal. For Christians, it is Jesus Christ.
The problem with Christianity is that there aren't more people like Christ. The problem with Islam is that there are too many that are like Mohammed.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 12, 2015 3:09 PM
Remember, for Muslims, Mohammed is the ideal. For Christians, it is Jesus Christ.
The problem with Christianity is that there aren't more people like Christ. The problem with Islam is that there are too many that are like Mohammed.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 12, 2015 3:09 PM
JC was up against the Romans, and historians believe, may have been a good deal more militant, than revisionist history has painted him.
Mohammed never claimed to be God, just his Prophet, and he was a more successful military leader.
Isab at March 12, 2015 4:25 PM
So, even Australia has dingbats.
As both an non-Muslim and a guy I find the hijab to be offensive; quick someone ban it for me or make women carry "trigger" signs before I have to look at them!
Seriously though, I do find the idea of the hijab or any other covering offensive because it says that men cannot be trusted. And given that is what Muslim men are taught is it no wonder that women don't/can't go out alone in Muslim/Arab societies?
charles at March 12, 2015 5:59 PM
"JC was up against the Romans, and historians believe, may have been a good deal more militant, than revisionist history has painted him."
Let's be a little intellectually honest here and understand the difference between what "historians" believe and what is to emulated according to the church(es).
Matt at March 13, 2015 12:10 AM
Crid totally has a point here - stupid people are going to be stupid. No way around that. Doesn't mean the smarter ones are going to fall for it.
But Amy also has a point here: stupid people should be exposed as doing stupid things, and the rest of us should be aware lest it start a stupid trend, because some of us might fall for it.
Matt at March 13, 2015 12:20 AM
@Matt
As has been explained many times before on this board, *Modern Christianity* is an evolved religion. It's origins and historical practices are little different from Islam.
Isab at March 13, 2015 7:42 AM
It's origins and historical practices are little different from Islam.
Regardless of what historians believe about Jesus, there is nothing in depictions of him in the "holy" book of Christianity -- except for the incident with the moneychangers in the temple -- showing him to be a violent person (and, even in the case of the moneychangers, he turned over their tables; he didn't slash them with a sword.) So when Christians -- who, after all, take their name from Jesus Christ -- act in violent manner they can find no justification for their acts in the behavior of Jesus.
This is not the case with Muslims and Muhammad. Muhammad, as depicted in the "holy" book of Islam, was a violent person (not just a violent person but a violent person nonetheless) so when Muslims act in a violent manner they can find justification for their acts in the behavior of Muhammad.
JD at March 14, 2015 11:42 AM
This is not the case with Muslims and Muhammad. Muhammad, as depicted in the "holy" book of Islam, was a violent person (not just a violent person but a violent person nonetheless) so when Muslims act in a violent manner they can find justification for their acts in the behavior of Muhammad.
Posted by: JD at March 14, 2015 11:42 AM
Anyone looking for justifications for violence can find plenty of it in both the new and old testaments of the Bible.
People are naturally violent. The *justifications* come later.
The Nationalists and the Socialists have murdered plenty of people in the furtherance of their causes, and didn't need to look to a religious text for justification.
Isab at March 14, 2015 8:21 PM
Leave a comment