The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Woman wearing a veil with a Union Jack
The image used in the BBC article.

The BBC's Newsbeat website has just published a piece on a 'damning survey' (as it's usually put) of young people's attitudes to Muslims in the UK. The results were rather negative. (The survey itself was carried out in June, 2013. This Newsbeat report - written by Muslim reporter Sima Kotecha - was published on the 25th of September.)

Perhaps because of that, the BBC itself saw that it was necessary to portray Muslims in a positive light in order to counteract such negativity. One way in which it did so - and it's a way which others have replicated on many occasions - was by using the now compulsory image of a Muslim woman (usually in a hijab) flying the Union Jack. (They use the Stars & Stripes in the United States.)


Only this image went one step further. Instead of an image of a Muslim woman with a hijab (the Islamic garment which covers only the hair) waving the Union Jack, this image was one of a woman in a niqab doing the same thing! Usually these photos are of brown-skinned models – probably not Muslims - with the Union Jack or Stars & Stripes. This time it looked like the genuine article – but you never know.


Do these photographers and journalists think the public is stupid? This particular woman has probably never touched a Union Jack before let alone waved one – she certainly looked ill at ease. I'm even prepared to concede that on a few occasions Muslim activists have donned the Union Jack without being told to do so by the BBC or by journalists/photographers. But that too would be for publicity purposes. This is not cynicism on my part. It's simply a result of my knowledge of what the niqab truly represents.


People aren't fools. Fair enough, there is a very small chance that a hijab-wearing Muslim could be a genuine British or American patriot - but a woman in a niqab or burka? Not a chance! Simply ask yourself why is she wearing a niqab. The answer is that's she's doing so for reasons that are profoundly at odds with all the versions of patriotism that I know; but especially the patriotism of a 'secular state' like the United Kingdom.


The Niqab and Islamist Politics


The niqab (or 'veil') and burka, and to a lesser extent the hijab, are utterly symbolic items of dress. Despite what people think, even in the Arab world - as well as in Iran - the burka and niqab didn't start being widely (if at all) worn until the late 1970s. In the UK itself, it is a very recent phenomenon. The burka and niqab only began to be worn in the late 1990s or even in the 2000s (in many cases later than that).


The niqab is a symbol of Islamism/fundamentalist Islam and of self-conscious difference. It is a symbol of the Muslim woman's complete separation from non-Muslim society. It is a political and religious statement.


In Islam, politics and religion are already fused. It can even be argued that all believing and practicing Muslims are Islamists in the sense that Islam itself – not Islamism – happily fuses religion and politics (even according to most - or all - Muslims). However, in the case of those women who wear the niqab, they most certainly fuse Islam with politics – with totalitarian politics. Thus the idea of an Islamist willingly waving the Union Jack or Stars & Stripes becomes even more ridiculous. A niqab-clad woman flying the Union Jack is about as ridiculous and deceitful as a black person wearing the whites robes of the Klu Klux Clan. No one buys it. The Muslim woman in the photo doesn't buy it. The photographer doesn't buy it. (Indeed he concocted it.) The writer of the BBC report doesn't buy it. So why bother? I'll tell you why they bother. To hoodwink non-Muslims. It is, effectively, taqiyya usually carried out by non-Muslims on behalf of Muslims. In this Muslim case, on behalf of Islamists.

In terms of the blatantly political nature of the niqab, it's interesting to recall that Muslim women began to wear the niqab - mainly under Hamas direction - in the West Bank during the 2001 intifada. In addition, all the female candidates in the elections which brought Hamas to power - in 2006 - wore niqabs. As one would expect, the longer Hamas's harsh rule has continued, the more women have worn the niqab.

The strange thing, at least to some Western non-Muslims, is that the niqab is actually banned in some Muslim countries because they too recognise the political implications of allowing people to wear it. They realise that it is a statement of Islamist intent. Consequently, the niqab is banned in Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Turkey; though only when the Muslim woman is working as a public servant. In Syria, 1, 200 niqab-wearing teachers were transferred to admin duties in the summer of 2010. Nonetheless, possibly under Islamist and Sunni pressure, this position was apparently revered when it was reported, in April 2011, that teachers would again be allowed to wear the niqab again. Before that, though, in the summer of 2010, students wearing the niqab were stopped from enrolling on university courses.


And just as non-Islamist Muslim states ban the niqab, so Islamist and Wahhabi states legally enforce its wearing. This again stresses the political nature of the niqab. For example, in Saudi Arabia women are required to wear the niqab; or at least they are in the main cities (e.g., Mecca, Medina and Taif). In the case of Iran, the Shah banned all all Islamic dress or at least all head-coverings. The clerics, of course, were very much against this because they deemed it obligatory, in Islam, that women covered their hair and faces. Needless to say, after the 'Islamic Revolution' of 1979, the niqab came back into fashion.

Differences Between the Niqab & the Burka


Muslims will make the pedantic point that non-Muslims often mean niqab when they say 'burka'. Basically, there is a very small difference between the two. The burka is literally like a prison in which the Muslim woman is caged. You cannot even see her eyes. With the niqab, on the other hand, Muslim men are kind enough to allow Muslim women to show their eyes ('the niqab liberates Muslim women'). In point of fact, however, one translation of the Arabic niqāb is actually 'mask'.


Another way of distinguishing the niqab from the burka is to say that Western Islamists tend to wear the niqab, whereas Muslims in tribal countries, such as Afghanistan, wear the burka. The other thing is that the burka is said, by Muslims, to cover the entire body but this is not true of the niqab. Yet those Muslims in the West who wear the niqab also wear a full Islamic uniform which similarly covers the entire body. Consequently it's largely irrelevant that the whole uniform itself is not classed as a niqab (only the head covering).

Islamic Justifications for Wearing the Niqab & Burka


Although I said that the wearing of the niqab is a new phenomenon in the West, and even in most of the Muslim world, there are still lots of Koranic and Islamic backing for the covering of the hair and face; if not specifically for wearing the niqab or burka.


In the Hanafi (Sunni) and Hanbali (Sunni) schools is is obligatory (wajib) for a woman to cover her face and indeed her entire body. The Salafis (Sunni), as you'd expect, also believe that a women should cover her entire body other than her eyes and hands.

The Sunni Muslim position is fully understandable when you consider various Koranic and Islamic texts. For example, the wives of Muhammad covered themselves when in the presence of other men. Muslims also cite this passage in support of the hijab, burka and niqab:

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known (as respectable woman) so as not to be annoyed."

Some Muslims, however, claim that this doesn't say anything about covering the face itself. Nonetheless, there are tens of passages in the hadith which which say precisely that. For example, in Bukhari 6:60:282, Sunnan Abu Dawud, it reads:

Narrated Aisha: The woman is to bring down her Jilbāb from over her head and [then place it] upon her face.”


And there's also this passage:

Narrated Aisha:... each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces.” (1:1833)

Finally, Asma bint Abi Bakr (a 'companion of the Prophet') says:


We are used to cover our faces from the men, and cut our hair before that in Ihrām [for Hajj]."


Conclusion


In a sense, rather than Muslims not wanting the niqab or burka to be banned, this is precisely what they do want. Or, more correctly, through the wearing of these clothes, and the resulting political uproar, Muslims - or at least Islamists - can both assert their identity and challenge the 'secular state'. Take just one of many examples of this. Sultaana Freeman, in 2003, sued the state of Florida for the right to wear a niqab for her driver's license photo. She lost the case. Nonetheless, she gained the concession of making sure that the photographer was female. That was just one more victory for Islamism and possibly - depending on how you view the difference - for Islam itself.

Finally, even if the banning of niqab and burka does raise issues of freedom and personal rights, we still mustn't forget the utterly political nature of these garments. In fact, they are the exact equivalents of swastika armbands or a hammer-&-sickle badges.

Views: 1368

Replies to This Discussion

"This time it looked like the genuine article – but you never know."

Radio 4 news interviewed a young, northern working-class woman, and asked her if she'd allow the reporter (a woman in a niqab) into her house.  The young woman said "probably not".  When asked why, the young woman replied "because I don't trust muslims".  Then the woman in the niqab piped up "but I'm not a muslim".  The report cut away to a voice-over, having established the "baseless prejudice" of the young woman.

Since the BBC will use non-muslims disguised as muslims to trick innocent members of the public in these ways, I would put nothing past the presstitutes who work for the media.  They probably do have to get non-muslim actresses dressed up to take part in these patriotic-hijab photoshoots.   Yet go round somewhere like Tower Hamlets on the day of the Jubilee or a Royal Wedding and you will be lucky to find one street in 100s that has a British flag flying. And that one street will be a street of white, non-muslims.  Despite the Jubilee celebrations happening on the Thames within walking distance of Tower Hamlets, there was not a single hijab or burka in sight, showing that there is no sense of British patriotism among muslims in Britain.  I attended a citizenship ceremony where 90% of those getting citizenship were muslims.  The only thing required of them that day (besides turning up) was that they sang the national anthem.  They didn't sing it.

Finally, even if the banning of niqab and burka does raise issues of freedom and personal rights, we still mustn't forget the utterly political nature of these garments. In fact, they are the exact equivalents of swastika armbands or a hammer-&-sickle badges.

Absolutely!  I don't hear people defending the right to wear Nazi regalia and strut around London.  But do it in a Niqab and its fine.

Another of the specious arguments the Islamists and their Fascist Left friends ram down our throats is:

"What's the big deal?  Its only a piece of cloth."

As if we are just being anal and picky, apart from being racist and discriminatory.  But if its just a piece of cloth, then why are they making such a big political stand over it?

The liars know that the cloth is a symbol, just like the Swastika.  That's why they insist on asserting this symbol, whether its a Burka, a Niqab or even, to a lesser degree, a Hijab.

But, in their typical have-it-both-ways fashion, its symbolically and politically significant when they want to defend their 'right' to wear it, but symbolically of no significance, when we complain about it.

"Radio 4 news interviewed a young, northern working-class woman, and asked her if she'd allow the reporter (a woman in a niqab) into her house.  The young woman said "probably not".  When asked why, the young woman replied "because I don't trust muslims".  Then the woman in the niqab piped up "but I'm not a muslim".  The report cut away to a voice-over, having established the "baseless prejudice" of the young woman." - Joe

Despite the fact that the reporter was dressed as a Muslim, this woman would have been very suspicious anyway. A woman dressed as a Muslim asking to enter her house? Even an Islamophile would have been suspicious. The reporter wanted prejudice and went out of her way to bring it about. This was a self-confirming experiment. She wanted that result and went out of her way to get it.

 

Women wearing traditional veils called “haik” walk in downtown Algiers.

The niqab or black full-face veil has also made an appearance in Algeria in the 1990s, as in many other Arab countries, with the women beneath them even wearing gloves to cover their hands, only their eyes visible.

The hijab and the niqab is not a part of Algerian tradition, where as the haik  which has Turkish origins, dates back more than 300 years prior to French colonial rule when much of Algeria was a part of the Ottoman empire.

"But the haik can enhance today's women, with its lightness and elegance."

Fifty years after Algeria's hard-fought independence from France, Abdelkader Achour, president of an association devoted to protecting local traditions, says the white dress played a crucial role in the nationalist struggle.

"Algerian women carried bombs and machineguns under the haik (during the 1954-1962 war of independence). She crossed the street carrying from one place to another these weapons that were used against the French," he said.

And while the occupation soldiers searched Algerian men, they didn't touch the women.

The Algerian case is interesting. Arab nationalists have always tapped into Islam when it suited them. Saddam Hussein even embraced Islam - as it were - during both the 1991 and the 203 wars. He knew that it would appeal to Arabs and Muslims abroad and even at home. He was otherwise one of the most secular leaders the Arab world has ever produced.

Yassar Arafat's another good example. He too fluctuated between being a Marxist nationalist to being a pious Muslim - depending on who he was speaking to and what he wanted. In a sense, he was neither a Marxist nor an Islamist. He was a deeply corrupt despot with nationalist feelings and a desire to annihilate Israel. Who knows, such a flagrant crook and multi-millionaire may not have even been that much against Israel in his later days; though he would have also known that anti-Israel rhetoric, and even some actions, would be needed to sustain his power and his purse.

Actually, I think that Arafat's Marxism was an affectation too. He paraded it largely to appeal to his foreign Leftist supporters and Marxism was in the air in the 1960s and 70s. In other words, he used the Marxist badge just as he used Islamic stuff.

Now this one is spooky

This is the traditional head dress for Omani women to show they are married, seriously, I am not joking

I was watching a documentary on WW1 a few weeks back.  It was all about Jihad in WW1.  Yes.  Jihad in the 1914-1918 conflict.  In the documentary, German soldiers were going to Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to get muslims to declare "a Holy War" against Britain.  The Germans generally failed.  And it was during and after the battle at Gallipoli that Ataturk came to prominence (seems he was unimpressed by German support in the war).

It's important to remember that the German army was on hand to witness the Armenian massacre.  Leading Hitler years later to say "who remembers the Armenians" (i.e. no-one).

It was 1815 when a joint British/American fleet bombed Algiers into dust, because they would not stop enslaving white people.  100 years later, Germany was attempting to re-kindle the idea of Jihad.  So, there was basically about 100 years when the Jihad was subdued.  Even when the islamic world is fundamentally quiescent, like between 1815 and 1979, things like Jihad are only just off the agenda, ready to be brought front and centre.


Paul Austin Murphy said:

The Algerian case is interesting. Arab nationalists have always tapped into Islam when it suited them. Saddam Hussein even embraced Islam - as it were - during both the 1991 and the 203 wars. He knew that it would appeal to Arabs and Muslims abroad and even at home. He was otherwise one of the most secular leaders the Arab world has ever produced.

Yassar Arafat's another good example. He too fluctuated between being a Marxist nationalist to being a pious Muslim - depending on who he was speaking to and what he wanted. In a sense, he was neither a Marxist nor an Islamist. He was a deeply corrupt despot with nationalist feelings and a desire to annihilate Israel. Who knows, such a flagrant crook and multi-millionaire may not have even been that much against Israel in his later days; though he would have also known that anti-Israel rhetoric, and even some actions, would be needed to sustain his power and his purse.

I've seen her before. 

She looks like a cross between Les Dawson and a WWWF wrestler.



shiva said:

Now this one is spooky. This is the traditional head dress for Omani women to show they are married, seriously, I am not joking

Joe said:

It was 1815 when a joint British/American fleet bombed Algiers into dust, because they would not stop enslaving white people.  100 years later, Germany was attempting to re-kindle the idea of Jihad.  So, there was basically about 100 years when the Jihad was subdued.  Even when the islamic world is fundamentally quiescent, like between 1815 and 1979, things like Jihad are only just off the agenda, ready to be brought front and centre.

Yo, during the Time span 1815 - 1979 there was the Armenian genocide, Noakhali genocide, East Bengal genocide, then the Hindu genocide during Bangladesh Liberation War. In the same year as the Six-Day Arab/Israel War, more than a million black African Christians were murdered by Muslims, and among those Muslims were Egyptian pilots who, in their MIGs, strafed at will the helpless Ibo villagers who were in the self-declared state of Biafra.

 I do not believe there was any let down in the Jihad, it was either simply not reported, or no one was paying attention during this period, and hardly doing so to-day.

Its almost as if they are competing to see who can make their women the most ugly.

shiva said:

Now this one is spooky

This is the traditional head dress for Omani women to show they are married, seriously, I am not joking

For anyone who doubts Shiva's words, they are most elegantly proven in the Full Jihad Timeline, here:

http://4freedoms.com/page/full-jihad-timeline

shiva said:

Joe said:

It was 1815 when a joint British/American fleet bombed Algiers into dust, because they would not stop enslaving white people.  100 years later, Germany was attempting to re-kindle the idea of Jihad.  So, there was basically about 100 years when the Jihad was subdued.  Even when the islamic world is fundamentally quiescent, like between 1815 and 1979, things like Jihad are only just off the agenda, ready to be brought front and centre.

Yo, during the Time span 1815 - 1979 there was the Armenian genocide, Noakhali genocide, East Bengal genocide, then the Hindu genocide during Bangladesh Liberation War. In the same year as the Six-Day Arab/Israel War, more than a million black African Christians were murdered by Muslims, and among those Muslims were Egyptian pilots who, in their MIGs, strafed at will the helpless Ibo villagers who were in the self-declared state of Biafra.

 I do not believe there was any let down in the Jihad, it was either simply not reported, or no one was paying attention during this period, and hardly doing so to-day.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service