The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

http://elsasblog.com/muslim-headscarf.html

A woman is wearing 
a Muslim headscarf. 
What does it mean?

I've been experiencing a big personal change, to do with seeing a woman wearing the Muslim headscarf. I used to have no response. Now every time I see this, I ask myself: just what does she believe?

Like most Western people, I've learned to be very accepting - and even appreciative - of different styles of dress, food, music. So I used to have no response to the Muslim headdress, the hijab. It was just - you do your thing, I do mine. My response was to the color, the style - in other words, I responded as if this were a fashion item. 

That has been changing. In fact, this change has lagged far behind my learning about Islam. Perhaps shockingly, it's taken me years to respond more fully to the Muslim headscarf. 

There's more than one reason for this. First, I used to see few headscarves in my home city. Then, there used to be less Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide. There was also no group declaring an Islamic caliphate, rampaging from one Middle Eastern area to the next. 

Most of all, my sense is that it's taken a long time for it to sink in that I'm seeing women walking around advertising that they're part of a religion that seeks world domination, that seeks the destruction of my culture and way of life, that views all non-Muslims as filthy Kafirs - to be deceived, beheaded, crucified, plotted against, terrorized, humiliated, according to the Quran, which they believe is true - or what are they doing, wearing the Muslim headscarf? 

Do most non-Muslims in the West respond with hostility, aversion, fear to women advertising their adherence to such an ideology? A Canadian journalist put on the Muslim headdress for a few days in order to record the prejudice Muslim women experience - and found that she was treated more positively than without it! (She saw this as a sign of racism - that people were not entirely neutral to the headdress, and instead cared to show they were tolerant and accepting! Oh well, what can you expect from the politically correct.)

I'm asking: does it make any sense to be extra nice to someone belonging to a religion that has, as a goal, the destruction of my society? that views people like me as inferiors who are to be made to pay a special tax? that believes no one is to talk of any non-Muslim religion to Muslims? that approves of the murder and rape of non-Muslims, the enslavement of non-Muslims, the murder of gays, the inferiority of women? 

No one has asked me to respond to people wearing the Nazi swastika as if this were meaningless, to people chanting Sieg Heil as if this were a quaint cultural artifact. 

So what the blinkety-blank is going on here? It's vital to respond to what is happening. If we don't respond to, say, a lion prowling our way, we're much more likely to end up as lion supper.

For me, connecting the headscarf to what it stands for has changed everything. In fact, it melted something frozen inside me. It's only natural to connect something to what it stands for. A flag. It stands for something. If we respond positively or negatively, this is because of what we see the flag stands for. 

Likewise with the Muslim headdress, the hijab.

The next thing. It's vital to get the word out.

The natural response of non-Muslims to the Muslim headscarf is recoil. It stands for something more dangerous than AIDS, than Ebola.

Most of us have had our senses numbed.

Please use the attached handout, consisting of one double sided A4 sheet.

Tags: Elsa's, Handout, Hijab

Views: 122

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

The Muslim female dress-code is also a symbol of the oppression of women by Islam, and of their acceptance of being treated as inferior beings by Muslim men. Being devout they unquestioningly believe that they are in fact inferior and second class citizens, that have half the value of a man.

We must not confuse how Western women and we think, with the mentality of Muslim women and Muslims. Most Muslim women wear the hijab of their own free will, they believe it is the right thing to do. They believe in the teachings of Mohammed and in the authority of their Imam and their husband. The Muslim definition of freedom is obedience, they simply do not think as we do (cannot think as we do). I imagine it is impossible for them to understand the consept of free-will or of independent thought. It is the same with all religions, the followers constantly refer back to the dogma of their religion. Logic and reason are warped and crippled. And of course there is always a penalty for doubt. "What would Mohammed or Allah want me to do" is the only question they ask.

Many white people are overly friendly and self-denying when they meet a Muslim or black person, this is a form of inverse racism as they behave normally in relations with other whites. I call it a "I am not a racist" syndrome. The media attempt to portray the hijab as a fashion statement, well knowing that it is not, in cowardly appeasement. A Saudi black burkha can in no way be described as fashion it is control and discrimination. They have not noticed that journalists along with freedom and democracy are the first victims of an islamist takeover, as we witness now in the New Turkish Caliphate.

In the same way that Muslims cannot understand freedom, liberal journalists are blind to the threat from Islam and seek to praise Muslims. (terrorists are not muslims to them). I have to believe that most ordinary people do understand the Muslim threat, and are looking for someone to do something about it, the way they vote in elections though would seem to contradict my hope.

I have devoted my life (partly) to the destruction of Islam, or at least to the expulsion of it from our homelands, It is a "Clear and Present Danger".

Apparently according to the below definition, claiming that Islam is a danger can get you prosecuted for endangering public safety???

“clear and present danger”

clear and present danger in Culture

Expand

clear and present danger definition

The standard set by the Supreme Court for judging when freedom of speech may lawfully be limited. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., illustrated the point by arguing that no one has a constitutional right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire is present, for such action would pose a “clear and present danger” to public safety. (See First Amendment.)

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Cite This Source

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)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service